U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

34–910PS 2008

REORIENTING THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE

RESEARCH PROGRAM TOWARD A USER-DRIVEN

RESEARCH ENDEAVOR: H.R. 906

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 3, 2007

Serial No. 110–26

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director

CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member

MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELAINE PAULIONIS Democratic Professional Staff Member

AMY CARROLL Republican Professional Staff Member

STACEY STEEP Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

May 3, 2007

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Acting Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Member, Subcommittee on Energy

and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of

Representatives .................................................................................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Witnesses:

Dr. Michael C. MacCracken, President, the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences of the International Union of Geodesy

and Geophysics; Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs, Climate

Institute, Washington, DC

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15

Biography .......................................................................................................... 25

Dr. Jack D. Fellows, Vice President, University Center for Atmospheric Research

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27

Biography .......................................................................................................... 33

Dr. James R. Mahoney, Environmental Consultant; Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Deputy Administrator

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Director

of U.S. Climate Change Science Program

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36

Biography .......................................................................................................... 38

Mr. Franklin W. Nutter, President, The Reinsurance Association of America;

Member of UCAR’s Board of Trustees

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41

Biography .......................................................................................................... 44

Dr. Philip W. Mote, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington; Office

of Washington State Climatologist and Affiliate Professor at the University

of Washington

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46

Biography .......................................................................................................... 60

Page

IV

Ms. Sarah Bittleman, Director, Washington, D.C., Office of the Governor

of Oregon, Theodore R. Kulongoski, on behalf of the Western Governors’

Association

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 60

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 62

Discussion

The USGCRP Budget Process ............................................................................. 64

Assessment Timeline ........................................................................................... 66

Regional vs. National Assessments .................................................................... 68

The Insurance Industry’s Perspective ................................................................ 68

More on Regional vs. National Assessments ..................................................... 68

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation ...................................................... 69

Appendix: Additional Material for the Record

H.R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007 ...... 74

(1)

REORIENTING THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM TOWARD A USER-DRIVEN RESEARCH ENDEAVOR: H.R. 906

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gabrielle Giffords

[Acting Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Reorienting the U.S. Global Research

Program Toward a User-Driven

Research Endeavor: H.R. 906

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Thursday, May 3, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the

Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing to receive testimony on

H.R. 906, the Global Climate Change Research Data and Management Act of 2007.

Introduced by Representative Mark Udall and Representative Robert Inglis, H.R.

906 would replace the current law that formally established the U.S. Global Change

Research Program (USGCRP) in 1990 and reorient the program to produce more

user-friendly research and information. The USGCRP has advanced our scientific

knowledge of the Earth’s atmosphere and climate and has provided us with new

data and information on the planet. However, scientific knowledge about the Earth’s

climate has expanded and improved since 1990. There is a need to apply the improved knowledge we have gained about climate to produce information that federal,

State, and local officials, resource managers, and businesses can use to develop response, adaptation, and mitigation strategies to reduce their vulnerability to climate

change.

The Global Change Research and Data Management Act would require the Administration to identify and consult with members of the user community in developing the USGCRP research plan. The bill would also establish a new interagency

working group to coordinate federal policies on data management and archiving.

The measure would also retain language from the original statute that establishes

the USGCRP and call for the administration to produce a national assessment of

climate change every four years.

USGCRP Background

History of the Current Law

U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606) was signed into

law by President Bush on November 16, 1990. However, prior to passage of this legislation Congress and the Reagan and Bush Administrations established programs,

advisory bodies and mechanisms to undertake climate change research and develop

climate change policy.

The Climate Program preceded the USGCRP and was established by the National

Climate Program Act (P.L. 95–367) in 1978. The Climate Program was intended to

conduct climate research, provide climate information, and to support policy decisions to ‘‘assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and

human-induced climate processes and their implications’’ (P.L. 95–367, § 3). It was

established as an interagency program coordinated through a National Climate Program Office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

By the mid-1980s Congress began to consider expanding the Climate Program. At

the time, the program was thought to be producing high quality science, but it was

not providing information that would lead to policy responses to threats from climate change.

In the 1980s, climate change policies were developed within the White House although there were a number of climate change advisory groups and other decisionmaking groups within individual federal agencies. President Reagan established five

Councils in the White House. In 1985, these five Councils were consolidated within

4

1 Brownstein, R. and D. Kirschtien. 1986. Cabinet Power. National Journal June 28 1582–

1589. Referenced in: R.A. Pielke, Jr. 2001. The Development of the U.S. Global Change Research

Program: 1987–1994. 2 Congressional Research Service (2007). Climate Change: Federal Expenditures; January 22;

p. 3; Table 1. RL33817.

**The FY 2007 request for the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is 1.7 billion dollars.

two—a Domestic Policy Council and an Economic Policy Council.1 Climate change

policy was discussed within the Domestic Policy Council and first came to the attention of this Council because of public attention being paid to Congressional hearings

being held to air concerns of the scientific community about the potential consequences of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

In 1987, White House Science Advisor William Graham formed the Committee on

Earth Sciences within the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering,

and Technology (FCCSET). The purpose of this Committee was to ‘‘increase the

overall effectiveness and productivity of federal R&D efforts directed toward an understanding of the Earth as a global system’’ (CES 1987).

After several years of work, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, The

U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606) which established

the U.S. Global Change Research Program we have today. The Program is aimed

at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects

of human activities and natural processes on the environment, and to promote discussions toward international protocols in global change research. The law codified

the interagency structure put in place by the Reagan Administration and defined

the agencies that would participate in the program. The law also requires development of a series of 10-year Plans for the conduct of research on global change by

the Federal Government to: ‘‘advance scientific understanding of global change and

provide usable information on which to base policy decisions related to global

change,’’ an evaluation of the Plan by the National Research Council, the coordination of agency budgets for global change research, and a report to Congress every

four years on the consequences of climate change.

While research Plans have been produced periodically by the Program and reviewed by the National Research Council as required by the law, the production of

periodic assessments of the findings of the global change program and the effects

of global change on natural systems and sectors of the economy has been lacking.

There has been only one comprehensive report published since the beginning of the

program satisfying this requirement of the law—the National Assessment on Climate Change published in 2001.

Current Administration Climate Change Initiatives

The current Administration has a number of initiatives that are related to past

efforts conducted under the Global Change Research Act. The Climate Change

Science Program (CCSP) is charged with integrating science on global change produced by federal agencies. The Program is producing a series of twenty one synthesis and assessment products on a range of subjects (http://

www.climatescience.gov/). The Administration also has a Climate Change Research

Initiative (CCRI) and the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), with NOAA

and DOE designated as the lead agencies, respectively. The role of the CCRI is to

reduce the significant remaining uncertainties associated with understanding

human-induced climate change and facilitate full use of scientific information in policy and decision-making on possible response strategies for adaptation and mitigation. The role of the CCTP is to focus research and development efforts on the identification and development of technologies that will achieve the Administration’s climate change goals.

This policy has three basic objectives: slowing the growth of emissions, strengthening science, technology and institutions, and enhancing international cooperation.

However, in 1990, total U.S. GHG emissions were 1,671 million metric tons in carbon equivalents (MMTCE). In 2000, total U.S. GHG emissions were 14.1 percent

above 1990 levels, or 1,907 MMTCE. Even if the Administration’s climate change

goals are met, U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to grow.

The requested budget for the major climate change programs in 2007 was estimated by the Congressional Research Service to be 4.9 billion dollars.2 The participating agencies include virtually every department in the Federal Government:

NASA, NSF, NOAA, DOE, USDA, DOI, HHS, EPA, the Smithsonian Institution and

DOD. The core agencies that have contributed to climate change science are NASA,

NOAA, NSF, and DOE.**

5

Current State Initiatives on Climate Change

Absent of coordinated federal direction on adapting to climate change impacts, regions and states have taken action on their own to develop integrated plans to serve

multiple user communities. Many states view policies that address climate change

as an economic opportunity, rather than a financial burden. These states are positioning themselves as leaders in emerging markets related to climate change: producing and selling alternative fuels, exploring geographic specific adaptation strategies, attracting climate action related businesses, and selling greenhouse gas emission reduction credits.

In addition, regional efforts have been successful coordinating initiatives across

state boundaries. These regional plans eliminate duplication for states with similar

geographic makeup and help businesses by bringing greater uniformity and predictability to State rules and regulations. For example, Powering the Plains is a regional initiative, involving participants from the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, and

Wisconsin, which aims to develop strategies, policies, and demonstration projects for

alternative energy sources. The Southwest Climate Change Initiative will allow Arizona and New Mexico to work together to reduce greenhouse gases and address the

impacts of climate change in the region. Other such projects include the Northeast

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), The Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative launched by the Western Governors Association, The West Coast Governors’

Global Warming Initiative, and the New England Governors’ and Eastern Canadian

Premiers’ Climate Action Plan. These regional and State programs would greatly

benefit from a user-driven Climate Change Research Program, as established in

H.R. 906.

The USGCRP under H.R. 906

The USGCRP has continued to produce high quality science and advance our

knowledge of Earth’s climate system. However, the Program has not produced much

in the way of substantive policy analyses or produced information in formats that

are useful and accessible to the wide range of individuals and organizations who desire information about climate variability and change and its relationship to different concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It has not produced

information that will assist decision-makers at the federal, State, and local level in

the development of response, adaptation and mitigation strategies.

H.R. 906 directs the Program to develop assessments of vulnerability to climate

change and to develop policy assessments that will evaluate alternative strategies

for responding, adapting, and mitigating climate change that is projected to occur

under different atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The components of the core science programs of the USGCRP continue to produce

useful scientific information and better, more refined understanding of the climate

system. H.R. 906 does not eliminate these programs and activities. Instead, H.R.

906 shifts the emphasis to the production of information that is needed to develop

strategies to cope with current climate change and to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the magnitude of future climate impacts. To ensure the Program

produces policy-relevant information, H.R. 906 includes a review of the Program by

the National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices.

The major scientific debate is settled. Climate change is occurring. It is impacting

our nation and the rest of the world and will continue to impact us into the future.

The USGCRP should move beyond an emphasis on addressing uncertainties and refining climate science. In addition, the Program needs to provide information that

supports action to reduce vulnerability to climate and other global changes and facilitates the development of adaptation and mitigation strategies that can be applied

here in the U.S. and in other vulnerable locations throughout the world.

Witnesses

Dr. Philip Mote, Office of Washington State Climatologist and Affiliate Professor at the University of Washington

Dr. Philip Mote is a research scientist at the University of Washington, in the Climate Impacts Group (CIG), and an Affiliate Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. In addition, Dr. Mote works as a consultant at Northwest Research

Associates specializing in the dynamics of the tropical upper troposphere and lower

stratosphere. He received his B.A. in Physics from Harvard University in 1987 and

completed his doctorate in Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington

in 1994. His research interests include: Northwest climate and its effects on

snowpack, streamflow, and forest fires. A frequent public speaker, he has also written over fifty scientific articles and edited a book on climate modeling, published in

2000. In 2003, Dr. Mote became the Washington State Climatologist.

6

Dr. Michael MacCracken, President of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences of the International Union of Geodesy

and Geophysics

Dr. Michael MacCracken is the Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with

the Climate Institute in Washington DC. He received his B.S. in Engineering degree

from Princeton University in 1964 and his Ph.D. degree in Applied Science from the

University of California Davis/Livermore in 1968. His research has included numerical modeling of various causes of climate change (including study of the potential

climatic effects of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, land-cover change, and nuclear war) and of factors affecting air quality, including photochemical pollution in

the San Francisco Bay Area and sulfate air pollution in the northeastern United

States.

From 1993–2002, Dr. MacCracken was on assignment as senior global change scientist to the Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and

served as its first Executive Director from 1993–1997. From 1997–2001, he served

as Executive Director of the USGCRP’s National Assessment Coordination Office,

which coordinated the efforts of 20 regional assessment teams, five sectoral teams,

and the National Assessment Synthesis Team that prepared the national level reports that were forwarded to the President and to the Congress.

Dr. Jack Fellows, Vice President at the University Center for Atmospheric

Research (UCAR)

Dr. Jack Fellows is the Vice President for Corporate Affairs at UCAR and the Director of UCAR’s Office of Programs (UOP). As Director of the UOP, he is responsible for a broad range of scientific and educational programs that serve the atmospheric and related research and education community. Dr. Fellows received his

Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Maryland.

Dr. Fellows began his career as a research faculty member at the University of

Maryland, where he conducted research in the use of satellite data in hydrologic

models. In 1984, he spent a year in the U.S. Congress as the American Geophysical

Union’s Congressional Science Fellow. While in Congress, he split his time between

the personal office of George Brown (D–CA) and the House Science and Space Subcommittee and worked on a range of policy issues, including water resources, satellite remote sensing, and general oversight of federal research and development

funding. After this, he spent 13 years in the Executive Office of President’s Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) overseeing budget and policy issues related to

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and federal-wide research and development programs. During this period with

OMB, he helped to initiate the U.S. Global Change Research Program and to coordinate funding from the participating federal agencies in the new interagency research program.

Mr. Franklin Nutter, President of the Reinsurance Association of America

and Member of UCAR’s Board of Trustees

Mr. Franklin Nutter has been an active member of the UCAR Board of Trustees

and prior to that served on the NCAR Advisory Council and the Weather Coalition,

a group of private companies, associations, and universities advocating for the advancement of weather research and applications. He received his Juris Doctorate

from the Georgetown University Law Center and a Bachelor’s degree in economics

from the University of Cincinnati.

Mr. Nutter has been President of the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA)

since May of 1991. Through his involvement as President, he coordinated events

with the UCAR Corporate Affiliates Program. During his distinguished career in the

insurance and reinsurance industries, Mr. Nutter has promoted the use of weather

and climate models and has helped to advance the atmospheric sciences. An expert

on societal impacts of severe weather and climate change, Mr. Nutter has been

called upon to address the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Planning Workshop, the Pew Center Workshop on the Timing of Climate Change Policies, and the

AGU’s Coastal Hazards Reduction Workshop.

Ms. Sarah Bittleman, Office of the Governor of Oregon, Theodore R.

Kulongoski, on behalf of the Western Governors Association

Ms. Sarah Bittleman is the Director of the Governor of Oregon’s Washington D.C.

office. She assumed this position a year ago after having spent 10 years on Capitol

Hill as a staffer for both Republicans and Democrats, in both the House and the

Senate and in personal offices as well as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. She followed the climate change debate closely in all her positions on the

7

Hill, most recently drafting a forest carbon sequestration bill as the Natural Resources Counsel for Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Ms. Bittleman has a Masters

in Public Administration from East Carolina University as well as a JD from Tulane

University in New Orleans.

Dr. James Mahoney, Environmental Consultant

Dr. James Mahoney currently serves as an environmental consultant, providing

scientific and professional advice to a number of organizations. From April 2, 2002

to March 30, 2006 he was Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization (NOAA). During this period, Dr. Mahoney served as the Director of the U.S.

Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

Dr. Mahoney received a B.S. degree in Physics from LeMoyne College and a Ph.D.

degree in meteorology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). His

career has involved more than forty years of continuous focus on environmental

management and the Earth sciences, with an emphasis on the atmospheric, climate,

hydrological and oceanographic areas. After completing his Ph.D., he joined the Faculty of Public Health at Harvard University, in its Department of Environmental

Health Sciences. Dr. Mahoney entered the public service in 1988 as Director of the

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, working in the Executive Office

of the President. NAPAP was charged with recommending sound approaches to controlling acid rain effects, while providing for continued energy and economic security

for the Nation.

8

Ms. GIFFORDS. [Presiding] The Committee will come to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. I want to take a moment to welcome

you, and to recognize the Subcommittee’s hearing called today to

receive testimony on House Resolution 906, the Global Climate

Change Research Data and Management Act of 2007.

This is an important bill that will help us to better address climate change in the country, and I want to thank my colleagues,

Representative Mark Udall and Ranking Member Bob Inglis, for

taking action and introducing this legislation.

Through bills like H.R. 906, Congress is starting to take action

to address the global conundrum that is climate change. It is not

an exaggeration to say that the world’s future depends on our response. The clock is ticking, and Congress must work across party

lines to pass concrete solutions as soon as possible. I think this bill

represents just that kind of needed bipartisanship.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

Good Afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to today’s Subcommittee hearing

called to receive testimony on H.R. 906, the Global Climate Change Research Data

and Management Act of 2007. This is an important bill that will help us to better

address climate change in this country, and I want to thank my colleagues, Representative Mark Udall and Ranking Member Bob Inglis, for taking action and introducing this legislation.

Through bills like H.R. 906, Congress is starting to take action to address the

global conundrum that is climate change. It is not an exaggeration to say that the

world’s future depends on our response. The clock is ticking, and Congress must

work across party lines to pass concrete solutions as soon as possible. I think this

bill represents just that kind of needed bipartisanship.

H.R. 906 would reorient the U.S. Global Change Research Program to produce

more user-friendly research and information. In addition, the Act would require the

Administration to identify and consult with members of the user community in developing the USGCRP research plan.

I believe that there is a real need to apply the improved knowledge we have about

climate to produce information that federal, State, and local officials, resource managers, and businesses can use. Managers can then utilize that research to develop

response, adaptation, and mitigation strategies to reduce their regions’ vulnerability

to climate change.

Let’s look at how H.R. 906 could impact the West and Arizona specifically. According to the IPCC and conversations of my own with distinguished climate scientists

from the University of Arizona, I understand climate change could permanently reduce the flow of the Colorado River, lead to more severe, prolonged droughts, and

cause water shortages for millions of people. More than 25 million people in Arizona

and six other states depend on the Colorado River for water and power. Forest fires

and invasive species are projected to increase, and we could face an influx of environmental refugees from around the world. This would drastically affect our quality

of life.

What steps are currently being taken to develop response strategies to reduce the

Southwest’s vulnerability to climate change? In February of 2006, the Governors of

Arizona and New Mexico signed an agreement to create the Southwest Climate

Change Initiative. Under the agreement, our states will collaborate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of climate change in the Southwest.

However, in order to do that, our State planners need relevant data to make the

best decisions on how to respond.

That’s where H.R. 906 comes in. Climate change is happening in the Southwest,

but Arizona can help moderate the change. With the new user-driven data provided

by the reorientation of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, State legislatures, local officials, resource managers, and businesses could all begin to adjust

their plans to help Arizona avoid the worst of the impacts of climate change.

I take the challenge of addressing global warming very seriously, and it is one

of my highest priorities in Congress. This will not only result in a stronger economy,

innovative technologies, and the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, but also

a more stable and sustainable world.

9

I want to welcome our entire distinguished panel to this morning’s hearing. I look

forward to your testimony and to your recommendations for improving H.R. 906.

Ms. GIFFORDS. At this time, I would like to recognize the author

of the legislation, Representative Udall, for some opening remarks.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good afternoon to

the panel and my colleagues who have joined us here.

I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman Giffords for holding

this hearing on H.R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data

Management Act of 2007, that I introduced earlier this year, with

my colleague and our Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis.

I look forward to working together as this bill moves forward.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program has been in existence

in some form since the late 1970s. Support for the diverse array

of climate-related sciences in the 11 agencies of the Federal Government has expanded our knowledge of Earth’s land, water, and

atmospheric systems. The outstanding science produced by our nation’s scientific community has gained the U.S. worldwide recognition as a leader in climate science.

This research has been shared with the rest of the world through

international scientific organizations, such as the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. The evolution of global science and the global change issue

sparked the need to make changes to the 1970 National Climate

Program Act, and gave us the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

It is now time for another adjustment to alter the focus of the program governed by this law.

The debate about whether climate change is occurring, and about

whether human activity has contributed to it, is over. As our population, economy, and infrastructure have grown, we have put more

pressure on the natural resources we all depend upon. Each year,

fires, droughts, hurricanes, and other natural events remind us of

our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate changes. The

human and economic cost of these events is very high. With better

planning and implementation of adaptation strategies, these costs

can be reduced.

For all of these reasons, we need the USGCRP to produce more

information that is readily usable by decision-makers and resource

managers in government and in the private sector. People throughout the country and in the rest of the world need information they

can use to develop response, adaptation, and mitigation strategies

to make our communities, our businesses, and our nation more resilient and less vulnerable to the changes that are inevitable.

We must also move aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid future increases in surface temperature

that will trigger severe impacts that we cannot overcome with adaptation strategies. We need economic and technical information,

as well as information about system responses and climate responses to different concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The USGCRP should be the vehicle for providing this information.

Madam Chairwoman, we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses here today, several of whom have a great deal of experience

with the USGCRP. I look forward to your testimony, and welcome

your suggestions for improvements to H.R. 906. Our goal is to enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
10

sure that the excellent science produced by this program is expanded and translated into user-friendly information to deliver the

solutions our nation needs to address the challenge of climate

change.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman Giffords for holding this hearing on H.R.

906, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007 that I introduced earlier this year with my colleague and our Ranking Member, Representative

Inglis. I look forward to working together as this bill moves forward.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has been in existence in

some form since the late 1970s. Support for the diverse array of climate-related

sciences in the eleven agencies of the Federal Government has expanded our knowledge of Earth’s land, water, and atmospheric systems. The outstanding science produced by our nation’s scientific community has gained the U.S. worldwide recognition as a leader in climate science. This scientific work has been shared with the

rest of the world through international scientific organizations such as the World

Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The evolution of global science and the global change issue sparked the need to

make changes to the 1978 National Climate Program Act, and gave us the Global

Change Research Act of 1990. It is now time for another adjustment to alter the

focus of the program governed by this law.

The debate, about whether climate change is occurring and about whether human

activity has contributed to it, is over. As our population, economy, and infrastructure have grown, we have put more pressure on the natural resources we all depend

upon. Each year, fires, droughts, hurricanes, and other natural events remind us of

our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate changes. The human and economic cost of these events is very high. With better planning and implementation

of adaptation strategies these costs can be reduced.

For all of these reasons, we need the USGCRP to produce more information that

is readily usable by decision-makers and resource managers in government and in

the private sector. People throughout this country and in the rest of the world need

information they can use to develop response, adaptation, and mitigation strategies

to make our communities, our businesses, and our nation more resilient and less

vulnerable to the changes that are inevitable.

We must also move aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we are to

avoid future increases in surface temperature that will trigger severe impacts that

we cannot overcome with adaptation strategies. We need economic and technical information as well as information about system responses and climate responses to

different concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The USGCRP

should be the vehicle for providing this information.

We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses here today, several of whom have

a great deal of experience with the USGCRP. I look forward to your testimony and

welcome your suggestions for improvements to H.R. 906. Our goal is to ensure the

excellent science produced by this program is expanded and translated into userfriendly information to deliver the solutions our nation needs to address the challenge of climate change.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Udall.

And now, I would like to recognize our distinguished Ranking

Member, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, for his opening statement.

Mr. INGLIS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Chair for holding

the hearing, and Mr. Udall, for giving me the opportunity to work

with him on this bill.

This is an opportunity of bipartisan cooperation, and I think it

makes sense, because this is a bill that can increase our awareness

and our preparation for the impacts of climate change. Of course,

I hope we can also move forward and develop a consensus on mitigation, as well, and the necessary start of that is the attempt to

build consensus, and so, I thank Mr. Udall for doing that and purVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

suing this bill, and I am happy to be with him on the bill, and very

excited about hearing from the witnesses here today.

And you know, our current climate science programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National

Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey have made great gains

in deepening our understanding of global climate change, from

what is causing it, to how our country and others might be affected.

The sheer volume of data calls for an intelligent data management system which is designed to fulfill the needs of its users. The

program must meet the additional challenge of presenting the data

in a relevant form to users that have non-scientific backgrounds,

like State and local government operators.

So, in South Carolina, I have been hearing from fishermen and

hunters, who are particularly concerned about fish and animal population changes that could threaten our local ecotourism businesses. South Carolina’s tourism business is actually the largest industry in our state, especially at our coast, and so, we are aware

of the goose that is laying the golden eggs down at our coast, and

we want to make sure that it continues to lay them there.

So, this bill, as I say, the opportunities for building awareness

and preparation, I think will help, and I am happy to be part of

it and happy to hear from the witnesses, and I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Good afternoon. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman, for holding this hearing on ways

we might improve our climate science programs to make local users a part of the

process.

Our current climate science programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States Geological Survey

(USGS) and other agencies have made great gains in deepening our understanding

of global change—from what is causing it to how our country and others might be

affected. The sheer volume of data calls for an intelligent data management system,

designed to fulfill the needs of its users. The program must meet the additional

challenge of presenting the data in a relevant form to users that have non-scientific

backgrounds, such as State and local governments.

In South Carolina, I’ve been hearing from fisherman and hunters who are concerned about fish and animal population changes that could threaten local eco-tourism businesses. South Carolina’s tourism industry, the largest economic generator

in the state, will need more information about changes to the coast as they plan

for the future. These folks will also need the ability to let the climate programs

know what’s useful and where they require additional information.

I believe we can find a bipartisan consensus to take action on improving our climate science programs. This issue has the potential to affect all of us and we must

ensure that local users are informed and have a say in the process to get the information they need.

I’m pleased that Dr. James Mahoney could be with us today. Dr. Mahoney is the

former Director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and former Deputy

Administrator for NOAA. His academic and professional experience makes him a

valuable addition to this panel. I’m encouraged by the constructive feedback in his

written testimony, and I thank him for coming to share his insight.

Thank you again for holding this hearing, Ms. Chairwoman, and I look forward

to hearing from all of our distinguished witnesses as to how we can most effectively

structure our climate science programs.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.

12

I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening statements

submitted by Subcommittee Members be included in the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

It is my pleasure now to introduce this excellent panel of witnesses that we have with us here this afternoon. First, we have Dr.

Michael MacCracken, who is the Chief Scientist for Climate

Change Programs at the Climate Institute here in Washington,

D.C. Dr. MacCracken served as the Executive Director for the U.S.

Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 1997, and he has

brought with him a stack of documentation that he can’t leave with

us, but I am sure he is going to speak about in terms of the data

that exists.

Second, we have Dr. Jack Fellows, who is the Vice President for

Corporate Affairs at the University Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and the Director of UCAR Office of

Programs. Dr. Fellows helped to initiate the U.S. Global Change

Research Program when he worked in the Executive Office of the

President’s Office of Management and Budget. Thank you for being

here, Dr. Fellows.

Dr. James Mahoney currently serves as an environmental consultant, providing scientific and professional advice to a number of

organizations. From April 2, 2002 to March 30, 2006, he was Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and

Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Organization. During this period, Dr. Mahoney served as the Director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. It is so terrific

having you here today. We had a chance to speak a little bit earlier. We are thrilled that you are here with us. Thank you, Dr.

Mahoney.

Mr. Franklin Nutter is the President of the Reinsurance Association of America, and a member of the University Center for Atmospheric Research’s Board of Trustees. Good to see you, Mr. Nutter.

Dr. Philip Mote is a Washington State climatologist, and an Affiliate Professor at the University of Washington. His research has focused on Northwest climate and its effects on snowpack,

streamflow, and forest fires. Thank you, Dr. Mote.

And Ms. Sarah Bittleman is the Director of the Governor of Oregon’s Washington, D.C. office, and is testifying today on behalf of

the Western Governors Association, and I know that Arizona’s Governor, Janet Napolitano, obviously is very active with that association as well.

So, welcome to all of you. Let me just say that we do have a series, a short series of votes that we don’t know when they will

come, but we believe that we should be adjourned by 4:00. So, my

goal is to make sure that the testimony is limited to five minutes,

which goes by very quickly, and you will see the indication, in

terms of the lights.

It is important that we get through, because we have, obviously,

a panel of wonderful witnesses. We have got questions, but I just

want to make sure that we don’t lose Members, because I know

that we are going to be leaving for the weekend, and I want to

make sure that we keep everyone here as long as we can.

Your written testimony will be included in the record for the

hearing, and when all six of you have completed your testimony,

13

we will begin with questions, which will be, again, for five minute

increments.

So, Dr. MacCracken, if we can begin with you, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL C. MACCRACKEN, PRESIDENT,

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF METEOROLOGY AND

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION

OF GEODESY AND GEOPHYSICS; CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS, CLIMATE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

Dr. MACCRACKEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I was asked to address two questions during my testimony, having to do with lessons learned during the National Assessment that

took place, and what are some specific tasks necessary to get an

ongoing assessment process.

I also want to just say a few words about the program in general.

I think the USGCRP is a very unique activity. It is trying to get

agencies working together. I came in as the first Executive Director

of the office to get the ten agencies really participating and working together, and my job description said and you don’t have control of the money, so you have to make it happen, which is by driving it with ideas.

I think a great deal was accomplished with some inspired leadership. There were international field programs that combined the

activities of NASA with their satellites and NOAA with their aircraft and ships, and NSF with their capabilities, and so, we learned

a lot about El Nin ̃ o and the ozone hole and things.

What has happened since, unfortunately, even though there are

more and more questions coming up, the budget has been dropping.

The proposal, I think, for Fiscal 2008 is about 25 percent below in

sort of even dollars what it was in the 1990s, even though there

are more questions. And so, we are ending up doing less. So, I

think to get the program going, what is needed is some highly

qualified leadership to get the funding up again, and then, to work

hard on the assessment activity.

So, for the assessment activity, what I brought here, and what

the Chairwoman commented upon, was the reports that came out

from the National Assessment, which you have heard. There aren’t

many places where they are compiled. This is one of the few sets.

But what was talked about, and what is sometimes talked about

in the bill is the report that is delivered to Congress, and that

turned out to be this report, and then, there was a supporting

thicker report.

But at the same time, what was going on was a process all

around the country. There were sort of 20 regions that held workshops. There were five sectoral studies, and so, each of those was

an ongoing activity, and so, there is Alaska, and there is health,

and there were forests, and Great Lakes, and a whole host of activities going on there, because global changes start at the global

scale. When you look at it, how we are changing the global atmosphere, impacts start at the local scale, and you just have to have

the local people involved.

There was an EPA assessment that went on in the late ’80s,

where they tried to basically study five representative regions, one

14

of them being California, where I was. They appointed a panel of,

I think, 12 or 13 scientists. It had one Californian on it. It got no

attention whatsoever in the state. What happened in this last assessment go round was the activity was based at the University of

California Santa Barbara, and when they had the workshop, they

had a majority of members of the Energy Commission there, the

California Air Resources Board, and a whole bunch of other groups.

They involved local people. And California’s effort took off, even

though there wasn’t enough money provided to them to, in the end,

publish their report. They got so many people going, and so many

people interested in the critical problems.

So, I think it is really important to do that. There are just all

kinds of people who are interested. Planners want to know about

what is going to happen to the likelihood of floods. Farmers and

hunters and fishermen in South Carolina want to know what is

going to happen to the temperature of the streams, or the state of

the forests, and if they are going to dry out so much that you get

fires. There is just a lot of information that can be provided.

Indeed, there are uncertainties, and there is a lot more research

to be done, but there is an awful lot of guidance that one can give

with respect to these activities. And so, in the testimony, I go

through a number of steps that I think need to be taken. One is

to be make sure that you call not just for a report for Congress,

but for a capability for the country to address and face up to the

impacts of the issue. Insist, as you do, that there is stakeholder involvement. Insist, as you do, to use the words ‘‘global change’’ instead of ‘‘climate change.’’ That is a subtle difference, but it means

you are really going to do climate change in the context of everything else, not just do climate change all by itself, which isn’t particularly useful. Do consider mitigation and adaptation.

I think it is going to be important to find a way to provide funding that goes for assessment. As we were dealing with the agencies,

it was hard for them to consider assessment research, and yet, the

definition in the Global Change Act and in this bill have assessment as under research. That doesn’t work very well. Some of them

legally say they can’t do it, and so, I think you are really going to

have to find a way to provide separate funding.

I think there needed to be these strong regional components, and

we tried to work up to 20. We ended up being able to fund 15, and

couldn’t find funding for sort of the other five, that we thought covered the country. And there were a couple of reports, like the one

in the Southwest for Native peoples, that the report got all done,

but there was never funding around to publish it. It was very unfortunate at the end.

So, we need, I think, some regional centers. I think it is also important to look nationally, and look at some sectors, so we looked

at agriculture and water resources and human health, and coasts,

and forests. And so, there are those, but there are a whole host of

additional ones to be looking at, the rural communities, extreme

events, and other things. And then have an international, I mean

an independent synthesis that can be done, so—the signal is down

there, but——

Let me just conclude by saying I think a lot can be done in a

year, but you can’t get all the way there in a year, and if you try

15

1The Climate Institute is a non-partisan, non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization that was

established under the leadership of John Topping in 1986 to heighten national and international

awareness of climate change and to identify practical ways for dealing with it, both through preparing for and responding to the ongoing and prospective changes in climate and by reducing

emissions and slowing the long-term rate of change. These goals are pursued, among other

ways, through preparation of papers, presentation of talks, and organization of symposia, conferences, roundtables, and special briefings. These have been carried out not only in the U.S.,

but also in Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, and more than two-dozen developing countries.

To accomplish this, the Climate Institute taps into its vast network of experts and alliances in

the U.S. and internationally. In all of these efforts, the Institute strives to be a source of objective and reliable information, promoting global climate protection through practical and cooperative approaches. The Board of Directors, to which I was recently elected, governs the activities

of the Climate Institute. The Board, which is currently led by Mr. William Nitze, is made up

of academic, business, environmental and scientific leaders from several nations, and the Institute’s Board of Advisors, which plays a critical advisory role, is also very broadly based. The

Climate Institute receives financial support from membership, private and corporate contributions, grants, and contractual services for government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and

publication sales. My service with the Climate Institute has been on a volunteer basis. 2The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was established by the Global Change

Research Act of 1990. Throughout my detail with the USGCRP, it was managed by the interagency Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR), which was made up of research program managers from NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, DOI, USDA, HHS, DOD, and the Smithsonian Institution plus representatives from OSTP, OMB, and, on occasion, other offices of the

Executive Office of the President. To facilitate interagency research cooperation, the SGCR established the Office of the USGCRP in 1993, which has continued since 2002 as the Office of

the Climate Change Science Program. The National Assessment Coordination Office was created

by the SGCR in 1997 and then closed in 2001 at the end of the U.S. National Assessment.

and do it all in a year, you won’t be doing the kind of effort that

you really need to have happen.

[The prepared statement of Dr. MacCracken follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL C. MACCRACKEN

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to

participate in today’s hearing on H.R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data

Management Act of 2007. I am honored to testify before you today in both my capacity, since 2002, as Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute1 here in Washington, D.C., and as the executive director of the Office of the

U. S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) from 1993 to 1997 and of

USGCRP’s National Assessment Coordination Office from 1997–2001.2 My detail as

senior scientist with the Office of the USGCRP as senior scientist for climate change

concluded in September 2002.

Prior to my detail from the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to the Office of the USGCRP in 1993, my research at

LLNL beginning in 1968 focused on computer simulation of climate change and air

pollution. In addition, from 1974–1987 I served as deputy division leader and from

1987–1993 as division leader of LLNL’s Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences Division. While at LLNL, I gained valuable experience in facilitating interagency cooperation by leading or co-leading cooperative research programs among the DOE

national laboratories and across the campuses of the University of California. In

none of these cases, including with the Office of the USGCRP and NACO, did I have

control of the funding to force cooperation; leadership, in each case, was primarily

through the offering of ideas that would attract the various participants to work cooperatively together. A biographical sketch is appended to this statement.

In inviting me to testify, I was asked to address two questions:

1. What lessons did you learn from your experience as Executive Director of the

National Assessment Coordination Office of the U.S. Global Change Research

Program about the importance of regional, State and local participation of a

National Assessment?

2. What are the specific tasks necessary to develop an on-going dynamic National Assessment process and what financial resources are needed to support them?

In addressing these questions, I will also be drawing on my experiences participating in various ways in the assessment activities of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC), the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the City of

Aspen, and related efforts.

16

3See their enumeration of the budget at http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/

highlight2/default.htm#funding and http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/budgets/funding1989-

2008byagency.htm

Facilitating an Integrated National Research and Assessment Program on

Global Change

The Global Change Research Act of 1990 (GCRA90) is relatively unique in its establishment of an interagency research program; when effectively directed, the cooperative efforts led to very positive results and accomplishments. Growing out of

interagency activities and planning beginning in about 1988 (with roots reaching

back even further), establishment of the USGCRP energized cooperative interagency

activities, with each agency bringing their strengths to the collaborative effort,

thereby creating an impressive and comprehensive national and international research program. GCRA90’s requirement to prepare an integrated research plan and

OMB’s requirement that the agencies collectively approve the budget increments of

any particular agency served to encourage cooperation and maintain budget discipline in the early days of the program. During the 1990s, the collective interagency budget approached $2B a year, and

significant research efforts could be accomplished. For example, international field

programs that combined the satellite and other capabilities of NASA, the aircraft

and ship capabilities of NOAA, the university research and field experiment capabilities of NSF, and similar contributions from other countries led to much more

comprehensive and complete data sets for analysis by scientists in all nations, thus

promoting, at lower cost to the US, more complete and faster insight into such phenomena as the El Nin ̃ o, the ozone hole, oceanic uptake of carbon, and more. Improvement of climate models and transfer of such models to the new generations of

massively parallel computers was accelerated by combining the strengths of DOE

and its laboratories with the modeling expertise of NSF, NASA, and NOAA—each

effort prompting the others to do better. The sharing of data and model results allowed other agencies to draw on the results for studies of ecosystem change, hydrology, agriculture, and more. There were many other examples that, when the overall

effort was adequately funded, significantly advanced scientific understanding in

ways that have and can continue to benefit society.

With more and more scientific questions coming up, however, the budget was held

to roughly level dollars starting in the mid 1990s as a step to bring the overall

budget deficit under control, leaving only the scientific benefits of working together

in win-win ways and Executive Office encouragement to drive interagency cooperation. Even though budgets were tight, the agencies recognized the importance of

having an assessment activity and jointly sponsored the U.S. National Assessment

from 1997–2001.

With the GCRP budget becoming significantly smaller3 (e.g., within EPA and

NASA), with the erosionary effects of inflation, with the significance of the decrease

being somewhat hidden by changing the set of ongoing agency activities included

in the USGCRP budget (e.g., within NOAA), and with the CCSP having less knowledgeable and inspirational leadership, much less is seeming to be accomplished. Scientists are spending far too much of their time writing proposals, fewer young scientists are being supported, the observation program is deteriorating, agencies have

been very slow to get activities going on important new questions (e.g., research on

hurricanes and their relationship to climate change), the U.S. is falling behind the

rest of the world and not doing its share in supporting cooperative international research programs, and the overall national assessment activity is far below what it

was and should be given the situation being faced by the American public. While

there is indeed still much research to be done (enumerated most recently in the

Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program completed in 2003),

and I certainly support sustaining a strong interagency research program with

greater funding, just listing what should be done is not enough.

In addition, the Strategic Plan did not even call for a comprehensive decision support program, which is both very disappointing and a real disservice to those who

are experiencing climate change now and who will be exposed to much greater

change in years to come. The Administration is not even providing sufficient support

to investigate the uncertainties that it claims are important, much less the many

areas deemed important by the national and international scientific community and

the public, just at a time when the pace of climate change and its impacts are accelerating.

The main change that is needed, in my view, is highly qualified leadership, restoration of the very strong research effort that had been going on, and a significant

commitment to openly, forthrightly, and expeditiously provide the best possible information to the American public through a comprehensive decision support and asVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
17

sessment activity. Interagency cooperation can be encouraged by ensuring each

agency has a strong research program and then, for interagency activities, allocating

responsibilities across the agencies, with each taking on a proportional share of the

tasks that it can capably undertake and fund. Shared responsibility has the effect

of ensuring a real stake in the collective effort by all of the agencies. Although I

have been disappointed in OSTP’s leadership for the past few years, my recommendation is nonetheless maintain responsibility for the interagency coordination

under OSTP and the science adviser, and to keep the research on climate change

science separate from that on energy technologies to avoid potential biases and to

ensure effective management.

Building a Useful and Effective National Assessment Capability

Assessments are too often thought of only as reports, as, for example, the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the WMO

and UNEP reports on Stratospheric Ozone, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

(ACIA), and the US National Assessment. Indeed, GCRA90 and H.R. 906 both focus

on the delivery of a report to Congress.

For the assessment activity to be useful, however, it has been widely recognized

for some time that a much grander vision and process is needed, both in terms of

the set of stakeholders that are included and in establishing the type and scope of

activities that need to be undertaken. While provision of information to Congress

to support policy development is certainly important, preparing for and adapting

and responding to the impacts of climate change must start locally and regionally—

each region is distinct, and each type of impact manifests itself in different ways

in different places and for different sectors of the economy. While there are certainly

some areas where national policy steps are warranted, there will be many where

individuals, public and private sector organizations, local communities, states, and

regions will need to respond. USGCRP activities need to serve all of these scales

and stakeholders, not dictating what policies to follow, but providing information

and capabilities needed by those experiencing the impacts so that they can prepare

for and adapt and respond to future conditions.

Local planners will want information on likely changes in precipitation amount

and flooding rains; farmers and farm cooperatives will want information on changes

in season length and temperature, not just for their own farms, but for those of

their local and distant competitors; coastal zone managers will want information on

likely changes in sea level, storms, estuarine temperatures, and more; water resource managers will want information on likely changes in snowpack and runoff,

and the chance of floods and drought; community health planners will want information on changes in location of freezing conditions and the frequency of extreme

heat waves; industry will want information on changes in extremes that might affect their businesses and shipping; those preparing environmental impact statements will want information on the degree of change in a particular location; those

doing economic analyses will want information across the region, and lots more.

In addition to providing information for stakeholders, the program needs to have

an associated outreach and educational activity, helping to inform people about the

changes ahead so that they can make decisions that will be robust over time and

not lead to wasteful investments. As for other parts of the economy and society, information, even somewhat uncertain information, can be very valuable. In that Congress created the Global Change Research Act as an application-oriented research

effort, I believe that the USGCRP has an obligation to make information available

as it is produced, and not hold back such information until the changes being studied have occurred or the very high degree of confidence that the scientific community ultimately strives for has been obtained.

Reflections on the U.S. National Assessment Experience (1997–2001)

Over the four-year period, significant progress was made in moving toward creating a broad and comprehensive National Assessment capability. We realized that

we needed to create opportunities for real people (referred to collectively as stakeholders) to meet with scientists and specialists to learn about and discuss the information that the research is providing, have the opportunity to ask questions and

to contribute their detailed knowledge and expertise, get information in the form

and type that they need to make their own analyses, and to make their own judgments about whether the degree of confidence and uncertainty that scientists have

in this information will make it useful to them.

Certainly, a top-down effort by USGCRP could set the process in motion by helping to sponsor meetings and by carrying out illustrative analyses of the larger-scale

impacts. However, top-down reports tend to lack the detailed, local knowledge of an

area and generally inadequately treat the social, economic, and demographic issues

18

4Workshops were held covering the following areas: New England and Upstate New York,

Metropolitan East Coast, Mid-Atlantic, Central and Southern Appalachians, Southeast, South

Atlantic Coast and Caribbean, Great Lakes, Eastern Midwest, Northern Great Plains, Central

Great Plains, Southern Great Plains, Rocky Mountains/Great Basin, Southwest-Rio Grande

Basin, Southwest-Colorado River Basin, California, Pacific Northwest, Alaska, Pacific Islands,

and Native Peoples/Native Homelands. 5 1. What are the long-term environmental and resource problems now faced in the region?

2. How would climate change amplify or moderate them or introduce new stresses? 3. What further information is needed to address these questions? 4. What win-win strategies might help

to address the problems being faced? 6The five areas for which proposals and funding did not come together were: Central and

Southern Appalachians, Eastern Midwest, South Atlantic Coast and Caribbean, Southern Great

Plains, and Southwest-Rio Grande, although some additional joint study did go on for the last

two areas. The Native People/Native Homelands workshop led to a proposal covering only the

Southwest. 7While much was accomplished in the three regions that did not ultimately publish assessment reports, a shortfall in funds did prevent the publication of the draft reports for the California and Native Peoples-Southwest regions. The Northern Great Plains region carried out its

outreach activities via other means than publishing a hard-copy report.

that would be expected to make a climate impact report of real relevance to city

and regional planners; reports about local issues published by agencies in Washington are just not perceived to have the credibility of reports coming from local experts. Quite clearly, strong bottom-up regional efforts based at local academic institutions are much more credible than national level efforts, especially when analyses

are done at local to regional scales by local and regional experts.

A second approach to evaluating impacts is to look nationally, or even internationally where appropriate, at particular economic or resource sectors. For many sectors,

national policies exist and commercial entities are very active or interested, making

a national perspective most appropriate. As a result, the National Assessment set

up a series of sectoral studies. Because many of those in industry consider their

ability to adapt and prepare for climatic fluctuations and changes a component of

their proprietary business information, it also became clear that, for some types of

sectoral studies, the assessment would need to be left to the private sector (and in

the field of weather-related issues, there is already a strong private sector capability). Industry participants might well want to receive information, but did not

want to have to explain their requests.

So, building on experiences from already ongoing efforts by NOAA to help water

resource managers and others in the Pacific Northwest make use of the improving

predictability of El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a events, the SGCR decided to create an ongoing, nationally distributed assessment capability, not only to prepare the periodic

national-level report, but to also provide ongoing decision support and assessment

capabilities to both regional and sectoral stakeholders.

During 1997 and 1998, the USGCRP agencies sponsored 20 primarily universitybased teams across the country to organize workshops that would provide an opportunity for the scientific and stakeholder communities to come together.4 Guidance

was also given to make sure that a broad array of stakeholders were invited, and

the OSTP Director sent letters to each governor and each Member of Congress from

the area inviting their participation. Each workshop posed a set of four questions5

as a way of seeking to identify the most important impacts likely to affect each particular region.

Based on the issues identified and the capabilities for analyzing and summarizing

the likely impacts in these areas, fifteen of the groups were funded to conduct regional assessments,6 and of these, all but three completed their studies over the

next couple of years and, in addition to significant outreach to regional stakeholders,

published reports summarizing likely impacts.7

Following a national-level workshop in the fall of 1997 and in response to guidance from the director of the OSTP regarding fulfillment of the GCRA90 requirement for a national assessment, the USGCRP agencies established the National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) as a federal advisory committee in early 1998.

Working with the agencies, NAST organized sectoral assessment teams covering agriculture, forests, human health, water resources, and coastal area and marine resources. Each of the five sectoral teams was based at a university and co-chaired

by a university and government laboratory scientist. While it was recognized that

there were additional sectoral topics meriting coverage (and even mentioned specifically in GCRA90), the particular choices were made because it was recognized that

other sectoral topics would likely depend on the results from these areas (e.g., assessing impacts on the energy sector would require estimates of changes in water

resources). In addition, because the intent was that assessment activities would be

ongoing, holding off for a few years seemed prudent, especially because the most imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
19

portant aspects of these issues would be getting covered in the regional assessments.

To provide the technical information needed to underpin the regional, sectoral,

and national assessments, the USGCRP agencies also funded initial, but quite limited, activities relating to projection of climate, vegetation cover, economic development, and technology development. In addition, to provide overall coordination and

facilitation among the regions, sectors, agencies and NAST, the SGCR established

the National Assessment Coordination Office (NACO). NACO’s activities included

providing staff support to the NAST, organizing annual meetings of leaders of all

the assessment teams, issuing newsletters, maintaining a Web site, and, especially,

understanding and communicating the interests and concerns among the groups and

with the agencies which, for legal and contractual reasons, were in a number of

cases unable to work directly with the groups they were sponsoring.

While a great deal was accomplished, the most challenging problem was funding.

Fulfilling the legal requirement for a report to Congress and supporting such a

broad assessment activity was really an unfunded mandate. There was not time,

and little likelihood, to move a request for sufficient funding for each agency

through the OMB and Congressional budget process, especially to cover activities

occurring over a number of years. There was also some question about whether assessment really fits within the definition of research that prevails in some agencies.

To bypass the need for coordinated interagency funding approval, the assessment

activity was subdivided into about 30 components (e.g., support a regional assessment, support a sectoral assessment, etc.) and each of the eight active agencies was

asked to find the resources to assume responsibility for the several specific tasks

most closely related to their mission (e.g., USDA supported the agriculture and forest sectors, etc.). We ended up getting about 25 of the 30 components funded. A key

issue for future assessments will be addressing this problem, because the unevenness of the funding that different agencies could and did make available led to unevenness, discontent, bewilderment, and even jealousy across the participating

groups.

Despite the complexity and problems associated with the overall effort, a great

deal was accomplished. The overall effort, which entailed planning workshops,

building of stakeholder interfaces, regional and sectoral analyses and studies, national synthesis, and, for all reports, extensive review, took four years. There was

a significant level of coordination achieved, both through exchange of information

among teams at workshops and e-mail, and with some direction from the NAST.

Most of the reports (and a lot of related publications) were completed and distributed in 1999 and 2000 (regional reports by the regions; sectoral by the sectoral

groups; and the national reports through SGCR and OSTP). The reports remain

available over the Web at http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm, and the

national level reports are also available from Cambridge University Press.

Except for the relatively few regions and sectors where new funding was provided

(e.g., in California, where the findings of the regional assessment raised such interest that the state established its own program), these reports remain today the most

comprehensive set of information about the likely impacts of climate change on the

U.S. In addition, the National Assessment set of activities served as the primary

basis for the summary of impacts that was included in the IPCC’s chapter on North

America in its Third Assessment Report, in the National Academy of Science’s 2001

report prepared in response to a series of questions from President Bush, and in

the impacts and adaptation chapter of the U.S. Climate Action Report—2002, which,

after word-by-word approval by all the key government agencies and the Executive

Office of the President, was submitted in late May 2002 as the official U.S. Government communication under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that

the U.S. ratified in 1992. Quite clearly, the National Assessment process from 1997–

2001 served many purposes, from local and regional to national and international.

Rebuilding a National Assessment Capability

As mentioned above, it was envisioned that an integrated regional-sectoral-national assessment activity would continue on well beyond 2001, building on progress

spurred by the ongoing research program, interacting continuously with stakeholders, and periodically issuing reports that represented snapshots of understanding at that point. Instead, the Climate Change Science Program, which came

to encompass the USGCRP, chose to focus its resources primarily on further reducing uncertainties relating to the science of climate change rather than building capabilities for evaluating the implications of climate change for people and the environment. There is indeed much research to be done (on climate extremes, on hurricanes, on ecosystem responses, and in other areas listed in the CCSP research stratVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
20

8 It is not, of course, enough to list the scientific question in the plan. What has to be done

is to have an effective research program to address the key questions, and this is not happening

across the various elements, especially in aspects critical to identifying and evaluating the impacts of climate change.

egy8 ), and I certainly support additional funds for addressing the major scientific

uncertainties, but much is reasonably well understood, and I believe it is particularly unfortunate for the American public (and also in violation of the GCRA90) to

not also be sponsoring a strong national assessment activity. Unfortunately, except

for a relatively small number of ongoing activities, the focus of which has in some

cases moved away from climate change, most of the regional, sectoral, and national

assessment capabilities created for the National Assessment have largely been discontinued. As a result, capabilities will have to be rebuilt if our nation is going to

have available the information needed to effectively and economically prepare for

and adapt to the changes that lie ahead. If this is not done, the progress being made

through the scientific research will simply not be effectively communicated to and

usable by most stakeholders.

To rebuild and expand the national assessment capability so that it is providing

information across the country of the kind and quality that California is putting together to address key climate impacts on its citizens, infrastructure, and economy,

several steps need to be taken:

1. Call for a national assessment capability: It needs to be made explicit

in H.R. 906 that the assessment process is more than preparation of a national-level report to Congress. Indeed, it needs to be stated that what is

needed is a widely distributed national assessment capability that can benefit private and public sector organizations, local and State governments,

and the public at large. As explained below, this effort needs to have regional, sectoral, and national components.

2. Ensure a broad scope: GCRA90 and H.R. 906 both properly call for assessments of global change, not just climate change; that is, in addition to dealing with long-term climate change, the stated intent is to deal with issues

that include, for example, the individual and coupled impacts of changes in

stratospheric ozone, large-scale changes in atmospheric chemistry, ocean

acidification, deforestation and desertification, shifts in species ranges and

loss of biodiversity, changes in population and demand for water and other

ecosystem services, natural influences such as major volcanic eruptions, and

more. For the first National Assessment, we used the threat of ‘‘climate

change’’ as a means to initiate consideration of broader concerns over global

change and sustainability. This was accomplished by having the first discussion question inquire about other large-scale, long-term issues, influences,

and trends (e.g., the overdrawing of underground aquifers in some regions).

The second question then inquired about how climate change might exacerbate or ameliorate the consequences of the various factors leading change,

or how it might introduce new stresses or opportunities. The assessment activity needs to avoid considering climate change in the absence of how society and the environment are otherwise changing; they will only be useful to

real people if done in the context of all types of changes that are going on.

Fully addressing global change and sustainability will likely to require even

broader interagency cooperation and budget coordination than at present.

3. Allow coupled consideration of mitigation and adaptation: GCRA90

separated mitigation from adaptation, yet it became clear during the National Assessment that they are coupled in certain ways. Changes in water

resources will affect the potential for generation of biomass; changes in climate may well affect wind power resources and demand for energy; changes

in land cover for energy generation will affect surface albedo, dust loading,

and even air pollution; changes in location of icing could affect transmission

lines; etc. Certainly, the technology research programs are best kept separate, but choices regarding particularly renewable energy technologies and

their implications need to be considered jointly with issues of impacts and

adaptation.

4. Provide separate funding: Whether at NSF where research is defined as

something new or at USDA where land-grant funds are allocated for other

purposes and seemingly can’t be diverted, borrowing and begging from the

research budgets of various agencies did not work well, having to struggle

to overcome long-standing agency and recipient relationships. At the same

time, putting all of the additional funds in one agency would tend to reduce

21

overall credibility, as was the perception when EPA alone was funding early

assessment activities in the late 1980s. For credibility, multiple agencies,

each with their particular interests and capabilities, need to share the responsibilities and ownership of the assessment activities.

5. Provide for national baseline information: Regional, sectoral, and national assessments will all require developing a set of scenarios of projected

changes in climate, ecosystems, demographics, technology, economics, and

energy technologies. A problem with the first National Assessment was that

these activities were inadequately supported and got started too late to really get the information to assessment teams when it was needed. Each of

these efforts can be started up quickly, perhaps most effectively under the

oversight of national panels set up under the auspices of a relevant professional society or foundation. Major data sets that are generated can likely

best be maintained and made available through, for example, national or

agency laboratories or centers. There is also a need for research funding to

develop the capability for generating much more useful projections and scenarios, and to find the means to allow for consideration of societal evolution,

alternative policies, etc. This will require a coupling of the assessment and

research planning efforts. The assessment component of this effort is likely

to require several million dollars per year, especially to support the running

of regional models and the involvement of the social science community.

6. Generalize the time horizon: GCRA90 called for looking 25 and 100 years

ahead. This was too limiting. Many stakeholders want to have projections for

only 10 years in the future, even though scientists would say, and the stakeholders understand, that natural variability and events such as volcanic

eruptions could cause fluctuations larger than the expected changes over

these short time scales. The reason even limited confidence estimates can be

important is that businesses are not dependent on conditions being exactly

at the expected mean value; for reasons of competitive edge and to avoid government regulation if failure happens too often, resource-related businesses

are typically able to flexibly adapt to conditions that span 90 percent or more

of the possible range of monthly to seasonal climatic variations (e.g., have

enough capacity and reserves to be able to ensure enough natural gas or

heating oil for all but the very coldest years, after which they might need

to resort to significant price increases or extra transport of fuel, or to pleas

to the public for conservation, or, in the direst situations, not meeting the

demand). In that many businesses already have developed an adaptive capability to deal with a reasonable range of extremes, a projected trend in the

mean can be used to plan how best to plan for changes in the likelihood of

extreme events (e.g., to ensure sufficient electric power during heat waves).

For other groups, for example those planning buildings or developing new

paving materials, information out to 50 years is more important. The assessment activity therefore needs to recognize that different groups are likely to

need widely divergent information, from changes in the mean to changes in

the extremes.

7. Insist on stakeholder involvement and an applications-oriented effort: It really needs to be made clear that the national assessment activity

is an applications-oriented, mission-directed part of the overall USGCRP.

Too often, assessments are being done by pulling researchers away from

their research. That can be fine for a short time and for scientific review papers, but that is not how this part of the program should be conducted. The

assessment effort needs to be designed to maintain an ongoing interface with

stakeholders, and to develop the tools and information that stakeholders

need, taking account of the special knowledge and situations that are being

analyzed. As such, the activity needs to have a philosophy and operating approach that is akin to NOAA’s existing regional climate centers. While new

information and insights will and can be generated by the assessment process, this effort needs to be informed by research, but driven by stakeholders.

8. Insist on and support a network of regional decision-support centers: A wide range of impacts that matter happen where people live. As one

approach to estimating impacts, it is essential to have a place-based focus

in the assessment process; those who best know and can relate to a region

are those who live and do their work there. The National Assessment struggled a lot with the question of what a region is, and ended up with ones of

22

9We considered trying to subdivide the U.S. by watershed, by agency defined administrative

region, by political boundary, and more. In the end, recalling the book The Nine Nations of

North America that focuses on the common interests and values of those in particular areas,

and even considering whether the boundaries of major football conferences might help define

this, we ended up using no single criterion and allowed fuzzy boundaries for regions. 10The four regional centers sponsored by DOE’s National Institute for Climatic Change Research (NICCR) provide an example of how regional research can be focused and coordinated

across several universities in a given region, although their core set of activities is not as focused as for the RISA centers.

varying size and rationale.9 The most important considerations ended up

being that the regions included people facing similar problems and that the

participants in the region were able to get together for one-day information,

coordination, and outreach meetings (getting stakeholders to devote more

than one day is very difficult, given the long-term nature of the benefit they

can expect). For the first National Assessment activity, keeping in mind that

the U.S. is responsible for islands in the Caribbean and Pacific, it seemed

that 20 regions was about the right number.

For the National Assessment, the USGCRP agencies were generally only

able to provide enough funding to get a team established that drew members from one university. A number of the regions were able to reach out

and build broader teams by attracting separately supported participants

from land and sea grant programs, from government laboratories, and simply because of the uniqueness of this first effort; on-going efforts, however,

are going to require more substantial support for each center (likely of order

$1–2M per year per region—and if regional modeling is involved, substantially more).

Ideally, I believe that regional centers (or virtual centers or cooperative

regional programs) are needed that draw on capabilities from multiple universities, laboratories, stakeholder organizations, and other expertise in a

region, thereby creating a regionalized science, assessment, and decisionsupport capability. Such centers (or capabilities) need to be able to do more

than just review existing scientific literature. They need to be able to carry

out and analyze the large-scale changes that characterize and drive global

and national change, and then apply this large-scale information in local

and regional analyses using the available and calibrated local and regional

models.

For the assessment and decision-support aspect of the effort, the Regional

Integrated Sciences Assessment (RISA) teams that have been established by

NOAA in a few regions provide an example of what will be needed (and

about which Dr. Phil Mote will testify).10 The scope of capabilities, however,

will need to be strengthened so that these regional centers can address

issues of changes not only of climate, but also for ecosystems, water resources, health, agriculture, demographics, economic development, transportation, and more. To achieve both breadth and flexibility as the set of issues

change, it may be best to establish a virtual regional center rather than a

specific center at a fixed location (California seems to have been able to do

this), or to base administrative coordination efforts at a government laboratory or major center within the region, with expertise distributed across a

set of universities.

Getting such activities up and going across the country will take at least

a few years, but really does need to occur so that all regions can have the

types of information now available for those few regions that are supported.

Required funding for roughly 20 regional activities likely needs to be roughly $20M per year.

9. Call for and support sectoral assessments: While many of the impacts

are regionally distinctive, our nation is interconnected in many ways. The

National Assessment sponsored five sectoral assessments, but recognized

that many more were needed and hoped that they would be initiated as part

of ongoing activities. There have been a few efforts to do this, with, for example, EPA continuing to sponsor assessments of the significance of climate

change for human health and air and water quality, and DOT for issues relating to climate and transportation infrastructure and operation. But the

CCSP’s efforts have so far been quite limited, forcing the initiation of other

modest and generally underfunded efforts (e.g., GAO, at Congressional request, on Public Lands; a few environmental groups for various regions; and

23

11 Although NAST operated legally under the auspices of NSF, its functioning, oversight, and

interactions were handled on an interagency basis, giving it broader independence and credibility. The independence also allowed each agency to separately consider NAST’s findings and

integrate them into their various roles and priorities. Based on experiences of trying to get all

agencies to approve every word of official government reports, it is important that this not be

required. 12 Having a Federal Register review in addition to an extensive expert review served, in my

view, a very useful role. However, an open review can also create difficulties because open release of a draft report tends to draw more media attention that release of the final findings.

a number of groups on defense and national security implications); fully supported studies are needed.

Establishing on-going panels that are expected to regularly update their

analyses and assessments would likely work best, with a sustained capability maintained in order to be responsive to new questions, inquiries, and

research results. The overall objective would be to help those in each sector

have the information they need to cost effectively prepare for and adapt to

ongoing and prospective climatic and environmental change.

In addition to the areas for which initial assessments were done, areas

that are particularly worthy of study include extreme events (e.g., hurricanes), energy, transportation, infrastructure, business and commerce, trade

and international economics, recreation and tourism, wildlife and migrating

species, drylands and deserts, public parks and natural lands, national security, international interconnections including environmental refugees, urban

areas, rural communities, and more.

To lead such efforts, partnerships between independent professional or research organizations and government research entities would likely be most

effective, and might be a means that would allow these teams to deal with

proprietary information and to develop recommendations on policies that

could help ease impacts and promote adaptation in the sector analyzed.

Funding for a set of such activities should likely start at a level of about

$5–10M.

10. National vulnerability assessment: The National Assessment Synthesis

Team (NAST) was established to provide high-level direction for and integration across the distributed assessment activities. NAST’s responsibility

included carrying out the national synthesis by considering the larger picture, encouraging learning and interaction across the separate activities,

and looking for gaps and weaknesses. Having NAST organized as a federal

advisory committee11 created credibility and allowed for openness in its activities, including in its review process.12 Insisting that such an independent structure be used in the future is important for many reasons, especially credibility; it is fine to ask for an Administration evaluation of the

resulting report, but the vulnerability assessment should not be a formal

Administration or interagency document.

It is unclear whether an entity similar to NAST could be sustained on

a continuing basis using mainly volunteer members who actually are also

responsible for writing the report; quite likely some support will be needed

for member support, for special studies, and for support staff. Finding a

way to have NAST’s members be both widely representative of stakeholders (including representing the interests of the agencies and Congress)

while also having the needed distribution and depth of expertise will be a

challenge. Funding required is likely $2M per year, including support for

national level meetings.

11. Overall Facilitation and Coordination: The SGCR established the National Assessment Coordination Office (NACO) to ensure effective coordination across all of the various parts of the effort; this involved both a service

and a subtle independent voice supporting the overall vision for what is

wanted. Some sort of similar function will be needed for future assessments, including especially promoting coordination, cooperation, and exchange of information across the regions, sectors, agencies, and national assessment team. For reasons of credibility and acceptance, it will be important to find a way to make sure this is done on an interagency basis.

12. Timing: GCRA90 and H.R. 906 both provide for an assessment every four

years. While periodic reports can be useful, they can also be very disruptive

to an ongoing assessment process if every part of the process must focus

24

13 In addition to requiring very tight coordination and essentially the superseding of all other

activities and stakeholder interactions, scheduling all reports to finish simultaneously also has

the unfortunate side effect of leading to peaks of attention on the issue every several years rather than promoting ongoing attention to the need to build adaptive capacity.

on meeting the same timelines. For this reason, rather than setting tight

timelines and a common, coordinated schedule for all parts of the process

as is done for IPCC assessments,13 NAST understood that, while there was

a need for the various regional and sectoral teams to conduct some common

analyses for national integration, each region and each sector also needed

some flexibility in undertaking their own studies for their own audiences.

Thus, the national synthesis effort was set up as, essentially, a ‘‘snapshot’’

at a particular time and focused on a particular aspect of global change, initially climate change. We envisioned there being future snapshots to catch

up with other aspects of the issue.

For the future, I would think it useful to continue to ask for periodic national-level reports—indeed, that the needed report called for in the

GCRA90 has not been provided is very unfortunate. While there should not

be an expectation that each report will cover every aspect of global change,

coordination across successive reports should be done to ensure that Congress really does periodically have an up-to-date synthesis of the key national issues. To accomplish this, what would be most useful, I would

think, would be to receive, over time, a series of reports from different perspectives and taking different crosscuts of the issue—one time focused on

climate change, another time on ecosystem services and vitality, another

time on water resources and drought, etc., and then, in addition, having

an integrated executive synthesis. Neither scientific understanding nor climate normally changes fast enough to justify generating a full set of reports in each region and sector on the same material every four years; however, an up-to-date synthesis should always be available.

13. Policy and technology evaluation for adaptation: Unlike GCRA90,

H.R. 906 calls in section 107(5) for the vulnerability assessment to analyze

‘‘the adoption rates of policies and technologies available to reduce the vulnerability of society to global change. . .’’ This looks to me to be a useful

new component of a national-level assessment. Such analyses should also

be useful as a foundation for covering this subject in the quadrennial submission of the U.S. Climate Action Report. The National Assessment was

not very successful at getting at the issue of adaptation to various impacts;

having a special effort, at a reasonable funding level, would likely be very

helpful.

14. Communication, education and outreach program: While the National Assessment planned a communication, education, and outreach component, there were inadequate funds to do very much. A key problem was

that the agencies involved just did not feel they were empowered to use

funds designated for research for these purposes, especially when the research funding was very tight and there were many issues that needed to

be addressed. In some way, the legislation needs to call for such activities

and find ways to make sure that funding can be provided, even if through

the agency education allocations, etc. Funding should be at $1–2M per year.

15. Policy assessment: Section 108 of H.R. 906 calls for a policy assessment

that documents current policies across the country for both adaptation and

mitigation, analyzes the effectiveness of these policies, and identifies and

evaluates the need for additional policies. I would suggest that the adaptation component of this assessment not related to the emission or uptake of

greenhouse gases be made part of the national vulnerability assessment so

as to make the remaining effort more focused and manageable. With respect to the mitigation assessment, to ensure credibility, it will be important to have this assessment done by an independent panel organized under

the auspices of a university, foundation, or research or policy center. Required funding is likely a few million per year.

What Can Be Done in a Year?

The fact that we have gone seven years without a full assessment would certainly

seem a good reason to ask that the next assessment be completed in a year. However, insisting on such a rapid timetable could well lead to such an inadequate reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
25

sult that it would impair progress in getting to the comprehensive national capability that we need. Much, however, can be done in a year:

A coordinated, interagency effort to prepare, review, and publish a plan for a

comprehensive national assessment;

In that historical and scenario-based information will be required on climate,

land cover, demographics, technology, and economics, steps should be required

to initiate such efforts;

The existing set of regionally based activities should be expanded;

Key agencies should be encouraged to initiate sectoral assessment activities on

a number of new topics; and

Agency budgets should be augmented to provide for their participation in a

greatly expanded assessment activity.

In my view, establishing the national capability over the next one to two years

and then pushing for the next national-level synthesis within three years would be

possible while assuring that useful information would be starting to get to stakeholders relatively quickly.

In addition, the Administration should be called upon to complete the seriously

overdue Climate Action Report, with the process including an adequate time for expert and public review of the draft and Congressional evaluation of the result.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MICHAEL C. MACCRACKEN

Michael MacCracken has been Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with

the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C., since 2002; he was also elected to its

Board of Directors in 2006. Both of these positions are held on a volunteer basis.

Dr. MacCracken received his B.S. in Engineering degree from Princeton University in 1964 and his Ph.D. degree in Applied Science from the University of California Davis/Livermore in 1968. His dissertation used a 2–D climate model to evaluate the plausibility of several hypotheses of the causes of ice ages. Following his

graduate work, he joined the Physics Department of the University of California’s

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as an atmospheric physicist. His

research in the ensuing 25 years included numerical modeling of various causes of

climate change (including study of the potential climatic effects of greenhouse gases,

volcanic aerosols, land-cover change, and nuclear war) and of factors affecting air

quality (including photochemical pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area and sulfate air pollution in the northeastern United States). At LLNL, he also served as

deputy division leader for atmospheric and geophysical sciences from 1974–1987 and

then division leader from 1987–1993.

From 1993–2002, Dr. MacCracken was on assignment as senior global change scientist to the interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

(USGCRP) in Washington, D.C., also serving as its first Executive Director from

1993–1997. From 1997–2001, he served as Executive Director of the USGCRP’s National Assessment Coordination Office, which facilitated and coordinated the efforts

of 20 regional assessment teams, five sectoral teams, and the National Assessment

Synthesis Team (which was constituted as a federal advisory committee) that prepared the national climate impact assessment report that was forwarded to the

President and on to Congress in late 2000. During this period with the Office of the

USGCRP, Dr. MacCracken also was a co-author/contributing author for various

chapters in the IPCC assessment reports and helped coordinate the official U.S.

Government reviews of the second and third assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

When Dr. MacCracken’s assignment with the Office of the USGCRP concluded on

September 30, 2002, he simultaneously retired from LLNL. In addition to his activities with the Climate Institute, he served on the integration team for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment from 2002–2004. Dr. MacCracken is also near completing

a four-year term (2003–2007) as president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS), members of which are the national

academies of science or their equivalent in about 50 nations. As president of IAMAS,

Dr. MacCracken also serves on the executive committees of International Union of

Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) and of the Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research (SCOR). From 2004 to 2005, he served on a panel of the Scientific Committee

on Problems in the Environment that prepared a report on what is known about

the likelihood and consequences of an asteroid or comet impact, and from 2004–2007

on a scientific expert group convened by Sigma Xi and the UN Foundation at the

request of the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development to suggest the best

26

measures for mitigating and adapting to global climate change (report available at

http://www.confrontingclimatechange.org).

Dr. MacCracken is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of

Science (AAAS) and a member of the American Meteorological Society, the Oceanography Society, and the American Geophysical Union, among other organizations.

His affidavit relating global climate change and impacts on particular regions was

recently cited favorably by Justice Stevens in his opinion in the recent decision in

Massachusetts et al. versus EPA.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Dr. MacCracken. Dr. Fellows, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. JACK D. FELLOWS, VICE PRESIDENT,

UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

Dr. FELLOWS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Chairwoman.

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to

testify on H.R. 906, in addition to my personal involvement in the

creation of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. And I wanted to mention that UCAR, this consortium of 70 universities, has

been involved in this program for over 15 years as well.

The Subcommittee asked me to address the following questions:

What are the major strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. Global

Change Research Program? Are the current program funding levels

adequate for adaptation and mitigation research and characterizing

national vulnerability to climate change? And how can we ensure

that resource managers and policy-makers’ needs are met by the

program?

Let me start by describing the current U.S. Global Change Research Program strengths. The program has always been focused

on producing the sound, scientific basis for policy-making. It has

developed a unique interagency mechanism that provides a critical

mass and focus for planning, and it is periodically peer reviewed.

It has also made an effort to tie research and observational strategies to user needs, and it has clearly advanced the science over the

last 17 years.

Although it is not perfect—it does have some weakness—it has

been impacted by political influences over the years, climate politics, overshadowed by other priorities. Over its history, its leaders

have not always been given the support and tools to make the

tough decisions and tradeoffs between program and agency priorities. It has been difficult at times to track the progress of the program, and it could clearly be more responsive to user needs.

Let me turn to whether or not the program has adequate funding

for adaptation and mitigation and characterizing national vulnerability. To discuss the budget, I will be referring to the Financial

Year ’07 ‘‘Our Changing Planet’’ document. It is a report that is

produced by the program every year. That report covers the years

Financial Year ’05 to ’07. During these years, the funding was

roughly at about $2 billion a year. This is not easy to do a critical

analysis of balance. Typically, National Research Council takes a

couple years to do this.

But the program does have five goals, and the first three are focused largely on scientific advancement, and the last two on adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability analysis. Those last two goals

represent about 25 to 30 percent of the current budget, and that

is about $300 million annually.

27

So, in my own judgment, I think that the balance is probably

roughly right, and it actually includes a range of synthesis and assessment products that focus on national vulnerability, all the way

from urban environments that we live in to even Arctic ice, and

Mr. Inglis, I know you have traveled to the Antarctic, and you have

experienced those ice conditions.

One balance issue that I would like to point out is between Financial Year ’05 and ’07, the observational support actually decreased by almost 30 percent, from $500 million to about $700 million. These were largely NASA science cuts due to other Administration priorities that have weakened the program, right at the

time when we really need this kind of environmental observation.

This reduction was actually highlighted in a recent National Research Council report that warned that our national environmental

observation systems are at risk.

Let me turn to whether or not we can ensure that resource managers and policy-makers’ needs are being met in this program. The

program has actually had a long history of engaging stakeholders.

The program sponsored, in 2001, a National Assessment, of which

researchers and stakeholders worked together, in 20 regions of the

United States, to help identify user needs. Most of the synthesis

and assessment products that came out of this effort continued to

be an important part of the program, and involved the stakeholders.

But despite all these efforts, I do think that H.R. 906 would increase user input, and particularly, on the planning and priority

setting of the program. So, in summary, I would say that H.R. 906

is very timely. It is an important piece of legislation. We have

learned a lot since 1990 on how to run an interagency program,

and the demand for this information is clearly increasing.

If there is anything I would recommend about H.R. 906, it has

to do with improving the interagency process itself. The bill does

need to further highlight the priority of this program, so that it

doesn’t get diluted by other things. It is still a surprise to me that

there is no aspect of this program included in the American Competitive Initiative, even though most of our economy is weathersensitive or climate-sensitive.

The bill also ought to identify, I think, a Director of this program

and an Office of this program, and give them the tools and support

and clout to be able to make the tough decisions, in terms of developing priorities.

So, with that, I will conclude my remarks, Madam Chairwoman,

and I would be happy to answer questions when we get to it.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fellows follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK D. FELLOWS

Introduction

My name is Dr. Jack D. Fellows and I submit this written testimony for the

record of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. I am the Vice President of Corporate Affairs at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

(UCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. UCAR is a 70-university member consortium that

manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research and additional

programs that support and extend the country’s scientific and education capabilities

related to weather and climate. The UCAR community has been a major contributor

to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) for more than 15 years.

28

In the invitation extended to me to participate in today’s hearing on H.R. 906,

the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007, I was asked to address the following questions:

1. What are the major strengths and weaknesses of the current U.S. Global

Change Research Program?

2. Are the current levels of funding for research to support the development of

adaptation practices, characterization of ecosystem, community, and economic vulnerability, and mitigation strategies adequate?

3. How can we best ensure that information needs of resources managers and

policy-makers at the State and local level are met by the U.S. Global Change

Research Program?

In addition to addressing these three questions, I will also include my comments

on how H.R. 906 can contribute to these three areas. My testimony today expresses

my own views on H.R. 906 and is based on my own experiences and involvement

in the USGCRP since its inception. I was a co-author of the very first USGCRP ‘‘Our

Changing Planet’’ (OCP) report that accompanied the President’s 1990 Budget and

from my vantage point at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at that

time, I assisted the Congress in its enactment of the Global Change Research Act

of 1990 (P.L. 101–606), which codified the USGCRP into law.

While the USGCRP formally started in 1989, it actually began in early 1987 with

some informal budget crosscuts when I was at the OMB. Those early crosscuts

showed that over $1 billion of agency programs were related to global change type

research. Shortly after these crosscuts, the Office of Science and Technology and

OMB lead an interagency effort to improve the coordination of these programs. For

over 15 years, the OCP reports have annually summarized the efforts of this critically important interagency research effort to better understand both the natural

and human-induced changes occurring on our planet. The USGCRP has changed

over the years both in research focus and structure. In 2001, the Bush Administration created the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) that became the umbrella

program for both the USGCRP and the Bush Administration’s Climate Change Research Initiative. In July 2003, the Bush Administration released the ‘‘Strategic

Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’’ to guide the CCSP program.

I will be using the FY07 OCP report for the basis of my testimony today. The

USGCRP does not change radically from year to year and the FY07 OCP report is

a particularly relevant report to address the three questions I have been asked to

address.

29

USGCRP Major Strengths and Weaknesses?

My own view is that the USGCRP has been instrumental in improving our knowledge of how our planet works and how human activities impact it. That said, I believe the program does have exceptional strengths and a few things that must be

addressed to realize the goals outlined in H.R. 906.

The major strengths of the USGCRP include:

1. Its primary goal has not changed since its inception—to provide a sound scientific basis for developing national and international policy on global change

issues.

2. It has provided an important interagency mechanism for developing research

priorities and budgets and coordinating the program’s implementation.

3. It has provided a ‘‘critical mass’’ and ‘‘focal point’’ both within the federal and

academic research and policy communities to ensure this important science

is discussed, debated, reported, and remain a national priority.

4. It has periodically been independently reviewed (e.g., the National Academy

of Sciences) and been responsive to those reviews.

5. It has tried to tie these interagency research efforts to societal and user

needs.

The major weaknesses of the USGCRP include:

1. The program has been subject to rather substantial political influences over

the years (e.g., avoidance of certain research areas, overshadowed by other

Administration priorities, disjointed congressional oversight, etc).

2. The interagency process has not always had the leadership and clout to really ensure that the highest research priorities are addressed or all agency

contributions were included (program priorities versus agency priorities).

3. It has not been as responsive to user needs as it could have been.

4. There has been difficulty in tracking budget categories and progress over

time as cited in the 2006 GAO report entitled ‘‘Climate Change: Greater

Clarity And Consistency Are Needed in Reporting Federal Climate Change

Funding.’’

30

Are Current Funding Levels Adequate to Support Adaptation and Mitigation Research and Characterize Ecosystem, Community, and Economic Vulnerability?

In FY07, the USGCRP had five key goal areas (see box). While some of the wording has changed over the years, these goals have been surprisingly stable for many

years. That said, U.S. climate research has historically been focused on Goals 1–3,

which have emphasized improvements in fundamental understanding of the climate

systems, its driving forces, and the tools to make predictions about climate variability and change. As the science has improved and its applicability to societal needs

has become more evident, the importance of Goals 4–5 have clearly increased. The

FY07 report has pages and pages of highlights of progress in all these goal areas.

Between, FY05–07, the USGCRP funding has been between $1.7–1.8B. It is difficult

to critically assess the specific program balance of such a large program. National

Academy of Science panels have spent over a year doing this kind of analysis and

even those reviews are largely done a high-level. That said, the CCSP Goals and

Funding Percentage box above shows that the funding for Goals 4–5 are roughly 25–

30 percent of the overall research funding (not including observations). I believe this

is substantially up from the early years of the program, represents a reasonable balance in the program, and I expect will increase with time given policy and user demand for this type of research and information. It has just been in the last five

years or so that the science has mature enough and the Goal 4–5 capacity capable

enough to undertake the over $300 million annually being invested in the Goal 4–

5 areas today. The USGCRP currently has 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products

that are clearly applicable to national vulnerability, including weather and climate

extremes, abrupt climate change, coastal sensitivity to sea level rise, ecosystem discontinuities, global change effects on agriculture, water resource, and energy production, human health impacts, best-practice in characterizing uncertainty, decision

support systems for selected economic sectors and regions, adaptive management

strategies, and many others.

31

One issue I wish to point out is the USGCRP observations budget has dropped

from over $772 million in FY05 to roughly $575 million in FY07 (a 33 percent decrease). This is largely due to substantial reductions in NASA’s science budget and

a problem highlighted in the recent National Research Council’s ‘‘Earth Science and

Application from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond.’’

This is an example where other Administration priorities have weakened the

USGCRP program and interagency process. We should consider very carefully

whether it is in our best interest to allow our observational capabilities to decline.

I believe that in the very near future, policy-makers will begin to take actions to

address the climate change issues documented in recent international reports. It

would seem to me that observing capabilities will be even more important in the

future as tools for policy-makers so that they can assess the impact of the important

policy choices they make in response to climate change—which is why it is so hard

to understand why this Administration has allowed such a steep decline in the funding of our observing capabilities. It is quite possible that some of the stakeholders

input required in H.R. 906 would also agree with the need to maintain these observational capabilities.

How can we best ensure that information needs of resources managers and

policy-makers at the State and local level are met by the USGCRP?

In 2001, the USGCRP sponsored the first U.S. National Assessment entitled ‘‘Climate Change Impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate

variability and change.’’ This assessment was required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and involved teams of researchers and stakeholders working in

20 regions across the U.S. Much was learned from this first assessment in terms

of national vulnerability, stakeholder needs, and how to best do assessments in the

future. Many of the FY07 Synthesis and Assessment Products are outgrowths of this

assessment and continue to solicit resource manager and policy-maker needs at all

levels. So, the USGCRP continues to make substantial progress in making its investment relevant to stakeholders. But, is it enough given the urgency and political

interest in this important science and policy issue? I’ll try to address this in the next

section of my testimony. I do believe that the type of reports and oversight recommended in H.R. 906 will go a long way to ensuring that resource managers and

policy-makers needs are met by the USGCRP.

How H.R. 906 can help in these three areas?

Overall I believe that H.R. 906 is a timely and important piece of legislation. We

have learned a lot about climate science since 1990. Given increased awareness of

the risks posed by climate change there is significant demand for data, information,

models, and tools to help decision-makers and resources managers cope with climate

change. Thus, the USGCRP has an unprecedented opportunity to provide even more

‘‘decision support’’ to stakeholders. Also, we have grown wiser on how to run interagency science programs over the past 17 years. Given this increased demand for

information and improved management approaches, I believe it is the right time to

consider replacing the 1990 Act with H.R. 906. The type of program outlined in H.R.

906 is a significant step in the right direction for the following reasons:

1. It builds on the existing USGCRP strengths and minimizes or even eliminates the weaknesses mentioned above;

32

2. It seeks more ‘‘balance’’ between the physical and mitigation/adaptation research components; and

3. It promotes further stakeholders engagement at all levels.

Many of the bill’s provisions are fully consistent with the recommendations in the

2004 National Research Council report entitled: ‘‘Implementing Climate and Global

Change Research: A review of the final U.S. Climate Change Program Strategic

Plan.’’ The only suggestions I have that might further strengthen the bill include:

1. Leadership, Priorities, and Management. Given the possible dire consequences of climate change, I find it puzzling that there is no mention of

weather and climate in federal priorities like the American Competitiveness

Initiative. A significant portion of our nation’s economy is impacted by

weather and climate and this area of research and education is preparing the

next generation of environmental leaders that will contribute to both our nation’s safety and to our economy. For the USGCRP leaders to make progress,

this program must be recognized as a key priority in both the Administration

and Congress. Without this level of recognition, the USGCRP leaders will not

have the clout to make sure the program stays focused on the highest research and policy priorities. This bill would be even stronger if it required

the USGCRP interagency committee to have: (1) a clear budget process linking tasks to agency and program budgets, (2) a USGCRP Director with sufficient authority to ensure that agency programs reflect USGCRP priorities

and make tough tradeoffs among competing agencies desires and evolving

program needs, (3) a timeline with clear and realistic deliverables, and (4)

a Director that is clearly held accountable to deliver on the program’s goals.

This would make for an effective interagency enterprise and reflect what we

have learned about interagency efforts over the past 17 years. The flip side

of this is to not make it so rigid and centralized that it will actually undermine the interagency process—always a danger! One the greatest frustrations and challenges in putting together an integrated USGCRP while I was

at OMB was that there is no equivalent integrated oversight mechanism in

the Congress. Many people spent enormous amounts of time in the Executive

Branch putting this together and then having it looked at in a completely

non-integrated manner on the Hill. Today, the restructuring of the committee jurisdictions has improved the integrated oversight of the USGCRP,

but this is something to keep a watchful eye on.

2. Reporting. Within one year of the Act’s enactment, the Program must

produce: (1) a 10 year research plan that reflects user needs at the federal,

State, regional, and local levels, international coordination recommendations,

categorize user need information needed to develop policies to reduce societal

vulnerability to global change, and identify needed global observations; (2) a

vulnerability assessment for the U.S. and the world that goes well beyond

research; and (3) a policy assessment that documents the mitigation and adaptation policies being used at the federal, State, and local levels, evaluate

them, and recommended others, (4) a data management plan, and (5) an annual report. This level of analysis and reporting is likely to be very challenging within one year and would probably benefit from a different sequencing. The research plan would be greatly enhanced from the vulnerability and

policy assessment. Perhaps the research plan due date should be delayed to

take advantage of a combined vulnerability/policy assessment that involves

both the research plan participants and people of very different perspectives

and skills (e.g., economists, policy researchers, etc). There is a much greater

chance that the research plan’s goals and priorities will be responsive to user

needs with this input.

3. Research and User-Need Balance. This bill should help refocus the

USGCRP to better reflect user needs. That said, it shouldn’t eliminate important basic research that could lead to a major scientific breakthrough due to

over emphasis on user-driven requirements. Whether this happens or not

will likely be due to individual interpretation of the bill. While loosely implied, this kind of balance is not directly addressed in the bill and should

be. Another way to look at this is that there should be balance between researcher-driven research that may lead to unforeseen breakthroughs and a

more top-down approach to managing programs and setting priorities.

4. Other. Unlike Title 1, there is no reference to user needs in the Title II data

management section. It would make sense that many of these data be relevant to user needs. Lastly, Title I Page 5 Lines 22–23 should include the

33

obvious agencies involved in the Program just like the data management section (Title II Page 18 Lines 9–19).

I want to thank the Subcommittee for the chance to provide this testimony and

your stewardship of the Nation’s weather and climate enterprise. There will be tremendous opportunities in the future for international climate leadership and for a

broad range of research and technology opportunities that will have substantial return to our nation’s economy. The future strength of our nation depends on today’s

investments in these programs.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JACK D. FELLOWS

Education

Ph.D (1984), M.S. (1976), B.S. (1975) Civil Engineering, University of Maryland.

Focus: hydrology, geographical information systems, and remote sensing.

Dr. Fellows began his career as a research faculty member at the University of

Maryland, where he conducted research in the use of satellite data in hydrologic

models. In 1984, he spent a year in the U.S. Congress as the American Geophysical

Union’s Congressional Science Fellow. While in Congress, he split his time between

the personal office of George Brown (D–CA) and the House Science and Space Subcommittee (George Brown was the Chair at the time) and worked on a range of policy issues, including water resources, satellite remote sensing, and general oversight

of federal research and development funding. He helped write legislation that was

enacted regarding the commercialization of land remote sensing satellites. After this

fellowship (and largely because of it), he spent 13 years in the Executive Office of

President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) overseeing budget and policy

issues related to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National

Science Foundation, and federal-wide research and development programs. During

this period with OMB, he helped initiate the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Jack has two roles at UCAR. Since 1997, Jack has been the Vice President of

UCAR’s Corporate Affairs; he’s responsible for a broad range of corporate activities,

including development of corporate policies and programs, liaison with the Federal

Government, management of UCAR’s consortium of over 100 national and international universities, and UCAR (http://www.ucar.edu) funding raising, advocacy,

and communications activities. UCAR is a $200M+ per year corporation with over

1,300 employees.

He is also the Director of UCAR’s Office of Programs, responsible for overseeing

a broad range of scientific and educational programs that serve the atmospheric and

related research and education community, including building digital libraries

(DLESE and NSDL), providing real time data to over 160 universities via the Internet (Unidata), training our nation’s operational forecasters via distance learning and

other media (COMET), and building a multi-national constellation of six micro-satellites to measure critical weather, climate, and space weather parameters (COSMIC), helping children around the world learn how to take and analyze environmental measurement (GLOBE), providing administrative and research services to

the atmospheric science community (JOSS). These are all research, education, or

technology programs that the research and education community have asked UCAR

to manage based on its excellent management background and capability. UOP is

$40M per year organization with over 400 employees.

Jack Fellows was awarded the Edward A. Flinn III Award in 1997. The Flinn

Award is given to those individuals who personify the Union’s motto ‘‘unselfish cooperation in research’’ through their facilitating, coordinating, and implementing activities.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Dr. Fellows. Dr. Mahoney, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES R. MAHONEY, ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSULTANT; FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION, AND DIRECTOR OF U.S. CLIMATE

CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM

Dr. MAHONEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Giffords, and so, I address, of course, the entire panel, with Ranking Member Inglis in

34

particular, and I want to cite Mr. Udall, and the Chair of the main

Committee, too.

I am delighted to have the chance to address you today, and I

am a more recent veteran of these skirmishes, having spent four

years in trying to make the interagency process work to a sensible

outcome, so I associate myself very much with the comments that

Dr. MacCracken made before, as well as those of Dr. Fellows just

before me now.

I will mention one of them here again just as a highlight, so that

it won’t be necessary for me to turn to it in my own comments

quite as much, and that is I also bring the message that I would

urge the Committee, and at the end of the day, the Congress, to

make a more explicit position about how this program should be

managed. On one hand, that is, after all, a function of the executive branch. But it isn’t a function of the executive branch only, to

say that to be successful, a program like this must have a reasonably funded management and coordination office, with a sense of

permanence to it, and that the budget lines brought forward

through OMB, and ultimately, those that survive in the President’s

budget up here to the Hill, have to recognize this kind of program

very directly.

One of the key weaknesses that I certainly observe in all the recent years is that there has been no move away from the concept

that this is a program conducted in 13 parts by, now, 13 collaborating agencies, and with that view, they all must take—they must

set their own priorities, and take them internally, and then up to

OMB, and that leaves no place to really solidify the view about the

priorities for the whole program.

So, if I were to give any one message to this committee, even recognizing the separation of powers, so that I wouldn’t propose that

the Congress ought to explicitly lay out chapter and verse of organization and management, but I think some guidance being given

by the Congress would be very helpful, because it is a long-term

battle, and it pained me a great deal to see the lack of progress

that was made in a number of areas, because it wasn’t possible to

break through some of these problems along the way.

With that, let me press on to the rest of my comments very

quickly here as well. Since the Chair already introduced us, I won’t

take any more time on that, and I will pass directly to the point

that I have a series of comments, that I divide into three parts.

One is some overall comments. The second is a set of comments on

structure and resources for the program, and then, the third is

some other suggestions, as well. In my overall comments, the first

is perhaps the most important.

I certainly agree that the Global Change Research Act of 1990 is

ready for a significant update, and I certainly agree with the sense

of the current draft bill, focusing on much more user interaction,

much more assessment work and the like as part of that, so I simply applaud those efforts as, to my best lights, as being very much

in place.

Second point, an overview, though, I want to raise the very important caution that we need to be careful that we don’t just flip

from one extreme to the other, in other words, that we don’t deemphasize the science, to the point, by saying that what we need to

35

do is assessment and user interaction, which we must do, but if

that all simply came at the expense of the underlying science, I

would assert strongly that what we know now, yes, the question

about human causation of global change is settled, but there are

so many other very important science questions about regional impacts, abrupt climate change, and we could go on and make a list

that would consume all the time here. So, what I would suggest

that what the, hopefully the Congress, this committee first, and

then, ultimately, the Congress would deal with in this, is something that recognizes the great need to pick up the user involvement, and get going on that kind of assessment work, but to mate

that with this continuing strong commitment to the underlying

science.

And then I, also, as an overview comment, cite back some of the

areas where I see the benefit of the things the Committee, that this

bill, the current train has brought along, the requirements for

stakeholder involvement, the major emphasis on improved data

management, and a clear mandate for developing policy analysis

statements as a basis for understanding our climate information.

I would cite, somewhat in hindsight, that one of the reasons that

the Climate Change Science Program was not able to address as

much as it might have wanted of some of the underlying scientific

information use questions was that there was no framework to put

that against in terms of either one or more, or a set of policies that

are worth examining. So, treating those things are a very good

point.

Now, I will very quickly go to a close. I have got a comment on

structures and resources. First of all, there is no specific funding

mechanism, neither authorization, nor other guidance about approaches to funding in the bill, and I would commend that to your

attention, given the great difficulty of making a long-term multiagency program run. There continues to be a great need to assure

the independence of the science. I think that is there in large part

with the call for continued involvement with the National Academy. The Academy’s involvement with the current program is now

well in place under contract, and presumably, this bill will do nothing to take that out of place.

I look to see major OMB involvement in this activity, because it

can’t simply look at the pieces and the various lines, but it has to

look at the program altogether, and as my colleagues have already

commented, too, there is a clear need for the bill to say something

directly about the importance of a coordination office, and its location in government, and its funding.

And then, just the last closing comments. I believe some of the

timelines now set out in the bill, and the first year, in particular,

are unrealistic. There is a call for five different reports to be done

in the first year, and there is just no way. I would bet a dime and

make $0.20 on my bet, that that would not happen in one year. So,

I would suggest that you might want to take another look at phasing those somewhat.

Second, there is a need to call for a solid communication and

education strategy in the bill, too, since this deals so much with

user involvement with the information, yet there is still no call for

that kind of communication capability, and that was absolutely the

36

poor orphan of everything we tried to do in recent years, so I would

hate to see that get left off without any kind of mandate in the law,

when this is done.

And finally, there is a need to coordinate the reports and output

from this program with the international activities and other U.S.

Government reporting activities in the climate area, too. Simply to

say, as my very last point, since the IPCC, for example, which is

just releasing its Fourth Assessment, and which will start a sixyear process toward its Fifth Assessment, it would be helpful for

the bill to recognize something that would alternate phase between

the international assessments and the major reporting responsibilities in the states, because many of the same group of scientists,

hundreds of U.S. scientists are involved in both of those activities.

Many of them are the same people, and the quality is better if the

pain is stretched out a little bit.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mahoney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES R. MAHONEY

Chairman Giffords, Ranking Member Inglis and Members of the Subcommittee:

thank you for your invitation to address the subcommittee today on the important

issue of ‘‘Reorienting the U.S. Global Change Research Program toward a user-driven research endeavor: H.R. 906.’’ I am James R. Mahoney, and I currently serve as

an environmental consultant, providing scientific and professional advice to a number of organizations. From April 2, 2002 to March 30, 2006 I was Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Deputy Administrator of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). During this period I

was also the Director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), involving 13 federal agencies conducting and overseeing total annual budgets of approximately $2 billion dedicated to scientific research, Earth system observations, computer simulations of future climate conditions, and evaluation of possible adaptation

and mitigation actions to address climate change. I reluctantly retired from my federal appointment approximately one year ago because of continuing significant

health problems.

In 1966 I received the Ph.D. degree in meteorology from MIT, with a specialization in geophysical fluid mechanics. Since that time I have had over 40 years continuous experience in science-based environmental management, including service on

the faculty of Harvard University, advisory assignments with national government

agencies and international organizations in several regions of the world, extensive

private sector environmental assessment and design work, and two appointed positions with the U.S. Federal Government (involving overall management of national

acid rain studies from 1988 to 1991, and climate science studies from 2002 to 2006).

A resume summarizing my experience follows this testimony.

In response to Chairman Lampson’s letter of invitation, my testimony today provides my views about H.R. 906 from the specific perspective of my experience as Director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program from 2002 to 2006. Also I make

recommendations about other, supplementary issues that the Subcommittee may

wish to consider during its continuing consideration of H.R. 906.

A. Overall comments:

1. The Global Change Research Act of 1990 is in need of significant updating. H.R. 906 is a good start. In its final version it would be helpful for the revised law to reflect the goal of expected significant improvements in the coverage

and level of detail available in climate information, and to call for major upgrading of the expected uses of climate information (measurements, analyses and projections) for the development of climate services, which will be the principal actions expected to be undertaken by climate information users.

2. A proper balance should be sought between ongoing climate research on

the one hand, and developing assessments and decision support applications on the other hand. H.R. 906 is on the right track in its emphasis on enhancing the importance of user initiatives and applications studies in the development of overall climate research planning. However, it would be highly damVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
37

aging to the international efforts to better adapt to, and mitigate the effects of,

extreme climate phenomena if the support for exploratory research were deeply

diminished prematurely. While an improved consensus about the core question

of human-caused climate change has emerged in recent years, very little is currently well understood about many climate phenomena that pose great risks for

a large number of human and ecosystem populations around the world. Examples

of poorly understood current climate issues include, among others, abrupt climate

change, regional variability of climate parameters, climate-ecosystem interactions, and the (new) levels of extreme weather conditions that may occur as

a result of changes in global, regional, and local climate patterns.

3. H.R. 906 appropriately addresses several requirements in the U.S. climate research program that currently need improved resources and activities. These improvements (compared to the provisions of the 1990 Act, and

compared to the practices that have emerged in the 17 years since the adoption

of that Act) include (1) a more specific requirement for significant stakeholder engagement in research planning and in the use of the climate information being

developed, (2) a clear requirement for sophisticated information management to

address the massive amount of new climate data currently being collected, and

the further expansion of these data sets that will come on line in the next few

years, (3) a clear mandate to develop policy analysis methods capable of making

appropriate use of the large investment in climate information.

A. Structure and Resource Comments:

1. H.R. 906 does not specify a mechanism for funding the expanded program responsibilities envisioned in the bill. A multiple-agency program is

still the most effective approach, but more legislative structure would better clarify individual agency roles. The multiple-agency organization of the program

makes sense, although there should be more careful delineation of roles between

agencies that are predominantly research oriented (e.g., NSF, NASA, DOE, parts

of NOAA) and those that are mission-oriented and thus key user stakeholders.

This will streamline certain types of decision-making. A ‘‘user council’’ or similar

body should be created and empowered to provide input on directions and also

provide funding for user-oriented programs and products.

2. There is a need to assure the independence of the science while providing for committed overview by the politically appointed management

of the collaborating agencies. The CCSP activities initiated in 2002, including

the 10–Year Strategic Plan for CCSP published in July 2003, have provided a

highly useful framework for all CCSP studies. It is now timely to reevaluate and

update the major elements of the 2002–2003 research plan. Regular ongoing involvement of the National Academy of Sciences should be continued. This continuous review function has been placed under a long-term contract basis between

CCSP and the Academy, and should be maintained.

3. A stronger role for OMB should be mandated in H.R. 906 to facilitate

budgetary coordination across the agencies. CCSP has been reasonably successful in achieving interagency research coordination, but after the passage of

five years it would be an appropriate time to assure the independence of the climate research program by providing for a direct role for OMB in the oversight

of the multiple agency program.

4. H.R. 906 should provide the program with two budget lines under the

control of the interagency committee of the whole. One set of resources

would be used to fill gaps and generate new research thrusts that are difficult

to support through individual agency mechanisms and for which there is a clear

need. A second set of resources would be used to support regional or national assessment and decision support activities. These funds could be awarded on a

competitive basis but would require a collective decision on the part of the interagency process to be released.

5. The role of and funding for a coordination office should be explicitly included in the legislation. This funding should not be taken out of research

funding. The current practice of ‘‘taxing’’ research funds to support overall program coordination activities has historically resulted in under provision of resources for the coordination and management function. My experience over the

past several years suggests that an adequately funded program coordination office is essential. With a growing emphasis on the coordination of assessments and

decision support studies, even more ‘‘cross-cut’’ management will be needed, and

the funds for this type of program integration must be assured.

38

B. Other Important Suggestions

1. Unreasonable timetables are currently specified by H.R. 906. The current

draft bill calls for five separate reports to be completed within one year of enactment. These include a new strategic plan, a policy review, a vulnerability assessment, a data management plan, and an annual report. Given the need for extensive multiple-agency drafting and review actions, as well as other reviews by user

groups and the scientific community, in my view it will be impossible for the program to produce quality documents in all of the specified categories within a oneyear time frame. I suggest that the time for delivery of this first set of information be extended over two years or more.

2. An overall communications strategy should be included in H.R. 906.

Based on my personal experience as Director of the National Acid Rain Assessment Program in the late 1980’s and as Director of CCSP for four years recently,

I earnestly recommend that responsibilities for communication and education activities be incorporated into H.R. 906. Without a clear mandate for such activities, it is almost impossible to obtain approval for communications and education

activities in the President’s budget. And without support for communications and

education activities, the efficiency of transmitting climate change information to

potential users throughout the Nation will be seriously diminished.

3. The assessment reporting requirements in H.R. 906 should be coordinated with other national and international climate reporting cycles already established. The IPCC Fourth Assessment is currently being completed,

and will likely be followed by a Fifth Assessment six years later (i.e., in 2013).

During approximately a two-year period of drafting and review for the IPCC assessment, the U.S. climate science community will be heavily engaged in the

IPCC international assessment. I recommend that the summary assessments

specified in H.R. 906 be placed on a six-year schedule (at least after the first edition), and the schedule for the U.S. assessments be offset by approximately three

years form the delivery dates for the IPCC reports.

I trust my suggestions offered here may be useful to the Subcommittee, and I

would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. Thank you.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JAMES R. MAHONEY

Education

LeMoyne College, Syracuse, NY: B.S., Physics, Magna cum Laude, 1959

MIT, Cambridge, MA: Ph.D., Meteorology, 1966

Professional Experience

2002–2006 (March): Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

and Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). Also served throughout this period as Director of the U.S. Climate Change

Science Program, involving the combined work of 13 federal agencies with an annual program budget of approximately $2 billion.

1999–2002 (March): Environmental management consultant serving U.S. and

international clients. Topics included insurance recovery for environmental damages, and technical analysis of regional air quality and haze patterns.

1991–1999 (July): Senior Vice President of International Technology Corporation,

a $1+ billion international engineering and construction company pursuing a broad

technical specialty environmental business, combined with field construction activity

dealing with restoration of contaminated soil and ground water. From 1997 to 1999

also served as President of the Consulting and Engineering Division of the corporation, responsible for a $200+ million technical business. Also from 1997 to 1999

served as Chairman of the Board and responsible corporate officer for Landbank,

Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary addressing the brownfield market by restoring and

redeveloping contaminated commercial property sites.

1988–1991 (January): Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) involving six federal agencies with a combined federal budget of approximately $100 million annually. The position was in the Executive Office of the

President, during the final year of the Reagan administration and during the first

two years of the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

1987–1988 (February): Environmental management consultant serving U.S. and

international clients. Topics included environmental management government orgaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
39

nization planning for Saudi Arabia, and environmental permitting issues for large

Kraft paper plants.

1984–1987 (February): Manager of the Environmental Industries Center of the

Bechtel Group, Inc. The Environmental Industries Center addressed environmental

compliance, planning and engineering matters for Bechtel’s major domestic and

international clients.

1983–1984 (January): Environmental management consultant serving U.S. and

international clients. Topics included strategic planning for a large environmental

engineering firm, and comparative studies of international environmental regulations.

1968–1983 (September): Co-founder and Senior Vice President of Environmental

Research & Technology, Inc. (ERT). ERT began as a start-up in December 1968 and

by the late 1970’s it had grown to become the largest environmental specialty firm

in the United States, with offices and laboratories located throughout the United

States combined with a substantial international business operating in several countries in both the developed and developing world. Also served as President of ERT

International, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary responsible for ERT’s international

business from 1975 until 1983.

1966–1973 (June): Assistant Professor and Associate Professor (from July 1970) in

the School of Public Health at Harvard University, specializing in environmental

health management. During the period from December 1968 through June 1973 I

served in two positions: the faculty position at Harvard and the Senior Vice President position at ERT, Inc. (see above).

1962–1965 (December): Graduate research assistant in the Department of Meteorology at MIT.

1959–1962 (June): Graduate student at MIT, supported by fellowship grants.

1956–1959 (June): Laboratory assistant and lecturer in the Physics Laboratories at

LeMoyne College.

Honors

2006: Awarded the U.S. Department of Commerce William C. Redfield Award for

outstanding public service, presented by Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez.

2002: Confirmed by the U.S. Senate (following nomination by President George W.

Bush) to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce.

1990: Elected as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

1990: Awarded the U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal for outstanding accomplishments as Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, presented by Commerce Secretary Robert A. Mosbacher.

1989: Elected as President of the American Meteorological Society.

1985: Selected as one of a group of four inaugural Bechtel Fellows from a worldwide

population of 100,000+ Bechtel employees.

1973–2006: Served as member and co-chair of several committees and boards of the

U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

1959: Selected as a Danforth Graduate Fellow in a national competition among college seniors.

1955: Valedictorian of high school graduating class (Christian Brothers Academy of

Syracuse, NY).

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Dr. Mahoney. Mr. Nutter, please.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANKLIN W. NUTTER, PRESIDENT, THE

REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; MEMBER OF

UCAR’S BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Mr. NUTTER. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank

you. It is an honor to appear before you.

Reinsurance is essentially the insurance of insurance companies.

Insurance companies traditionally lay off risk, particularly catastrophe risk, notably extreme weather events to the reinsurance

market.

40

No financial services business is more dependent on the vagaries

of climate and weather than property and casualty insurers. The

industry is at great risk if it does not understand climate change

variability, and the severity and frequency of extreme events. Understanding global climate change and integrating that information

into the insurance system is an essential part of addressing climate

extremes, and conveying information to governments and the public about the economic consequences of human activity in the face

of a changing global climate.

We believe that the enactment of H.R. 906, with an increased

emphasis on input to government climate research by user communities such as ours, will greatly enhance adaptation and response

to the effect of climate and of global change. The industry looks at

climate change largely through the prism of the catastrophe losses

that it pays. The General Accounting Office just released a report

that from 1980 through 2005, private insurers and federal insurers,

meaning the National Flood Insurance Program and the Crop Insurance Program, paid $320 billion in claims on weather-related

losses. The insurance industry paid two-thirds of those losses. 2005

alone produced a record year. Total global insured catastrophe

losses were $83 billion, 80 percent of which were U.S. landfalling

hurricanes.

As bad as those numbers, AIR Worldwide estimates that insured

losses from natural catastrophes could be expected to double roughly every ten years. With respect to the impact of climate change

alone, fixing everything else in place, the Association of British Insurers concludes that the average annual losses from three major

storm types affecting insurance markets, that is U.S. hurricanes,

Japanese typhoons, and European windstorms, could increase by

two-thirds by the 2080s. Climate change could increase wind-related insured losses from extreme U.S. hurricanes by about three

quarters, the equivalent of two to three Hurricane Andrews annually. The ABI advises that these loss estimates do not include likely

increases in society’s exposure to extreme storms due to growing

wealthier populations and increasing assets at risk. These are their

assessments based upon the impact of climate change.

The catastrophe modeling firm Risk Management Solutions advises that financial losses from weather-related catastrophes have

increased by an average of two percent per year since the 1970s,

with climate change as a major factor, even when inflation,

changes in wealth and population, are taken into account.

It is quite clear that there are several factors affecting the losses

associated with extreme events, including population growth in

high risk areas, certainly people moving to those areas, the dramatic increases in insured coastal values, the insurance industry’s

own expansion of coverage, climate change, and the incidence of

more intense extreme events.

We believe that H.R. 906, with greater emphasis on basic climate

research, coordination among sponsoring government agencies, improved integration of user needs into the research agenda, and access to climate data will enhance risk assessment, and lead to improved insurance markets.

In this regard, our sector needs science-based business intelligence. A key component of the Global Climate Change Research

41

Program is observation technologies. It will be critical to our ability

to provide insurance markets that climate and weather data

through observation capabilities be maintained.

Perhaps the most relevant aspect of the insurance industry, with

respect to science assessment and extreme events, is the use of catastrophe models. These models incorporate scientific assumptions

about climate trends and the probability of future events, then

produce estimates of prospective costs associated with these events.

In the context of the Global Climate Change Research Program

and its reauthorization pursuant to H.R. 906, our industry would

benefit from enhanced research on historical extreme events, particularly those which predate satellite technology. Climate research

which addresses the effect of climate change on the frequency and

intensity of extreme events would be of great value. Additionally,

the consequences of climate change on extreme weather regionally

would improve insurer adaptation strategies.

A key component of this agenda, again, are observation capabilities. Our industry is taking steps to adjust to climate change, even

though there is no insurance policy that covers climate change. It

is our belief that H.R. 906 will be of great value in improving our

capability. Insurers are in the business of assessing risk, pricing it,

and providing financing or risk transfer. Its long-term strategy,

however, does not include bearing the costs of climate change without a commitment on the part of society to pursue a mitigation

strategy addressing both the causes and consequences of climate

change.

H.R. 906 is to be commended as placing greater weight on basic

research, that emphasizes user needs, and maintains or enhances

observation capabilities, the coordination of research with the global research community, as well as private sector resources.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nutter follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN W. NUTTER

Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Bartlett and Members of the Subcommittee

on Energy and Environment:

My name is Frank Nutter and I am President of the Reinsurance Association of

America (RAA). It is an honor to appear before you on behalf of the RAA. The RAA

is a national trade association representing property and casualty organizations that

specialize in assuming reinsurance. Together, RAA members and affiliates write

over 70 percent of the reinsurance coverage provided by U.S. property and casualty

reinsurers and affiliates.

No financial services business is more dependent on the vagaries of climate and

weather than property and casualty insurers. The industry is at great risk if it does

not understand global climate variability and the severity and frequency of extreme

events. It must be more than a pass-through mechanism for the costs associated

with natural disasters. Understanding global climate change and integrating that

information into the insurance system is an essential part of addressing climate extremes and conveying information to governments and the public about the economic consequences of human activity in the face of changing global climate.

We believe that the enactment of H.R. 906, the Global Climate Change Research

Data and Management Act of 2007, with an increased emphasis on input to government climate research by user communities will greatly enhance adaptation and response to the effects of global change.

Climate and Catastrophes

The General Accounting Office reports that from 1980 through 2005 private and

federal insurers paid $320 billion in claims on weather related losses. The insurance

industry paid two-thirds of those losses. The number of insured natural catasVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 034910 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\050307\34910 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

trophes has doubled since 1990; the insured losses in this decade already exceed the

decade of the 1990s. The year 2005 alone produced a record: total global insurer catastrophe claims were $83 billion, 80 percent of which were from U.S. land-falling

hurricanes. Even 2006, thought of as a benign catastrophe year, produced 43 insured loss catastrophes in North America out of a global total of 349. Although some

of these catastrophes are earthquake related, over 90 percent of events causing

damage to people and property originated in the atmosphere. Almost 12,000 people

lost their lives to storms and floods in 2006. AIR Worldwide estimates that insured

losses from natural catastrophes should be expected to double roughly every ten

years due to increases in construction costs, increases in the number of structures

and changes in their characteristics.

With respect to the impact of climate change, the Association of British Insurers

concludes as follows:

• Average annual losses from the three major storm types affecting insurance

markets (U.S. hurricanes, Japanese typhoons and European windstorms)

could increase by two-thirds by the 2080s.

• Focusing on the most extreme storms (losses with a probability of occurring

once every 100 to 250 years), by the 2080s climate change could:

— Increase wind-related insured losses from extreme U.S. hurricanes by

around three-quarters (the equivalent of two to three Hurricane Andrews annually).

— Increase wind-related insured losses from extreme Japanese typhoons by

around two-thirds. The increase alone would be more than twice the cost

of the 2004 typhoon season, the costliest in the last 100 years.

— Increase wind-related insured losses from extreme European storms by

at least five percent.

— Increase the annual costs of flooding in the UK almost 15-fold.

• Under high emissions scenarios, insurers’ capital requirements could increase

by over 90 percent for U.S. hurricanes, and by 80 percent for Japanese typhoons. Higher capital costs combined with greater annual losses from windstorms alone could result in premium increases of around 60 percent in these

markets.

The ABI advises that these loss estimates do not include likely increases in society’s exposure to extreme storms, due to growing, wealthier populations, and increasing assets at risk.

Financial losses from weather-related catastrophes have increased by an average

of two percent per year since the 1970s, with climate change a major contributing

factor, according to the chief researcher of catastrophe modeler Risk Management

Solutions, Inc. The rate of loss increase holds true even when inflation, changes in

wealth and population growth are taken into account. In its latest climate change

report, Rapid Climate Change, Lloyd’s of London warns that waiting on ‘‘definitive

scientific pronouncements’’ on the impact of climate change ‘‘seems like an increasingly risky strategy.’’

The causes behind the dramatic rise in insured catastrophe losses are several:

• Population growth in high-risk areas. Dramatic increases in high risk coastal

areas suggest people and local governments have placed too little emphasis

on exposure to weather risk in a changing climate environment.

• Dramatic increases in insured coastal values. Florida now has nearly $2 trillion of insured coastal properties. New York has $2 trillion, Louisiana $209

billion and South Carolina $149 billion.

• The insurance industry’s own expansion of coverage which had the effect of

increasing potential insured damage; deductibles were lowered and full replacement cost added to homeowners’ policies in the period 1970–1990. Government policy, which either endorsed weak building codes or failed to enforce

existing building codes and which has facilitated development in high risk

areas. Recent State government initiatives are encouraging however.

• Climate change and the incidence of more intense extreme events. Munich

Re’s Geo-Science Department has concluded that the proportion of severe

storms has risen and that of moderate storms has fallen. Three of the ten

most intense storms ever recorded in North America were in 2005.

43

The Insurance Industry’s Financial Interest

The insurance industry’s financial interest is inter-dependent with climate and

weather. It is the risk of natural events which drives the demand for insurance coverage and yet, if not properly managed, can threaten the viability of an insurer if

it is over-exposed in high risk areas. An insurance company thrives or dies on its

ability to make estimates of the economic consequences of future events.

We believe pursuant to H.R. 906, greater emphasis on basic climate research, coordination among sponsoring government agencies, improved integration of user

needs into the research agenda, and access to climate data will enhance risk assessment by insurers and lead to improved insurance markets.

Insurance and Science

Although a number of European insurers and reinsurers have shown greater interest in understanding the causes of climate change, including the impact of global

warming, U.S. insurers have been more focused on the effect of natural disasters.

Thus, the U.S. industry has been more attentive to approaches to mitigate the consequences of natural catastrophes and other extreme events. Some European insurers have called upon their governments to reduce the human factors they believe

contribute to global warming. In the U.S., the industry’s agenda includes the evaluation of building codes and building code enforcement in every community in the

country. Additionally, through the Institute for Business & Home Safety, the U.S.

industry has greatly enhanced its support for hazard mitigation by conducting research on building design and building materials. Improved research on the likely

impact of climate change on extreme weather and the built environment will improve society’s hazard mitigation adaptation.

The initiative most related to science and scientific assessment of global climate

change is the use of catastrophe computer models to integrate scientific knowledge

about climate into the actuarial sciences. These catastrophe models incorporate scientific assumptions about climate trends and the probability of future extreme

events and then produce estimated prospective costs associated with natural catastrophes. They assist an insurer with an analysis of its potential exposure and are

used to support rates filed for approval with insurance departments. It is the classic

example of using insurance to translate scientific analysis and data into the economic consequences of people’s behavior, i.e., where they live and the value and potential loss of properties in those areas. The pure result of the use of catastrophe

models is the application of risk-based premiums and the understanding of aggregate exposure for insured property.

In the context of the Global Climate Change Research Program and its reauthorization pursuant to H.R. 906, the industry would benefit from enhanced research

on historical extreme events; particularly those which pre-date satellite technology.

Climate research which addresses the effect of climate change on the frequency and

intensity of extreme weather would be of great value. Additionally, the consequences

of climate change on extreme weather regionally would improve insurer adaptation

strategies.

Insurance Related Adaptive Product Strategies

Although insurance often covers damages from climate related events, there is no

insurance policy with specific coverage related to climate change. Insurers and brokers have however announced the development of several climate related financial

products:

• Carbon emissions credit delivery guarantees providing coverage for non-delivery of credits due to project insolvency, political and investment risk, operational problems (Marsh)

• Insurance for one-third of waste to energy plants and one-quarter of wind

farms (Lloyd’s of London)

• A risk financing product that facilitates trade by companies that participate

in global trading of emissions credits (an options contract) (Swiss Re)

• A financial product that provides a buyer for carbon credits in the secondary

market if the primary buyer fails to deliver (Munich Re)

• Directors and officers liability coverage for failure to address corporate compliance with government regulations (Swiss Re)

• New risk transfer products for weather related damages: ‘‘Cat Bonds’’ ($5 billion were issued in 2006, $30 billion since 1996); weather derivatives ($45 billion in notional value in 2005–6)

• Exchange traded weather securities (Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the

New York Mercantile Exchange with Gallagher Re (2007) )

44

Industry observers also note that, as an adaptive strategy, insurers should focus

research on energy efficient technologies that have the potential to reduce ordinary

insured losses. They also encourage the development of insurance products with premium discounts that reward safety enhancing energy efficiency. In addition, the industry has been encouraged to increase in its investment portfolio energy efficiency

oriented investments.

In a world where ‘‘reducing carbon dioxide emissions from a high to a low scenario

would reduce the impact on losses and insurers’ capital requirement for extreme

windstorms by 80 percent’’ (Association of British Insurers), the industry is showing

signs of initiative to address carbon related climate concerns. AIG recently (April

2007) joined as the first insurer in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (CAP),

whose goal is a U.S. cap and trade system. Prudential Financial and Hartford Financial Services have agreed to disclose to shareholders the potential financial risk

they face from climate change (April 2007). Swiss Re set a target of being greenhouse neutral in its business operations by 2013.

Conclusion

Insurers are in the business of assessing risk, pricing it and providing risk financing or transfer. The insurance industry’s long-term strategy, however, does not include bearing the cost of climate change without a commitment on the part of society to pursue a mitigation strategy—addressing the causes and consequences of climate change. H.R. 906 is to be commended as placing greater weight on basic research that emphasizes user needs and priorities and the coordination of research

with the global research community, including public, academic and private resources.

BIOGRAPHY FOR FRANKLIN W. NUTTER

Frank Nutter has been President of the Reinsurance Association of America

(RAA) since May of 1991. He held the same position with the RAA from 1981–1984.

In the interim, he was President of the Alliance of American Insurers and the

Property Loss Research Bureau, which have now merged to be part of the PCI

(Property Casualty Insurance Association of America).

Mr. Nutter currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the Bermuda Biological

Station for Research; the Board of the International Hurricane Center; the Advisory

Board of the Center for Health and the Global Environment, an adjunct to the Harvard University Medical School; and the Board of the University Center for Atmospheric Research, a consortium of universities funded primarily by the National

Science Foundation. He currently serves on the Advisory Board of the OECD’s International Network for the Financial Management of Large Scale Disasters.

Mr. Nutter has a Juris Doctorate from the Georgetown University Law Center

and a Bachelor’s degree in economics.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Nutter. Gentleman, I think probably the best plan would be to go to Dr. Mote. We have 15 minutes

to get to the Floor to vote, and if we can keep your testimony,

again, to five minutes, then we will recess, and hopefully, see you

all back after—we have a series of votes, so we can’t split the group

up, and have half go, and half come back.

So, Dr. Mote, we will go to you, and then, we will recess, and

come back afterwards.

STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP W. MOTE, CLIMATE IMPACTS

GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON; OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE CLIMATOLOGIST AND AFFILIATE PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Dr. MOTE. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, for your interest in climate monitoring research and applications. I am Philip Mote, and I am a research scientist.

I am involved in the Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts Group

which, since 1995, has been articulating how climate influences

natural resources, not just climate change, but climate variability.

And we have also made great strides in discussing these findings

45

with natural resource managers, getting their perspective, what

they need, and what information they need from us. So, I have

been on both sides of, you know, doing basic science research, and

also, more applied science. The Climate Impacts Group is one of

eight regionally funded teams funded by NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program. Unfortunately, the

whole country is not covered or served by RISA programs.

As the science of climate variability and change has advanced

tremendously since 1990, so too have the societal demands for information about climate and what it means locally. Some examples

of how climate has advanced: climate models now consist of elaborate components that simulate the ocean and sea ice, land surface,

biosphere, carbon cycle, as well as the atmosphere, and our regional models are now capable of simulating climate in great deal

regionally. And there is, in fact, a program underway called

NARCCAP, the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program, which is combining regional climate modeling for

the whole country, coordinated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

There have also been tremendous advances in paleoclimate, our

ability to use tree rings and other so-called proxies to understand

climate over timescales of hundreds to thousands of years, that

provide the context for understanding our current climate and possible future climate.

Let me give you some examples of information that stakeholders

have sought from the Climate Impacts Group or from the Office of

Washington State Climatologists. Water utilities around the Northwest are factoring in climate change to long range plans, so they

want to know what are the probable changes in temperature, precipitation, snowmelt, streamflow, so that they can incorporate that,

as well as population and demand changes, into their plans and

their policies.

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council wanted very detailed streamflow estimates for future decades, so that they could

calculate changes in hydropower production from the Columbia

River basin, and the hydropower dams there. The U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers is starting to think about what does it mean to change

flood control rule curves that govern reservoirs, given that there

has already been an observed shift of two weeks in the spring

snowmelt. There is no policy that currently would allow them to

make that move, but for starters, they need good, detailed information. A natural gas utility wanted help demonstrating to the state

Utilities and Transportation Commission that warming trends

have rendered obsolete the old assumption of constant climate by

which their rates are set.

So, a regional and State level focus is very valuable for connecting with these stakeholder needs, and providing climate services. In a number of respects, a national level effort, a National Climate Service, is needed, that would take the basic research that is

provided by modeling centers and analysis, and translate into

stakeholder needs.

National level expertise in climate science can provide the highest quality, most comprehensive information about patterns of climate variation and change, both from the past and from future

46

modeling. Such expertise can be brought to bear on problems that

may be too difficult for a single regional group to solve. For example, to properly construct probabilistic scenarios of future climate

change at a given location would ideally involve evaluating scenarios from tens of climate models against the observed record of

the 20th Century, and then weighting their projects of future

change according to how well they did with the past. This is a task

that is both computationally and conceptually probably too challenging for a regional team like ours to undertake.

Another challenge would be the construction of sea level rise scenarios, factoring in not just global sea level rise, but local relative

land movements, obviously of great concern in the tourist-friendly

beaches of South Carolina, which I had the good fortunes to visit

a year or two ago. All of these things, all these types of information

are needed on very fine local scales, and can be provided by a comprehensive national effort.

Finally, a word about the unglamorous topic of monitoring the

climate, which H.R. 906 rightly addresses. As numerous reports by

the National Research Council and others have documented, the

Nation’s various observing networks and, notably, the cooperative

observer network that forms the backbone of long-term weather observations, and the streamgauge network of the U.S. Geological

Survey, are slowly dwindling in coverage and, in some cases, quality. A vigorous effort is urgently needed to preserve these networks

as our primary source of information for documenting the changes

in our environment and our climate over the 20th Century and into

the 21st Century, in order to understand how best to cope with

these changes. The American Association of State Climatologists

calls on the 110th Congress to rescue these networks from decline.

Finally, a National Climate Service, with high level buy-in from

the Administration and the various agencies would serve the needs

for climate information of a wide spectrum of private and public

sector entities, and H.R. 906 points us in that direction.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mote follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. MOTE

Summary

As the science of climate variability and change has advanced and as public

awareness of its implications for natural resource management and economic activity has grown, demands for climate information have rapidly exceeded the capacity

of experts. Significant federal investment is needed in a National Climate Service

to match these growing needs. H.R. 906 aims in that direction by calling for improved direction of federally funded climate research.

Regional focus

For several reasons, a regional focus on research and delivery of climate information is appropriate. First, economic and natural resources emphases differ starkly

from region to region, and in some cases are organized regionally (for example, the

Northwest Power and Conservation Council). Second, a regional focus matches regional decision-makers and regional scientists whose very proximity permits sustained interactions, understanding, and trust to develop.

NOAA’s Climate Program Office meets some needs for climate information by

leading and funding efforts such as the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program. RISA projects point the way toward a new paradigm of

stakeholder-driven climate sciences that directly address society’s needs and concerns.

The RISA program began with university-based efforts in regions of the United

States where recent advances in integrated climate sciences held the greatest promise to assist decision-making. Much of the first-generation RISA success built on

47

breakthroughs in predicting variability, change, and impacts of climate processes occurring in the tropical Pacific Ocean. This is the area where El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a conditions, which affect much of the western and southern United States, as well

as Mexico, originate.

RISA scientists provide information that decision-makers can use to cope with

drought, understand climatic influences on wildfire, and assess climate impacts on

the transportation sector, coastal communities and human health. Stakeholders can

use such information to evaluate potential climate change impacts on water supplies

and hydroelectric power and support disaster management planning. RISAs are

helping farmers, ranchers, and fishermen use climate information to produce the

Nation’s foods and fibers, and Pacific Islanders to figure out how to weave climate

information into their quest for sustainability.

With each passing year, the impacts of climate variability and change on water

availability, wildfire regimes, public health, agriculture, energy issues, and coastal

communities become more acute. At the same time, climate sciences are making

great strides in producing knowledge that could aid decision-makers dealing with

these issues.

University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group (CIG) was the first project

funded by RISA’s predecessor, in 1995, and there are now a total of eight regional

projects. CIG has developed close connections with the public, private, and North

American tribal groups and agencies responsible for managing the region’s water,

forest, fishery, and coastal resources in order to ensure that our research results in

information and products that are not only useful, but also used to shape decisions

in the PNW. As a result of this interaction, CIG has gained a clear picture of the

current use and perceived value of climate forecasts by natural resource managers,

insight into their decision calendars, and an understanding of institutional barriers

to adaptability. Stakeholders benefit from the development of improved tools and information for planning, such as resource forecasts and regional- and resource-specific interpretations of global climate change. Members of CIG’s stakeholder community are listed in Appendix A. A sustained regional focus over the course of more

than a decade has allowed deep two-way interactions to develop, with scientists

learning from natural resource managers and vice versa toward a shared goal of improving resilience to climate variations and change.

In addition to regional focus, the Nation’s State Climatologists serve their respective states. While the primary focus of most State climatologists is delivering weather and climate data, many also develop higher-level products in response to stakeholder needs, for example, specialized tools for drought monitoring.

National expertise, sectoral focus

While regional- and State-level focus is a critical part of climate services, in a

number of respects a national-level effort is also needed. National-level expertise in

climate science can provide the highest-quality, most comprehensive information

about patterns of climate variation and change. Such expertise can be brought to

bear on problems that may be too difficult for a single regional group to solve. For

example, to properly construct probabilistic scenarios of future climate at a given

location would ideally involve evaluating tens of scenarios from global climate models and weighting them appropriately according to their fidelity at simulating past

climate, a task that is both computationally and conceptually challenging. Another

example would be the construction of probabilistic sea level rise scenarios accounting for global sea level change, local relative land motions, possible contributions

from changes in atmospheric circulation, etc. Finally, as the Federal Emergency

Management Agency undertakes the redrawing of food plain maps nationwide, a

thorough probabilistic assessment of the possible changes in food risk associated

with climate change could best be accomplished by a national-scale effort.

Preserving observation networks

As numerous reports by the National Research Council and others have documented, the Nation’s various observing networks and notably the Cooperative Observer Network are slowly dwindling in coverage and quality. An urgent effort is

needed to preserve these networks as a legacy for future generations and as our primary source of information for documenting the changes in our environment and

our climate, whether these changes be natural or man-made. See also the attached

letter from the American Association of State Climatologists.

Why undertake a new National Assessment

In the roughly ten years since the first National Assessment was begun, the

science of climate change has advanced immensely. Atmospheric general circulation

models (AGCMs) have been replaced by climate system models that simulate also

the ocean, land surface processes, sea ice, and even components of the biosphere and

48

carbon cycle in tremendous detail. Hundreds of simulations have been performed

with these models describing the evolution of the climate from 1900 to 2100, allowing comparisons with past climate and projections of future climate. Attribution of

climate change to human activity can now be performed not just for globally averaged temperature but for sub-continental temperature changes and also for changes

in other, more societally-relevant climate variables. Paleoclimate research has dramatically improved our understanding of past climate variability and change. Finally, regional climate modeling has also advanced, permitting much higher resolution simulations and better information over complex terrain such as the mountainous West. A comprehensive effort at regional modeling is underway, called

North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP), coordinated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

In addition to significant advances in the science, a second reason to undertake

a new National Assessment is that attitudes toward climate have advanced. Officials with federal, State, regional, local agencies, private companies, consultants,

and others, are wondering how to incorporate the best information about climate

change into plans, policies, and reports. Members of RISA teams, like the Climate

Impacts Group, are straining to meet the demands for information. These requests

come to CIG in the form of specific questions, requests for academic papers, requests

for data including detailed probabilistic climate scenarios, in-person presentations at

the rate of about 150/year, media interviews, analysis of climate variables, explanations of or comments on controversial points, and requests to review reports, web

sites, and the like. These questions can be answered in limited fashion by the existing network of RISA programs and State climatologists.

Far better would be to match national capabilities in science research with regional and sectoral needs for climate information, especially if a national assessment

led to creation of a National Climate Service that included additional regional teams

covering areas of the country not currently served by the RISA program. These capabilities were suggested in the President’s Climate Change Science Program, in

which one of the goals was Decision Support, but few resources were devoted to

making decision support a reality.

Tasks to create a National Assessment and National Climate Service

Creating new regional teams and strong sectoral assessment capabilities would

require significant agency investment not just in dollars but in effort and time. A

thorough assessment would require tens of millions of dollars per year, scaling up

the funds that support the existing eight regional assessment teams in the RISA

program to a comparable effort that would serve the entire Nation geographically

and in addition would create sectorally based assessment efforts. As was learned in

the first national assessment, substantial effort is required to get federal agencies

to work together for a common purpose. Finally, the timeline should be at least

three years from the availability of funding to the delivery of a report. This amount

of time is required to constitute new teams, forge partnerships between key stakeholders and scientists, and write and peer-review a set of reports.

Beyond the production of a report, the National Assessment should catalyze the

creation of networks for delivering useful climate information and reducing societal

vulnerability to climate variation and change. A useful prototype of such a network

is the National Integrated Drought Information System, which seeks to combine the

skills and resources of federal agencies in producing timely drought analysis and

warnings, and in finding ways to reduce societal vulnerability to drought.

49

Appendix A

Stakeholders of UW’s Climate Impacts Group

Local level

City of Tualatin, Oregon

King County, Washington

Local watershed planning units

Portland Water Bureau

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

Seattle City Council

Seattle City Light

Seattle Public Utilities

Tacoma Power and Light

Thurston County, Washington

State Level

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

California Department of Water Resources

Idaho Department of Water Resources

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

Oregon Department of Water Resources State Governor’s Offices (Washington, Oregon, Idaho)

State Legislatures (Washington, Oregon, Idaho)

Washington Department of Agriculture

Washington Department of Ecology

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Washington Department of Health

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Washington Division of Emergency Management

Washington State Office of Financial Management

Regional or Federal Level

Bonneville Power Administration

International Pacific Halibut Commission

National Marine Fisheries Service [Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the

Alaska Fisheries Science Center]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, River Forecast Center

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Congress, PNW delegation

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service

U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Geologic Survey

Tribal

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Other

BC Hydro (British Columbia, Canada)

Idaho Power Company

National Wildlife Federation

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council

Northwest Power and Conservation Council

Oregon State University, Coastal Impacts

PNW news media (print and broadcast)

Puget Sound Energy

Sustainable Development Research Institute, University of British Columbia

University of Idaho

University of Victoria

Wild Salmon Center

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

BIOGRAPHY FOR PHILIP W. MOTE

Dr. Philip Mote is a research scientist at the University of Washington, in the Climate Impacts Group (CIG), and an Affiliate Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. His research interest include Northwest climate and its effects on

snowpack, streamflow, and forest fires. A frequent public speaker, he has also written more than 60 scientific articles and edited a book on climate modeling, published in 2000. In 2003 he became the Washington State Climatologist. He served

as a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change released in 2007.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Dr. Mote. The Committee stands in

recess.

[Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 3:22 p.m.]

Mr. UDALL. [Presiding] The hearing will come to order. I want

to thank the panelists for your patience. I am going to sit in as Acting Chair for Congresswoman Giffords, who was required to go to

the airport and return to her home in Arizona.

We will pick up back with Ms. Bittleman for her five minutes,

and then, I would tell the panel we will do all that we can to end

at the latest, by 4:00, perhaps five or ten minutes early, but we do

want to take advantage of your expertise and your presence.

Ms. Bittleman, the five minutes is yours.

STATEMENT OF MS. SARAH BITTLEMAN, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON, D.C., OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF OREGON,

THEODORE R. KULONGOSKI, ON BEHALF OF THE WESTERN

GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Ms. BITTLEMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today

regarding H.R. 906. My name is Sarah Bittleman. I work for the

Governor of Oregon, Governor Kulongoski, here in Washington,

D.C. I would like to thank the sponsors, Representative Udall and

Representative Inglis especially, for their bipartisan effort on this

bill, as well as for their outreach to the Western states in its development. The Western Governors Association, which I am representing here today, appreciates the specific effort to make this

bill relevant to and address the needs of the states.

With the efforts occurring in Oregon and in many Western states

to address climate change, the Western Governors believe it is not

only appropriate, but it is also necessary to reorient and fully fund

the U.S. Global Change Research Program to make it more userdriven. The U.S. has spent considerable dollars on understanding

the science of climate change. Now is the time to address and adequately fund the issue of adaptation. How will climate change

manifest itself in different areas of the country? What impacts can

we expect at the State and local levels? How can we prepare for

the change in an effort to avoid or mitigate the impacts? How can

we most effectively implement adaptation measures, given that

many of them need a long lead time?

At the risk of sounding like an advertisement for a summer

blockbuster movie, I need to recite some of the very real effects of

climate change projected for the American West: smaller

snowpacks that lead to water shortages; earlier snowmelt that lead

to water shortages; and yet, more extreme floods; more evaporation

and dryness; less groundwater; more drought; more wildfires; pest

61

and disease, more of them affecting our agricultural crops and forests.

I don’t think I need to remind the Members of the Committee

that there are already substantial stressors on water in the West

today. Given global climate change, we expect additional ones. The

Western Governors stated in their 2006 report, entitled ‘‘Water

Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future,’’ that Congress and

the Administration should fund research that makes it easier to

predict and mitigate climate change impacts.

The Governors believe Title I of H.R. 906 would appropriately

focus the research of the U.S. Global Change Research Program on

improving the understanding of global climate change, responding

to the information needs of communities and decision-makers, and

providing periodic assessments of the vulnerabilities of the U.S.

and other regions to global climate change. In other words, making

the program more user-driven and user-friendly.

Some states are already creating their own climate change research centers, including Oregon. In May 2006, Governor

Kulongoski created the Climate Change Integration Group to develop a climate change strategy for Oregon that provides long-term

sustainability for the environment, protects public health, considers

social equity, creates economic opportunity, and expands public

awareness. Their main focus has been on adapting to climate

change.

It is important that the program created under H.R. 906 integrates and supports the State efforts that are already in existence,

like the one in Oregon and across the West, as well as regional climate research and application centers. This includes the State climatologists’ offices, agricultural extensions, State and local governments, and resource management agencies.

Additionally, Western Governors stated in their 2006 report that

the federal agencies must continue to fund and expand funding for

data collection networks and activities necessary for monitoring, as

Dr. Mote mentioned, assessing and predicting future water supplies. To the degree that Title II of the bill would lead to such improvements in data management, the Governors certainly believe it

is appropriate and supported.

One recommendation that we would make for the bill is to

amend it to address the need for a National Climate Information

Service in the context of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. A National Climate Service, as again, Dr. Mote mentioned,

such a Service would be the focal point for coordination of climate

activities across the Federal Government, and could be the organization charged with such responsibilities as making sustained climate observations and assessments about the state of the climate,

and providing climate outlooks and projects, similar to an early

warning system. Additionally, the NCIS could provide routine assessments of climate impacts and vulnerabilities, and develop relevant products and services for decision and policy-makers.

The National Integrated Drought Information System that this

committee authorized last year would thus become an important

component of a larger climate information system. The Western

states see all of this as very much connected. Decision-makers at

all levels of government and in the private sector need reliable and

62

timely information to understand the possible impacts of the response, and respond to the effects of climate change.

The Western Governors Association supports H.R. 906 as an effort to move the Nation’s climate change research program in this

direction, and I welcome any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bittleman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH BITTLEMAN

Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee, my name is Sarah Bittleman,

and I am the Director of Oregon Governor Theodore Kulongoski’s Washington, D.C.

Office.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today regarding H.R.

906, the Global Climate Change Research Data and Management Act of 2007. I appear before you on behalf of the Western Governor’s Association (WGA)—an independent, nonprofit organization representing the governors of 19 Western States,

American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Through their Association, the Western governors identify and address key policy and governance issues

in natural resources, the environment, human services, economic development,

international relations and public management.

Before making specific comments about the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the legislation before you today, I would like to thank the sponsors of

H.R.906, Representative Udall and Representative Inglis, for both their bipartisan

effort on this bill, and their outreach to the Western States in its development.

Last year, WGA worked closely with this Committee on the development and passage of legislation authorizing the National Integrated Drought Information System

Act of 2006 (NIDIS). There was a high degree of bipartisan cooperation on this Committee, and in particular among the sponsors of the NIDIS bill—Mr. Udall and

then-Chairman Hall—and this cooperation undoubtedly led to the successful passage of that bill. The Governors are very pleased to see this spirit of cooperation

from the Committee continuing with your efforts on H.R. 906.

Additionally, the Governors want to thank Mr. Udall and Mr. Inglis for their outreach to the Western States in soliciting input into the development of H.R. 906.

WGA appreciates the specific effort to make this bill relevant to, and address the

needs of, the States.

Mr. Chairman, with the efforts occurring in Oregon and many western states to

address climate change, the Western Governors believe it is not only appropriate,

but also is necessary to reorient and fully fund the U.S. Global Change Research

Program to make it more user-driven. Since the time the USGCRP was enacted in

1990, the debate on climate change in this country has largely focused on whether

the world is warming and whether humans are the cause of that warming. The current science indicates that the Earth is warming and that concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have increased significantly. In a 2005 statement, the United States National Academies of Science concluded, ‘‘the scientific understanding of climate

change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking prompt action.’’ Eleven National

Academies of Science from the major nations of the world, including the United

States, the United Kingdom, Japan, China, Russia, and others, have agreed that

science supports the fact that climate change is occurring, is influenced by human

activity, and presents risks that should be addressed through changed practices and

preparation for changed conditions.

The U.S. has spent considerable dollars on understanding the science of climate

change, and we must now look to addressing and adequately funding the issue of

adaptation. The focus of the USGCRP research must now move with greater focus

to help states, tribes and local governments understand what that means: How will

climate change manifest itself in different areas of the country? What impacts can

we expect at the State and local levels? How can we prepare for the change in an

effort to avoid or mitigate the impacts? How can we most effectively implement adaptation measures given that many of them will require a long lead-time?

Impacts from warming that have been projected for the West include the following:

• Smaller snowpacks—winter precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow;

periods of snowpack accumulation could be shorter; and snowpacks could be

smaller, which has serious implications for reservoir storage.

• Earlier snowmelt—warming earlier in the year could melt snowpacks sooner, further increasing the length of time between peak water flows and peak

63

water demands from cities, farmers, utilities, etc., requiring more reservoir

storage to capture the earlier runoff.

• Rainfall—it is expected that precipitation will come more in the form of rain

than snow, but it is not understood whether overall precipitation will increase

or decrease, or what the temporal and spatial changes of precipitation will be.

• Flood-control releases—water managers may be forced to make changes in

reservoir operations and rule curves.

• More extreme flood events—extreme events could be more common, causing more frequent and larger floods. In some cases, existing flood control ‘rule

curves’ should be reformulated.

• Floodplain management—extensive efforts will be needed to better map

and define floodplains, and interaction with local governments will be required to shape the direction of future development in floodplains.

• Receding glaciers—some scientists have suggested Glacier National Park

could be void of glaciers by 2030 as a result of warming.

• More evaporation and dryness—higher temperatures could increase evaporation from streams and reservoirs, soil dryness, and the need for supplemental water for crops and other plants.

• Less groundwater—less availability of surface water supplies may lead to

increased pumping from groundwater aquifers, further stressing groundwater

supplies and hydraulically connected surface water supplies.

• More droughts—more intense, frequent, and longer-lasting droughts could

result.

• More wildfires—there could be an increase in the number and severity of

wildfires and an extended wildfire season.

• More pests and disease—there could be an increase in the types of disease

and pests that exist and proliferate which would adversely impact human

public health as well as forest and agriculture health.

• Water quality challenges—diminished streamflows during drought could

result in less dilution of discharges; sediment loading from storm events that

follow wildfires; saltwater intrusion along the coast resulting from rising sea

levels; and warmer lake temperatures leading to algae blooms could follow.

• Sea level rise—investments in infrastructure to adapt to rising sea levels

will be necessary.

• Hydroelectric generation—climate changes that alter overall water availability and timing could reduce the productivity of hydropower facilities;

changes in the timing of hydroelectric generation can affect the value of the

energy produced.

• Water-borne shipping—decreases in river flows could reduce the periods

when navigation is possible; increase transportation costs; and increase conflicts over water allocated for other purposes.

• Ecosystems—natural ecosystems and wildlife have limited ability to adapt

or cope with climate changes that occur over a relatively short time frame,

which could lead to irreversible impacts, such as additional species

extinctions.

• Recreation impacts—due to lower lake and stream flow levels, recreation

opportunities and economies could be significantly reduced.

Given the existence of a number of variables, it is not currently possible to predict

or model with any precision if, how and when a particular area within the region

may be impacted. More flexible institutional arrangements are needed in order to

adapt to changing conditions related to climate change and other existing stresses

as well.

It must be recognized that there is already substantial stress on the water sector

today even in the absence of climate change. There are many watersheds that are

already fully-appropriated, and new stresses are coming from population growth,

land use changes, and water needs for in-stream uses, including those necessary to

meet federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. In

some areas, the new demands may cause major shifts in water supply and water

64

rights. Climate change may pose additional stresses and could result in thresholds

being reached much earlier than currently anticipated.

The Western Governors stated in their 2006 report, Water Needs and Strategies

for a Sustainable Future, that Congress and the Administration should fund research for improving the predictive capabilities for climate change, and assessment

and mitigation of its impacts. Additionally, given the complex climatology in the

West, it is important that climate change modeling be conducted at a much finer

resolution, e.g., watersheds and sub-watersheds. It is also important that the federal

government implement research funding recommendations associated with Goals 4

and 5 of the 2003 CCSP Strategic Plan, including the area of increased partnerships

with existing user support institutions, such as State climatologists or climate centers, regional climate centers, agricultural extension services, resource management

agencies, and State and local governments.

Consistent with their report, the governors believe Title I of H.R. 906 would appropriately focus the research of the U.S. Global Change Research Program on improving the understanding of global climate change, responding to the information

needs of communities and decision-makers, and providing periodic assessments of

the vulnerabilities of the U.S. and other regions to global climate change. Some

states are creating their own climate change research centers, including Oregon. It

is important that the program created under H.R. 906 integrates and supports the

efforts of State and regional climate research centers.

Additionally, Western Governors stated in their report that the federal agencies

must continue and expand funding for data collection networks and activities necessary for monitoring, assessing, and predicting future water supplies. To the degree

Title II of the bill will lead to such improvements to data management, the governors believe it is appropriate.

One recommendation that we would make for the bill is to amend it to address

the need for a National Climate Information Service in the context of USGCRP.

Such a service could be the focal point for coordination of climate activities across

the Federal Government, and could be the organization charged with such responsibilities as making sustained climate observations and assessments about the state

of the climate and providing climate outlooks and projections (similar to an early

warning system). Additionally, the NCIS could provide routine assessments of climate impacts and vulnerabilities and develop relevant products and services for

decision- and policy-makers. The National Integrated Drought Information System

(NIDIS) that you authorized the last year would thus become an important component of this larger climate information system.

On May 4 of last year, the Western Governors’ Association testified before your

committee in support of the NIDIS bill stating:

No systematic collection and analysis of social, environmental and economic

data focused on the impacts of drought within the United States exists today.

Understanding these impacts of drought will empower users and expand the

comprehension of the full magnitude of drought losses. By so doing, it will encourage local, State and federal officials to increase efforts in drought planning,

preparation, and mitigation. . .. The National Integrated Drought Information

System will allow policy-makers and water managers at all levels of the private

and public sectors to make more informed and timely decisions about water resources in order to mitigate or avoid the impacts from droughts.

These same statements could also be applied to the broader needs of climate data

and research. Decision-makers at all levels of government and in the private sector

need reliable and timely information to understand the possible impacts and corresponding vulnerabilities that are posed by climate change so they can plan and

respond accordingly. The Western Governors’ Association supports H.R. 906 as an

effort to move the Nation’s climate change research program in this direction.

DISCUSSION

THE USGCRP BUDGET PROCESS

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Ms. Bittleman. Thank you, Members of

the panel, for your excellent testimony.

At this point, we will open our first round of questions, and I will

recognize myself for five minutes. And I want to start with a constituent, a Coloradan, Dr. Fellows.

65

As you well know from your experience at the Office of Management and Budget, in coordinating agency budgets for the USGCRP,

the budget process for interagency programs is always a challenge,

shall we say. Would you elaborate on your recommendation that

the USGCRP Interagency Committee have ‘‘a clear budget process

linking tasks to agency and program budgets?’’

Are you saying that the Director of the USGCRP must have

budget authority over the agencies of the USGCRP? Would the Director of OSTP, for example, be a good candidate for this function?

Dr. FELLOWS. Well, there are a lot of options here, you know,

ranging from the current one, where all the agencies retain their

budgets, to a completely centralized budget process, and I am not

sure that either end of the spectrum is the right way to go.

I do think there is an argument to be made for the Director of

the U.S. Global Change Research Program to be close enough to political power to have the clout to make the kind of decisions and

tradeoffs that you would across an agency, and probably, to have

some level of budget authority that he can use to help encourage,

or provide incentives for people to make investments in the highest

priority areas of the program.

We used to, when I was in OMB, have an annual budget review

process, where we actually called all the agencies in. They got a

chance to present their programs, every relevant budget examiner

and representative of OSTP had a chance to hear their programs,

got to see the links between the programs, and I thought that that

was a pretty effective mechanism to try to make the kind of tradeoffs. But we never had the real clout to actually be able to say we

need to move in one particular area. We had to rely on the goodwill

between all the agencies to do that, so I think that budget authority could help the Director.

Mr. UDALL. Anyone else want to comment on that particular

question, given Dr. Fellows’ expertise, but others have also faced

this same dilemma?

Dr. MAHONEY. Exactly. Mr. Udall, just a brief comment that perhaps it is trying to think pragmatically about what might work. I

had somewhat of a hybrid position, because I was a Senate confirmed subcabinet officer, so I had, for better or for worse, political

standing over these recent years in managing the program, and I

had access to the very top of OMB, OSTP, and exercised those, and

to all of the relevant Cabinet officers frequently enough. Still, what

I recommend is close to what Dr. Fellows has just said, but I would

treat it a little bit differently.

I think that there should be a definite recognized management

and coordination function, because that is where, as little as it is,

some very important things are done now in the communications

area, and in getting all these reports out, and they are tremendously under-resourced, the people in that office work very hard to

get it done. But it is also a major source of delay, because they are

just overwhelmed.

I think if we took that same office, and I wouldn’t want to give

any climate program head budget authority over a Cabinet department. I don’t think that makes sense. But if that function were

placed in one of the departments, but clearly, its role was to be

subject to the review by the others, and it had a very small budget

66

itself in that department, one part for its own manpower, for example, which wouldn’t be much, and I actually have in my statement

a recommendation about two other functions, close to what Dr. Fellows was talking about. One, that would provide a small kitty of

developmental and bright idea and filling the gaps funds that it

could administer on a transfer basis or whatever else, and the

other one, to provide some seed money for some assessment work.

And to my experience of working in the last several years on

this, anyway, having that capability, with an element of budget,

which would flow through that department’s own budget, but

which would be clearly identified as funds to support this programmatic activity, would be a way to maintain the normal purity

of the departments being responsible for their own budgets, while

having a relatively small budget that could be, it could reach

around some.

And that is an area where I would think that some direction by

the Congress about its desire to see a more efficient and effective

process, given the complexity of our government, would be a positive step.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, and I see that my time has expired, and

Doctor, I will come back to you, and I want to, at this point, I want

to recognize my friend and coauthor of this legislation, I want to

thank Congressman Inglis again for his joining me in this important endeavor, and Mr. Inglis, you are recognized for five minutes.

ASSESSMENT TIMELINE

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Udall, and I am interested in the

timeline that, for updating the ten year Global Change Research

Plan. The bill calls for it being updated every four years, and I

wonder if you all might want to comment on whether you think

that is a sufficient schedule for updates, or will it become stale

within that four year period, or do you have any thoughts about

that?

Dr. MACCRACKEN. Well, the first one was developed in about

1990, and had a theme that was very disciplinary. It had what

were called seven disciplinary areas, so, ecology and things. We actually did develop an alternative approach in the mid-’90s, to try

and cut it a different way, to focus on the stratospheric ozone issue,

on seasonal to inter-annual, on climate change, and on, I think,

land cover, and things. There wasn’t a formal plan put out, although there was, in one of these Our Changing Planets a set of

objectives and a whole bunch of sort of activities that are not a

whole lot different than what came out in the plan later.

I think it is useful every, I am not sure four years is the right

number, but you do need to sort of take a different perspective.

This is a very complex issue, and there is no optimal way to cut

it into pieces, and so, I think it helps to take different looks at different times, and get different perspectives.

We wanted to do that also on the National Assessment, come at

it not the second time for climate change, because in four years,

that wouldn’t have changed so much, but come at it, for example,

on well, what are all the factors affecting land cover that we have?

Think about global change very broadly. What are the things that

are affecting land cover? And so that partly is climate change and

67

partly variability, and partly atmospheric chemistry changes, and

a whole bunch of other things. So, cut it differently, try and get

some new insights.

So, requiring something in an update, and some re-looking, I

think, is useful. It can be a hard process, but it is useful.

Mr. INGLIS. And Dr. Fellows.

Dr. FELLOWS. I was just going to mention that the world climate

science community every five years takes a look, it essentially

takes a temperature of the new science in the climate arena, so I

think four or five years is probably pretty reasonable.

In the bill, and Dr. Mahoney touched on this, it actually talks

about a ten year research plan, an annual plan, a vulnerability

plan, a policy plan, and they are all due the first year. It would

be interesting to actually look at how that plan might change, if

you did the vulnerability and the policy assessment first. So, there

is even some sequencing of how you would do these various reports,

but a five year cycle, a four or five year cycle is probably good for

the program plan itself.

Mr. INGLIS. Some people might say to us about this bill that you

know, you can collect information, but is it going to help us that

much? And I am thinking of the mountain trout, I believe it is, in

the streams of North Carolina and a little bit of South Carolina,

in the mountains. Apparently, 1 degree Fahrenheit, I believe it is,

temperature change, and we have no more trout. It warms up 1 degree, and they are gone from our rivers.

And I guess, the question is: is it helpful to know? I think it does

build awareness. Is that right, Ms. Bittleman?

Ms. BITTLEMAN. Yes, Mr. Inglis, I had wanted to add to this, having the assessments reviewed and updated, and the scientific data

reviewed and updated periodically, whether it is three years, four

years, five years, is all very important. But from a State perspective, I think it is important to realize that the entire process of

data collection and adaptation and how climate change is being experienced on the ground is really, to us, what the important aspect

of this bill is, which is every year, when data is being collected, at

the same time, states like Oregon, and in the Carolinas and Pacific

Northwest, the Carolinas, the states are actually acting. We have

user groups, we have climate change groups, we have scientists,

but we also have economists and businesses that are really reacting to and trying to anticipate how their businesses are going to

change.

Salmon fishery is a very good example in the Pacific Northwest.

We are looking at salmon populations all the time, in conjunction

with NOAA, and the question is, you know, is climate change going

to—what are the long-term effects of climate change, and how are

we, as an industry, the salmon industry, how are they going to

react to that? How can we help them react to that?

So, while—I just would hope that you don’t, you know, when

there is a year date for a report, I don’t think that is as important

as the flexibility needed to incorporate all this, all the information,

science data, but also, activities that are happening on the ground,

including what is happening in the states, and how the states are

responding.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you. My time has expired.

68

REGIONAL VS. NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. UDALL. Thank the gentleman. We will come back around for

a second round, if you all can stay. I recognize myself again for five

minutes, and I want to start with Ms. Bittleman, but I would alert

the panel that I would like you all to think about weighing in once

she has had a chance to answer.

And I want to just talk about this regional versus national assessments dynamic that we have. We certainly need regional assessments and regional responses, but each individual region

doesn’t stand on its own. You get impacts, consequences in other

areas. And for this reason, we need also national assessments.

Would you agree, and if so, how do we ensure that the USGCRP

will serve both of these information needs?

Ms. BITTLEMAN. Well, since I am here representing a region, I

am going to fall on the side of preferring a regional approach, but

I think you are absolutely right. We do need national information

and a national approach.

Again, I don’t see these things as actually separate. In Oregon,

and in the Pacific Northwest, we would like to collect climate information on a watershed and sub-watershed level. That is a much

more specific level than a region, than a state or a region, and so,

what we would like to see is all of this information integrated. So,

from a sub-watershed to watershed to State to region to national

level, and we see the possibility of integration as the real hope

here.

THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S PERSPECTIVE

Mr. UDALL. Anyone else like to respond? Mr. Nutter. And Mr.

Nutter, by the way, it is always great to have you as part of these

hearings, because you bring the economic implications of much of

this to the fore, which is crucial to consider, and it is, in fact, why

a lot of us have moved, a lot of communities, a lot of industries are

moving in the direction. Let us respond now. We have time.

Mr. NUTTER. Well, thank you for the question and the comment.

From the insurance perspective, regional assessments are probably imperative. There is not much point in looking at a national

assessment without understanding the subcategories of all that.

The effect of climate change on extreme weather events in the Gulf

is different than it is for a State like Florida, or East Coast or

upper East Coast. The same would be true, the same comment

would be true if you are looking at the effect of extreme weather

events in the Midwest, the tornados and other extreme events.

So, from our perspective, the regionalization of the assessment is,

frankly, the most valuable part.

Mr. UDALL. Very good point. Very useful. Dr. MacCracken.

MORE ON REGIONAL VS. NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS

Dr. MACCRACKEN. I think that is also a very good question. We

tried, because there are a number of issues that cut across, to have

sector assessments do that, so you wanted to crosscut with that.

And so, if you are interested in how the forests are going to do,

health-wise, locally, you want to have a regional one. If you want

to understand the market for forest products, you have to look

69

more broadly, certainly across the country. Or if you want to look

at agriculture, you can look at what happens to a farmer in a particular place, or you can look at food production more broadly.

So, I think you need both regions, you need sectors, and the area

that we didn’t get to at all in what we were, realized needed to get

done, was how what happens elsewhere in the world affects what

happens here, so that can be everything on natural factors, like migratory species, to what happens with our investments. When there

was a drought in Indonesia several years ago, there were layoffs

on Wall Street. I mean, the world is interconnected with investments. It is certainly interconnected with respect to health, and it

is certainly interconnected with respect to environmental refugees.

IPCC looks at some of these, but it sort of does the chapters a

little bit separately, and hasn’t looked at how one set of countries

depends on another, and the various economic connections. So,

there are a lot of different cuts that have to be taken, and together,

that is how you draw forth the findings for a national level report

that would be meaningful to Members of Congress.

Mr. UDALL. There is an interesting school of thought out there

when it comes to this challenge we face of responding to global

change, and we are having that discussion today, or climate

change, or both. If we would figure—I should say when we figure

this one out, as the human race, that we will actually create a template to deal with a lot of other challenges and opportunities and

problems that we face across the globe.

And that keeps me going every day, given the size of this, and

the complexity of what we face.

Dr. MACCRACKEN. The report that we did, that this UN panel recently did for the Commission on Sustainable Development, tried

to very much make that point, that climate change is intimately

tied to meeting the Millennium Development Goals, and if you

don’t think about climate change in the context, you are not going

to be able to ensure meeting the water needs and the other kinds

of things in particular regions, or severe weather, or other kinds

of things. So, it is, indeed, all coupled, and has to be done that way,

looked at that way.

CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION

Mr. UDALL. I know my time has expired, but Mr. Inglis and I

have reached an agreement. I think he has asked the questions he

would like to ask. I am going to go for a few more minutes, and

then, we will begin to bring the hearing to a close, but I did want

to turn back to Mr. Nutter, if I might, for a minute, and ask you

a question about the large population growth in high risk areas

that has exacerbated the impacts of climate change.

Would you comment on how H.R. 906 might provide information

to reduce the vulnerability of these already overstressed areas?

Mr. NUTTER. Thank you for the question.

To the extent that the assessments can help not just our industry, the insurance industry, but those who regulate our industry,

and those who look at protecting people’s property and lives

through building codes or other hazard mitigation, we will all learn

from the information about increased frequency or severity of

storms, and other research products from this program. It would

70

have enormous public benefit, and obviously, the private benefit to

all of us who are engaged in risk assessment or risk mitigation.

So, I see it as a valuable product, as we try to understand the

dynamics of a changing climate. My recollection is that 53 percent

of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a coast. That is a

pretty remarkable exposed population. The State of Florida has $2

trillion of insured properties. The State of New York has $2 trillion

of insured properties. My recollection, Mr. Inglis, is that your state

has something like $150 billion of insured properties.

It is a remarkable exposure, and our ability to deal with the financing of recovery from extreme events, and understand the dynamics, so we can protect property and life from that would be a

byproduct of this legislation.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you for that response. Dr. MacCracken, I

would turn back to you briefly. You recommend keeping research

on climate change science separate from that on energy technologies. I assume you are referring to technology development and

research. At some point, however, shouldn’t we evaluate new energy technologies, their potential deployment schedules, their costs,

and their missions profiles, to see how they will impact atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases? And in general, where

should this analysis of issues that intersect the science and technology development occur? Easy question, I know.

Dr. MACCRACKEN. You know, I was, in my comment, just trying

to keep the, to make sure that the research that goes on about

what is going to happen, and the decisions about what technology

research you fund, are not so closely intermixed that they bias each

other, that you say, well, I mean, I think the fear was in some of

the 1990s, that people will use climate change to justify funding fusion research or something, and we really wanted to pursue those

kinds of things separately. Certainly, you have to look at what the,

what will happen, in terms of technology, and in fact, if I can just

go back to comments that Ms. Bittleman and Phil made, when they

called for a National Climate Information Service, that is absolutely vital, but there are some other things we need as well, to

project into the future that we struggle with, and that includes

what is going to happen to the Nation’s ecosystems, sort of the land

cover projection, what is going to happen in terms of demographics

and in economics and technology.

One of the things we struggled with, in trying to put together a

useful assessment, was to project well, what is really going to happen? Are there things around the corner that are going to mean

that this isn’t the problem? How are we going to adapt to it? And

one needs to have some sort of perhaps central facility to make

that happen, or central, maybe it is a virtual program, or some

place where it comes together, but it can’t just be Climate Information Service, because as soon as you say, well, I have got the Climate Information Service, then people are going to ask: ‘‘Well,

what is happening with economic development?’’ Or ‘‘what is happening with demographics and population?’’ And ‘‘where are people

choosing to live?’’ and all these other issues. And that whole social

science part of what needs to be in global change isn’t really wellfunded and doesn’t even have much of a constituency or capability

for it.

71

Mr. UDALL. Dr. Mote, I am going to move to you now, if I could.

Dr. MOTE. Sure.

Mr. UDALL. And—if I could ask—you want to comment on that,

and then, I will ask you a question?

Dr. MOTE. Yeah, let me just comment on the—another aspect of

this sort of separation that Dr. MacCracken talked about is in some

instances, mitigating and adapting to climate change do come together. For example, evaluating the resilience of hydropower to a

changing climate, or wind power. So, as we design portfolios of future energy, are those portfolios themselves resistant to or resilient

to the kinds of changes that may come down in the future.

Mr. UDALL. That is a very, very good point. Some cases, it may

work to power needs benefits, in other cases, it may actually work

the other way. Hydropower——

Dr. MOTE. Yeah, in the Pacific Northwest is having——

Mr. UDALL. Hydropower——

Dr. MOTE.—warming climates actually helps our hydropower

production, because it puts availability of supply more in sync with

regional demand. It sort of leaves California in a more difficult position, because then, we don’t have spare power to sell in the summer, but——

Mr. UDALL. I am going to not be tempted to comment on that,

as a Coloradan, but let me turn to RISA for a minute, and you discussed it as an example of a stakeholder-driven climate sciences

venture. How could the climate program be tailored to build upon

the work being done by RISA?

Dr. MOTE. Well, the key success of the RISA program has been

putting top level scientists directly in touch with top level decisionmakers on the regional, State, and local scale. And you know, to

some extent, that happens nationally, but these are partnerships

that lead to better science, because the science is then driven by

a genuine societal need, and it also leads to better management,

because the decision-makers are slowly learning more about climate.

Again, it is not just about future climate change, but the patterns of variability that we already experience, paleoclimate, you

know, evaluating how robust is the Colorado River Compact, given

the 400 year perspective that we get from tree rings, things like

that.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. You had to bring the Colorado River into

this.

Dr. MOTE. I drew my first breath 42 years ago today in the high

mountain air of Colorado, so——

Mr. UDALL. Today is your birthday?

Dr. MOTE. Yes.

Mr. UDALL. Well, happy birthday. Well, maybe we should——

Dr. MOTE. Thank you.

Mr. UDALL. Well, I think that is a great place to stop at this

point.

I did want to yield to Mr. Inglis for a couple of concluding remarks, and then, we will bring the hearing to a close.

Mr. INGLIS. So, I am going to sing. I will spare you, but happy

birthday. And I thank Mr. Udall for chairing this part of the hearing, and appreciate his work on this, and it has been very helpful

72

for me to hear your comments, so thank you for the education you

have afforded us today.

Mr. UDALL. Well, let me conclude by thanking you all for appearing before the Subcommittee. It is clear, I hope, to all of you, and

those listening, and those participating today, that I take the challenge, as does Congressman Inglis, and many of us here in the

House, of addressing global warming, very seriously, and it is one

of our highest priorities in the Congress.

Your testimony, as we have said, has been very helpful, and I believe that this legislation will take an important step forward in

providing planners with the tools they need to combat climate

change.

Under the rules of the Committee, the record will be held open

for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements and

any additional questions they might have for the witnesses.

At this time, the hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(73)

Appendix:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97