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

63–825 PDF 2011

THE CLIMATE CRISIS: NATIONAL SECURITY, 

PUBLIC HEALTH, AND ECONOMIC THREATS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 12, 2009 

Serial No. 111–3 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey 

ELIOT ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

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

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 7 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the State of Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement ........................................... 7 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 9 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 12 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 13 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 14 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 14 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 15 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 16 

Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 17 

Hon. Eliot Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 17 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 18 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 18 

Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Representative in Congress from the Virgin 

Islands, opening statement ................................................................................. 19 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 134 

WITNESSES

Daniel Schrag, Director, Center for the Environment and Director of the 

Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography, Harvard University .................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ...................................................................

General Gordon R. Sullivan (Ret.), President and Chief Operating Officer, 

Association of the United States Army .............................................................. 34 

Page

VI 

General Gordon R. Sullivan (Ret.), President and Chief Operating Officer, 

Association of the United States Army—Continued 

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

Answers to submitted questions 2 ...................................................................

R. James Woolsey, Venture Partner, Vantagepoint Venture Partners, Former 

Director, Central Intelligence Agency ................................................................ 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 210 

Kristie L. Ebi, Public Health Consultant, Lead Author, Public Health Chapter 

of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report .......................................................................................................... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 217 

Frank Ackerman, Senior Economist, Stockholm Environment Institute-U.S. 

Center, Tufts University ...................................................................................... 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 229 

Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute .. 103 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 235 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report entitled, ‘‘National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,’’ 2007, 

submitted by General Sullivan ........................................................................... 136 

Report entitled, ‘‘Energy and Climate Policy,’’ December 2007, by James L. 

Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................................................................................ 201 

1 Mr. Schrag did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 2 General Sullivan did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 

(1) 

THE CLIMATE CRISIS: NATIONAL SECURITY, 

PUBLIC HEALTH, AND ECONOMIC THREATS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Markey, Doyle, Inslee, 

Butterfield, Melancon, Matsui, McNerney, Welch, Dingell, Boucher, 

Pallone, Engel, Green, Capps, Harman, Gonzalez, Baldwin, Matheson, Barrow, Waxman (ex officio), Upton, Hall, Stearns, Whitfield, 

Shimkus, Pitts, Burgess, Scalise, and Barton (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Christensen. 

Staff present: Dave Rapallo, Melissa Bez, Joel Beauvais, Alexandra Teitz, Matt Weiner, Caren Auchman, Jeff Baran, Amanda 

Mertens Campbell, Andrea Spring, Peter Spencer, and Garrett 

Golding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment and this very important opening hearing. 

We stand at a critical moment in history. The country is facing 

some of the deepest, most complex challenges it has ever confronted: an economy in peril, a broken energy system, a climate in 

crisis. These problems are inseparable and so are the solutions. We 

now have a choice to make. We can continue to sit on our hands, 

allowing our children and grandchildren to inherit a planetary catastrophe, or we can take action to unleash a technology revolution 

that will revive our economy while protecting our national and environmental security. 

Today’s hearing is the first of many the subcommittee will hold 

in the coming weeks as we work with Chairman Waxman and 

Ranking Members Barton and Upton to pass a comprehensive climate and energy piece of legislation out of committee by Memorial 

Day. We begin this process by hearing from a distinguished panel 

about the grave threats that global warming poses to national and 

global security, public health, and economic growth. These witnesses are here in part to purge whatever complacency remains 

2 

after 8 years of climate policy founded on denial, obfuscation, and 

delay. The American people are ready for bold action, and they expect Congress to pass legislation that will create jobs, save consumers money, and protect the planet. There is now a robust scientific consensus that global warming is happening, that manmade 

greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible, and that if we 

fail to dramatically reduce those emissions starting now, catastrophic impacts will result. 

This leads to the real question in this debate: Can we afford not 

to act? The human and economic costs of continued delay are staggering, whether it is villages falling into the sea in Alaska, flooding 

in the Midwest, droughts becoming harder, longer, and more frequent in the south, or crop failure and water scarcity feeding a 

genocide in Sudan. We know that changes brought on or exacerbated by human-induced climate change are happening. These impacts will threaten national and global security, endanger public 

health, and damage the American economy. 

In last year’s National Intelligence Assessment, the heart of our 

national security establishment, called the climate crisis a threat 

to American security. Public health professionals have told us that 

global warming is already causing tens of thousands of deaths annually in the developing world and poses a serious threat to public 

health here at home. 

Our economy is also in grave danger. If left unchecked, global 

warming will cost the United States trillions of dollars in coming 

years. Recent studies suggest that by 2050, our Nation could face 

at least half-a-trillion dollars in damages every year due to climate 

change, a 1.5 percent cut in GDP. Global GDP could fall as much 

as 20 percent. 

The costs of inaction are not limited to the impacts of global 

warming. They also include the price of lost opportunity. America 

was once the world’s leader in renewable energy technologies but 

we are now losing those jobs to our overseas competitors. If we are 

laggards instead of leaders in the fight against global warming, we 

will miss out on the greatest economic opportunity of our time. 

Three point six million Americans have lost their jobs since the beginning of the current recession and climate legislation offers them 

new hope. 

In less than 300 days, the attention of the world will turn to Copenhagen, site of the negotiations that we hope will produce a plan 

forward for the global community to address climate change. The 

House of Representatives is now taking its first steps down the 

path towards a responsible policy on climate. As we put our domestic house in order, we can return the United States to its rightful 

place of leadership in solving the most pressing problems facing the 

world. 

That completes the opening statement of the Chair. 

Mr. MARKEY. We now turn and recognize the ranking member of 

the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

3 

Today’s hearing does touch on a number of important aspects of 

the climate change debate, and I have said at nearly every climate 

change hearing that for me, I don’t dispute the science. Right or 

wrong, the debate over the modeling and science appears to be 

over. We have got to get past that and look at our policy options 

and consequences of the actions that we need to take to address 

that issue. Whatever policy we deploy has to have real environmental impact, meaning a tangible change in global temperature, 

not just arbitrary reductions in CO2 emissions. I want to know if 

the United States cuts emissions and China does not, how much 

will that impact global temperatures? With the ever-increasing 

emissions of the developing world, even if the United States reduces its emissions to zero, there would be no change in global temperature. Our climate change policies must be linked to a realistic 

reduction in those temperatures. Cap-and-trade legislation that we 

have seen so far, specifically legislation that was voted down in the 

Senate last year, and legislation introduced last Congress by the 

full committee chair would create economic opportunities for China 

and India, and it would also create a national security threat, I 

think, for this country. 

There is an analysis that is going to be released in the coming 

weeks by the National Commission on Energy Policy. It should be 

noted that the head of that group was also a top energy and climate advisor to President Obama during his campaign. They found 

that many energy-intensive businesses would fall far below a financial tipping point if Congress were to pass climate legislation similar to the bill that failed in the Senate last year. These companies 

would go offshore, creating economic opportunities for China and 

India, while making the environment, not to mention our economy, 

worse. Furthermore, if we lost those key industries and their many 

jobs, I think we would be on a weaker national security footing. 

History has shown that the United States is stronger with a robust manufacturing and industrial base. The jobs and industries 

that will bear the greatest cost of climate legislation are the very 

same industries that we need to keep in America to remain a 

power on the world stage. What happens to our national security 

when we don’t manufacture much? What happens when we order 

all the steel and aluminum from China? If we take the wrong legislative path dealing with climate change, we run the real risk of 

permanently destroying our manufacturing and defense supply 

chains. I find it ironic that while the big issue of today is a stimulus package to revive our economy, we are also getting ready to 

go down a legislative path that, by all accounts, will reduce GDP, 

send jobs overseas, and make energy more expensive. Let us be 

honest. By design, that is how cap-and-trade works. 

Just last year, Members of this Congress were proposing legislation that would include residential electricity prices by 28 percent 

by the year 2015, over 40 percent by the year 2020, reduce our 

GDP in 2015 by 2.3 percent, or $402 billion, and by 2050 by a 6 

percent figure with a dollar amount a staggering $3 trillion. Michigan already is one of the hardest hit states in our weak economy. 

We would be disproportionately impacted. NAM did a detailed 

analysis of the impact on my home State of Michigan and the impact on jobs. The primary cause of job losses in Michigan would be 

4 

the lower industrial output due to higher energy prices, the high 

cost of compliance, and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs. Most energy prices would rise 

under the proposals, particularly for coal and oil and natural gas. 

If we end up with legislation that looks like anything that we saw 

last year, doing an $800 billion stimulus this week won’t be 

enough. We are going to send 3 million jobs overseas in the next 

6 years and raise nearly $2,000 per household in additional costs. 

That stimulus package isn’t going to be nearly enough to soften the 

blow. 

I do believe that we have to do work to address climate change. 

I don’t dispute the science. But our response must be to protect the 

economy. It has got to be tied to international action and it must 

have a tangible environmental benefit. Most importantly, I think 

we need to focus on all of the above. That includes conservation, 

that includes renewable resources and yes, that includes nuclear, 

which has, as we know, no emissions of CO2. That is what we need 

to do to create jobs and, I think, to have a measured impact on improving our economy and doing it in the right, smart way, and I 

yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and for holding this hearing. 

As the Energy and Commerce Committee develops legislation to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we are going to spend a considerable amount of time examining the potential costs of different approaches. We will have detailed government analysis and other assessments to project the possible effects of various proposals on 

electricity rates, gas prices, economic growth, and a host of other 

indicators, but what I hope we will not do is have an analysis of 

all of this compared to the analysis that we will hear about today 

if we do nothing. We are going to consider a different set of costs 

if we do nothing, the impact of these costs on our national security, 

public health, and the global economy. 

With global warming comes rising sea levels, severe droughts, increasingly intense storms, and more-frequent fires and the loss of 

agricultural land. These effects harm people and they impose huge 

costs on the economy. Human health will also suffer, even if we 

make significant improvements to our public health systems. For 

example, as heat waves increase in frequency and severity, more 

people will get sick, more people will die from heat-related illnesses, and as we saw with Hurricane Katrina, extreme weather 

events are harder on the sick than on the healthy and they cause 

additional health problems. With these and many other effects of 

global warming, the most vulnerable among us will be the hardest 

hit and this alone is a reason to act. 

But when military experts examine global warming, they see additional costs that also demand action. In 2007, a board of 11 reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:20 Jun 27, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-3 CHRIS
5 

tired admirals and general reviewed the risks from climate change 

around the globe. Some of these retired military officials had not 

viewed climate change as a threat prior to this review, but based 

on their review, the entire board came to this conclusion: Climate 

change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the 

most volatile regions of the world. They warned of large populations moving in search of resources and weakened and failing 

governments, which would foster conditions for internal conflicts, 

extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and 

radical ideologies. Retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, put it this way: ‘‘We 

will pay for climate change one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today or we will pay the price later 

in military terms, and that will involve human lives. There will be 

a human toll. There is no way out of this that does not have real 

costs attached to it. That has to hit home.’’ 

I look forward to exploring these issues further with today’s witnesses. I also look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and 

all the members of our committee as we develop legislation over 

the coming months. Doing nothing is not an option that anybody 

should look at without feeling a sense of alarm. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 2 minutes, Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In light of the dire warnings that you have outlined, you know, 

I really think what we need to do is innovate rather than regulate 

our way out of this energy dilemma. At a time when we are trying 

to stimulate our economy and avoid entering what we think is a 

prolonged recession, possibly a depression, there is all this talk 

about, Mr. Chairman, you bringing an energy bill here before Memorial Day, and I assume this energy bill would be patterned after 

the Lieberman-Warner bill, which would include cap-and-trade and 

a lot of the other highly regulatory measures. So I want us to be 

careful here in light of the economy that we don’t want to destroy 

American jobs. 

As pointed out by the ranking member from Michigan, China has 

already surpassed the United States as the leading greenhouse gas 

emitter and India is not far behind. With equivalent efforts to limit 

these gases among China and India alone, the United States 

stands to lose many hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries, which will profit from unilateral action taken by the United 

States. If we simply go ahead and do this without a cooperative effort with India and China, we will be hurting our workers today. 

Now, according to one leading think tank, if legislation similar 

to the Lieberman-Warner bill is enacted, they are talking about annual job losses that would exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could 

approach 1 million jobs lost. In my home State of Florida alone, we 

are projected to lose about 300,000 jobs by the year 2030 if this 

similar type of Lieberman-Warner bill is passed before this committee. 

6 

Aside from losing these very desperately needed jobs to other 

countries, American families obviously would suffer under a capand-trade system. Now, the Charles River Associates International, 

its headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts, the chairman’s hometown, stated that if we implemented that type of bill, the number 

of people that would go on unemployment would increase, subsequently into some type of welfare, and they project losses of $4 to 

$6 trillion, so I think we have to be cautious, Mr. Chairman, and 

I need to again say we need to innovate rather than regulate. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the chairman emeritus of the committee, the gentleman from 

Michigan, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and 

I thank you for holding this hearing today. 

As I said at the last climate change hearing held by the full committee, global climate change is the most serious environmental 

issue confronting this Nation. What we will hear today and what 

we heard in the subcommittee hearing last summer, however, is 

that this issue is not just an environmental matter. Instead, it 

poses a major threat to our national security and to the public 

health as well. 

We often hear about the costs of addressing climate change, and 

to be very clear, there will be significant monetary costs. Anybody 

who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. But we must also make 

it clear that there is great cost to inaction. That we understand 

both the cost of action and the cost of inaction is of the utmost importance in designing fair and balanced climate change legislation. 

Now, I will not pretend that this is going to be an easy task nor 

can I assure you that it will not be. To start with, putting a dollar 

value on inflation is difficult. How do you value the effect of the 

storms that might happen or the value of potential species extinction? This is not easy to say as to how we should act. On the contrary, the scientific evidence is in and it is clear: We have no choice 

but to act. That is why I, along with Representative Boucher, released a draft last year of a bill to address climate change. It was 

an interesting piece of work, and interestingly enough, it embodied 

provisions which were supported by all parts of those involved in 

the controversy by the environmentalists and by business and industry, and it was a document which I think would be fairly easy 

for everyone to come to some kind of agreement on. 

Our witnesses today will tell us that our failure to act could put 

the planet and the country at risk or even risk of graver and greater consequences. Today’s hearing will help us to understand potential security and the costs of those consequences. I hope as we go 

about the consideration of these questions we will take a look at 

the draft that Mr. Boucher and I released last year and that this 

will be one of the documents which we will consider as we go about 

the business of drafting legislation on this very important question. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

7 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and we 

appreciate this hearing today. 

Kevin Trenberth, who was one of the lead authors of the United 

Nations’ 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated 

in a blog that he has on Nature’s journal that in fact there are no 

predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

and there never have been. The science is not done because we do 

not have reliable or reasonable predictions of climate. And so when 

we talk about the cost of not acting, I think it is particularly speculative. But when we talk about the cost of acting, there certainly 

is more reliable evidence of exactly the cost of acting, particularly 

when you are talking about implementing a cap-and-trade system. 

We can easily go to Europe and determine the cost of acting in Europe. We know that emissions have actually increased since the 

cap-and-trade system was implemented in Europe. We also know 

that there have been significant job losses, and we also know that 

using a model based on the Lieberman-Warner bill, as my friend 

from Florida stated, the prediction is that throughout the United 

States by the year 2030 there would be 1 million people without 

jobs, primarily because the job loss would be caused by lower industrial output because of higher energy costs. And when you have 

countries like China, India and others that are relying more and 

more on coal production because of the low cost of coal, America is 

going to become even less competitive. 

And so as we talk today about impact on national security, the 

economy, and public health, I hope that we have some very strong 

scientific and economic evidence of the cost of inaction. I don’t have 

any time left. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start my remarks by thanking you for having this important hearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, at a time when our Nation is facing the worst 

economic crisis in generations, hearings like this one are very important. We must fully understand not only the cost we incur as 

we attempt to stimulate our economy today but what costs our Nation will face if we do not use this opportunity to address climate 

change as we rebuild our economy. 

As I have said before, the question of whether climate change is 

happening and if the actions of mankind are having an effect on 

its progression is over. While there are a few scientists out there 

that still cast doubt, it can be said that the overwhelming opinion 

in the scientific community is that this crisis is very real, mankind 

is in part responsible, and there are actions we can take now to 

8 

slow and reverse this very dangerous trend. However, this hearing 

is not about if climate change is real, this hearing is about the cost 

of action and the cost of inaction. 

As many of our witnesses will also testify to, I believe that doing 

nothing is no longer an option as there are very real costs that will 

happen if the United States continues to lag behind other nations 

as they move forward to address this truly global problem. President Obama stated earlier this week that the country that figures 

out how to make cheaper energy that is also clean will win the economic competition in the future. Regardless of how any member of 

this committee feels regarding the science of global warming, I 

would hope that every member here would agree with the President’s statement. I don’t care if you are joining the climate discussion because you feel there is a profound environmental threat or 

if you are joining the climate discussion because you see economic 

advantages for the United States, it is critical that we all work to 

ensure that we position our nation to be the world’s leader in the 

production of cheap and clean energy. 

Like the dot-com boom of the 1990s, the energy revolution will 

provide jobs, the trade, and economic growth that our citizens deeply desire. It is critical that this committee act this year and put our 

Nation back on a path for the production, distribution, and sale of 

not only cheap energy, but all the technology that will be required 

to produce it. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ryan, just put this up. 

[Slide shown.] 

This is a Peabody Mine #10 in Kincaid, Illinois, prior to the 

Clean Air Act. It was an efficient operation with a power plant just 

across the street. These are the workers who were employed at this 

mine. They are the faces of the middle class. They are the faces of 

the United Mine Workers. They are the faces of the unemployed. 

I attended a rally at the Christian County Fairgrounds, which attacked the company for their closure of this mine. The real culprit 

was legislation passed by this government in the Clean Air Act. I 

will fight to keep this from happening to my mineworkers again, 

and I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I will waive. 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 

Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. I will waive. 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Butterfield. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing, and thank you for your leadership, not only on 

this committee, but on this very issue that we are talking about. 

9 

You have been talking about it for so long, long before I came to 

this Congress, and I just thank you so much. 

As with most disasters, Mr. Chairman, the effects of climate 

change will be most significantly experienced by low-income people 

both in our country and abroad. Any climate effect that strains essential resources, such as water, food, and shelter is multiplied on 

poor people who already live on tight margins. For this and other 

reasons, the cost of inaction on climate change rises exponentially 

for the poor of this country, as well as those living in developing 

regions around the world. James Lyons testified before the subcommittee last year that people living in developing countries are 

20 times more likely to be affected by climate change disasters. 

Drought, disease, and severe weather events are typically exacerbated in these developing areas, as compared to more-developed regions. 

The consequences of domestic climate change for the poor could 

include chronic illnesses and the loss of property, yes, the loss of 

property and livelihood. As temperatures rise, air quality drops and 

asthma cases rise. Numerous studies have shown a clear link between poverty and increased susceptibility to asthma, and people 

of color are three times likelier to suffer from asthma-related conditions. Much of my district in North Carolina includes low-lying and 

coastal lands. A recent University of Maryland study projected an 

18-inch rise in sea level by 2080, which would cause over $2.8 billion in property losses in just four of my counties. Bertie County, 

one of my poorest counties, would lose an estimated $9 million in 

property. That does not sound like a lot to my friends from urban 

areas but it is indeed in a rural area. Inaction would affect their 

homes, their businesses, and the lives that they have built with 

their families.We must act in this Congress, but as we push forward in developing policy that would set scientifically-based targets 

for greenhouse gas reductions, we must be sure to remember the 

needs of low-income people both here in this country and around 

the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the effects of sweeping climate change legislation. 

I certainly look forward to hearing the testimony from our panel 

today. 

I would note that for thousands of years, climate and temperature cycles of the Earth have been in effect, and this Congress 

must not hastily pass sweeping climate change legislation without 

regard to its negative economic impact. At a time when our economy is struggling and when we must make bold efforts to become 

energy independent for national security and other reasons, it is 

our job to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of each proposal 

we will face before this subcommittee. I remain concerned that we 

have focused too little on the effect of sweeping climate change and 

10 

what it would have on our economy as well as the historical record 

throughout our history. 

As Congress considers radical policy changes here in Washington, we are already seeing some of the negative effects take 

place by decisions that private firms are making today. There is a 

major steel manufacturing plant in this country that is currently 

making a decision between building a $2 billion plant. Right now 

their choices are between Louisiana, near my district, or Brazil. 

What they have said, according to the CEO of the company, imminent U.S. policy changes dealing with climate change are negatively affecting their decision to build a major plant here in the 

United States, which would create 700 good jobs. Those are 700 

jobs that because of the decisions that are being discussed here, if 

we make negative policy changes that are radical, they would run 

those 700 jobs out of this country and send them to Brazil. 

Becoming more energy efficient is a good thing, but I urge caution in proceeding in a radical fashion that could produce dire consequences to our economy without yielding any benefits to our environment. 

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from our panel. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to you 

and also to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for 

your work on the stimulus package that we will vote on tomorrow. 

There are sections in it on health and energy that are absolutely 

critical and that obviously owe a lot to the work of this committee. 

I just want to say as a Californian how much I appreciate the effort 

to increase the share of FMAP payments that will go to counties 

and cities. 

Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase our new President, leaders must be 

able to do more than one thing at a time. That means fixing the 

economy and beginning to solve, perhaps, the most pressing public 

policy challenge of this generation, global climate change. I recognize, and we have just heard it, and that there are a few on this 

committee who still doubt the science of climate change and its implications, but I am not one of them. The climate is changing more 

radically and more quickly than we once believed and the consequences of inaction will be catastrophic. 

I want to acknowledge the work of some of the witnesses before 

us. A few years back, Jim Woolsey helped to arrange a simulation 

in my congressional district called Oil Shock Wave. I think he 

played the President, and I was Secretary of Defense and former 

California Governor Pete Wilson was Secretary of State, and whatever firepower we brought to that, we couldn’t solve the implications of shockingly high oil prices on the U.S. economy, and we 

have actually now a few months back seen what happens with 

that. So I want to thank him for his work on that, and as you will 

hear in a minute, his work on the implications on the electric grid 

and other things of some of these issues. 

11 

And as for General Sullivan, you will remember that we had a 

big fight in Congress adding a section to the intelligence authorization bill a few years ago to require a national intelligence estimate 

on the effects of climate change on our national security. Many people laughed about that. Well, I don’t think it is a laughing matter, 

and I think we have learned that famine and drought produce the 

perfect conditions for recruiting terrorists, and I worry about that 

a lot. 

So let me just close by saying if we worry about jobs, let us get 

this right and build the jobs of the future and keep America secure. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman 

from Texas, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to finally engage in the debate. Global warming or climate change is certainly 

an issue that we have walked around the edges of in this Congress 

for the last several sessions, and I think it is an important issue 

and I think it is good to have these witnesses and the ones that 

are going to appear after them to begin the information-gathering 

process. 

I am, I don’t think it is a surprise, a skeptic that mankind is 

causing the climate to change. I do agree that the climate is changing. That is self-evident. I just have a problem because I am a registered professional engineer. When I look at all the evidence of the 

past climate change cycles to see what is different about this one, 

that somehow mankind is the cause, the supposed expert IPCC 

models, unless they miraculously improved them in the past 3 to 

4 months, don’t do a very good job of even predicting the past. Half 

the time they get the degree of change and the direction wrong. 

Now, maybe they have changed some in the last 6 months and 

maybe some of these witnesses can educate me on that. 

We understand that global warming is a theory and it may even 

be a practical theory, but I am not yet ready to accept that it is 

a theology. Some of the more fervent global warming advocates do 

take it as a theology or a pseudoreligion. When you try to debate 

with them the facts of the case, they get very intensely upset. 

Global warming advocates believe that humanity’s CO2 emissions 

harm the earth by raising the global temperature, and they say 

that only draconian action led by the United States will save the 

planet. The U.S. cap-and-trade group that testified at the full committee several weeks ago supports a proposal that would cut CO2

emissions by 80 percent in the United States by the year 2050. 

Again, I can stand to be corrected ,but my understanding, if we cut 

our CO2 emissions by 80 percent, we are back to levels that we last 

experienced in the United States around World War I, when we 

had about 120 million people in this country and over half of those 

lived on farms, and the per capita income was in the hundreds of 

dollars per person instead of the tens of thousand of dollars per 

person that it is today. 

12 

If we do what the advocates say we should do, the econometric 

models, which I believe are more accurate, almost guarantee a 2 

to 3 percent GDP negative growth, in other words, a contraction of 

GDP on an annual basis. You want to talk about launching another 

Great Depression; let us do some of the things that require that 

kind of a contraction. 

Instead of heading back to the Bronze Age, I think we should 

look to the future for solutions. I think it is possible on a bipartisan 

basis to do things that actually further the science, further the research into carbon capture and conversion, accelerate the use of existing technologies like nuclear power, some of the alternative energy sources that we know are zero emissions, wind power, new hydropower, things like that. We can have a bipartisan solution, a bipartisan proposal on those kinds of things. 

No poor country values its environment more than it values its 

people’s ability to make a living. One of the problems we are going 

to have, it is one thing to ask an industrialized society to do with 

a little bit less, but it is another thing entirely to ask an evolving 

society to not do at all. If you go to some of the countries in Africa 

and Asia, some of the former European Soviet Union satellites in 

eastern Europe and ask them to just not have what we have taken 

for granted in this country for the last 50 years, I think we are 

going to get a rude awakening. They are just not going to do it. If 

the choice is wash your clothes in the ditch or put electricity that 

is generated by a coal-fired power plant so that you can actually 

buy a washing machine, most people are going to build a coal-fired 

power plant. 

So again, that is why we need to do things like Mr. Boucher’s bill 

on CO2 research for conversion and capture and do some of the 

things that I have already alluded to. 

I see that my time is about to—in fact, it has expired, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you giving me that notice. Suffice it to say that 

I am very involved in this debate. I appreciate the process where 

we do the hearings before we move a bill. That is somewhat unique 

in this Congress, and I appreciate you doing that. I look forward 

to the debate. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s hearing. I applaud your leadership and vision on this critical and pressing issue. I look forward to working with you and with all the 

members on the committee to craft responsible solutions to the 

problem of climate change. I would also like to thank today’s panelists for sharing their expertise with us. 

Climate change is a problem that demands action and demands 

action now. My hometown of Sacramento is a perfect illustration of 

why we need to solve climate change as soon as possible. In Sacramento we live at the confluence of two great rivers. We also live 

at the foot of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range. We have learned 

to manage the winter rains that test our levies and we learned to 

13 

manage the spring snowmelt that flows down from the Sierras each 

year. But global warming threatens to upset this finely-tuned balance. This year we are having a major drought. In recent years, extreme amounts of rain have strained our infrastructure. Behind 

these changing climatic patterns is a constant threat of flooding. 

Protecting my hometown from flooding is my top priority. This 

makes addressing climate change that much more urgent for me. 

Nearly half a million people, 110,000 structures, the capital of the 

State of California and up to $58 billion are at risk from flooding 

in Sacramento. 

Unless we take action now, our way of life in Sacramento and 

California and across the country will be changed forever. I look 

forward to hearing from each of today’s witness of how we can advance solutions to global warming that keep people safe and help 

us avoid disaster here at home. 

Thank you again for your leadership on this issue, Mr. Chairman, and with that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding the hearing today titled ‘‘The Climate Crisis: National Security, 

Public Health, and Economic Threats.’’ In fact, the title kind of 

evokes what columnist George Will spoke about last Sunday: The 

only thing we have to fear is insufficiency of fear. 

If I were to list the top 100 national security threats facing our 

country today and rank them from one to 100, I would be hard 

pressed to put climate change in the top tier, the top 50, or perhaps 

even in the top 75. Now, there may be a national security threat 

but so are birds flying about the Hudson River. Scaring people into 

feeling better about paying more for their energy consumption 

under the guise of potential greater national security is a hard sell. 

People in my district know that as a Nation we have got greater 

domestic security concerns and, especially now, greater economic 

concerns to address before we try to tackle the weather and beach 

erosion. 

We simply do not know the future or what technology may exist 

in the future but we do know that the technology that we will need 

to dramatically change the way we deliver and consume energy will 

require a strong and growing economy. Strong and growing economies have obligations to protect their national security. I would 

also argue that the needs of challenged societies do not hinge on 

the exploitation of natural resources, but rather on the lack of affordable resources, given the needs of their people. Strong and 

growing economies have the financial resources to provide additional aid to people in need. Strong and growing economies can protect themselves more easily and adapt to changes and mitigate the 

effects of natural disasters. Let us ensure that our ability and the 

ability of developing economies to prosper are not put at future risk 

by the way we choose to address the issue of human contributions 

to what we now know as climate change. 

14 

I thank you for the consideration, Mr. Chairman. I will yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, for an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to make two points. First, in response to Mr. Barton’s entreaty that we follow science rather than theology, I think 

all of us have to be willing to accept new science, and I want to 

say that I have been wrong on this issue of global warming now 

for several years. I have been advocating action for this and I have 

been wrong. I based my earlier positions on this climate change report of 2007, the physical science basis consensus product of a couple thousand of the world’s best scientists including, I believe Nobel 

Prize winner Dr. Chu, the film, ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth’’ and a lot 

of other things I have read. All of those things were wrong. They 

grossly understated the threat that we are facing today. Because 

during the last 12 months we have had an avalanche of information scientifically to indicate our previous projections grossly understated the pace and depth and scope of this threat. 

While we previously thought the Arctic would be around in 50 

years, it is gone now virtually in the summer. While we previously 

said that glaciers in Glacier National Park would be around in decades, they are essentially going much more rapidly. While we previously thought ocean acidification would take 70 years to make it 

impossible for coral reefs to exist, they are now rapidly approaching 

that level right now off the coast of the State of Washington. 

This is a much deeper problem than we thought it was 12 

months ago and that is why it demands urgent action, and it demands action tomorrow, when we vote on the economic recovery 

bill, which is the largest investment in innovation, creativity, and 

job creation in green-collar jobs in American history, $90 billion to 

do exactly what my Republican friends say they believe in, which 

is innovation, and I entreat them to vote for the largest investment 

in innovation at A123 Battery Company with lithium ion batteries, 

at the Ostra solar-concentrated solar thermal plant, at Magna 

Drive in Bellevue, Washington, at Detroit’s GM, where we want to 

make electric cars. I hope they will vote with us tomorrow to innovate our way out of this problem. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

I believe that it is of the utmost importance to protect our environment and our atmosphere. However, we need to ensure that our solutions don’t create new problems. The massive federal regulations 

that will ensue from an overarching broad climate change piece of 

legislation could dramatically hurt national security and our econVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:20 Jun 27, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-3 CHRIS
15 

omy. The U.S. military is the country’s largest consumer of oil, and 

90 percent of the Federal Government energy cost comes from the 

military. The military has acknowledged the need to decrease their 

dependency on oil and they have taken proactive steps towards this 

by turning to hybrid electric engines, nuclear-powered ships, alternative fuels, and geothermal, wind, and solar energy. 

According to a Heritage Foundation analysis, the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions from numerous types of engines, 

including those installed in military tanks, trucks, helicopters, 

ships, and aircraft. Therefore, it is imperative that greenhouse gas 

emissions regulations must not hamper our Nation’s ability to train 

and equip our troops by placing restrictions on our military that 

will be overly cumbersome. 

In a time of serious economic downturn, we should be careful 

about advocating a regulatory policy that will raise the cost of energy and further burden businesses and consumers. Instead, we 

need to make sure our economy is vibrant, and we can do this by 

ensuring there is enough investment capital to advance alternative 

and energy-efficient technologies. I urge the committee to consider 

potential negative effects that overly stringent climate change legislation may have on our Nation’s armed forces and the economy. 

Now is not the time to debilitate the economy or the military’s ability to prepare for and engage in conflicts around the globe. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. I look forward 

to hearing the testimony of our witnesses, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Everyone here understands the serious threat that global climate 

change represents to the world. The fourth assessment report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, predicted 

serious risks and damages to species, ecosystems, and human infrastructure if action is not taken to reduce emissions. 

I want to focus on the public health issues related to global 

warming. First, let me be clear, global warming has very real and 

devastating effects on public health. According to the IPCC, climate 

change contributes to the global burden of disease, premature 

death, and other adverse health impacts. Furthermore, the World 

Health Organization has stated that climate change is a significant 

and emerging threat to public health. The Organization estimates 

that changes in earth’s climate may have caused at least 5 million 

cases of illness and more than 150,000 deaths in the year 2000. 

As a member from New Jersey, air quality issues are a particular 

concern for me. The EPA designates New Jersey as a nonattainment area, meaning New Jersey has ozone levels higher than allowed under the EPA’s 8-Hour Ozone National Air Quality Standard. These higher concentrations of ground ozone cause serious 

consequences for people with cardiorespiratory problems. Reducing 

global warming pollution will substantially reduce particulate matVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:20 Jun 27, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-3 CHRIS
16 

ter, which would significantly benefit people living in nonattainment areas. 

The goal of this hearing is to determine how best to manage the 

effects of global warming and how to craft an aggressive policy to 

lower greenhouse gas emissions. Through Chairman Markey’s leadership in the Select Committee on Global Warming, we know we 

need aggressive action. Congress must pass legislation that will set 

the necessary short- and long-term emission targets that are certain and enforceable. We can’t afford to wait another year to act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you. I will waive an opening. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman waives. The chair recognizes the 

gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We know that climate change comes with a very large price tag, 

and the costs are not just measured in dollars. Our emissions have 

put our environment, social structure, and national security at risk, 

and if we fail to act comprehensively, the impacts will be felt 

through the loss of human life, health, species extinction, and loss 

of ecosystems and social conflict. 

As Members of Congress, especially as Members of the people’s 

House, we are generally prone to crafting and passing legislation 

that provides immediate or near-term relief to our constituents just 

as we are doing with the recovery package this week. However, it 

is a seeming challenge for us to enact consequential legislation that 

may raise costs in the near term with benefits that aren’t reaped 

for perhaps a generation, maybe more than a generation to come, 

legislation that will have benefits that some of us won’t even live 

to see. Yet this is exactly the predicament that we now find ourselves in. Do we make the investment now to avoid the worst impacts of climate change? According to Lord Nicholas Stern, who 

this subcommittee heard from less than a year ago, the cost of acting today is about 1 percent of global GDP each year. However, if 

we wait and leave this issue to a future generation and watch the 

costs and risks rise, the cost of inaction rises up to 20 percent of 

global GDP each year. I am of the opinion that the risks are too 

great for us to fail to act in the very near term. 

I have seen firsthand the intense rain, flooding and devastation 

that people in my district and across the upper Midwest area experiencing as the result of intense rainfall last year. We lost homes, 

businesses, and farmland, not to mention millions of dollars in lost 

productivity. I can only hope that we will do everything in our 

power to ensure that these 100-year events do not become the norm 

in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, the scientific community has come together on 

this issue. It is high time that we do. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

17 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this 

hearing. 

For decades the issue of climate change has focused on a debate 

about science, but today I think that question is closed. Overwhelming scientific research shows that global warming is real, it 

is urgent, and it requires our immediate action. Last month we 

heard testimony from our country’s largest corporations, and it 

really goes to the heart of what some of my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle have been saying. We have to focus on economic 

consequences. The universal testimony, undivided, united opinion 

was that the cost of inaction would be dire to the economy, and 

today we will hear further that addressing climate change is critical for maintaining national security and protecting public health. 

Addressing the challenge presents us with an opportunity, and 

that is really where we have to decide whether we are going to face 

this confidently the way America does when it is successful or defensively. Addressing this challenge is critical to all of us. We know 

it in Vermont. Even as a small State, we have realized that we can 

and must make a contribution to a sustainable future, and in fact, 

we are seeing that some of our best jobs are created by companies 

that are engaging in this battle directly and energetically. The test 

of leadership for this Congress is to face directly the realities that 

are difficult, and as my colleague from Wisconsin said, delay is 

going to cost us more, not less. We must tackle this challenge 

squarely and directly as the confident Nation that we are. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this very important hearing this morning. 

Climate change is real. We all know the science is no longer a 

debate. It is one of the greatest environmental, economic, and 

international security threats of our time. To protect our Nation 

and our environment, we must decrease our consumption of oil and 

increase our ability to produce clean biofuels here at home. We 

made progress toward these goals last Congress by enacting the 

Energy Independence and Security Act. That legislation made 

groundbreaking steps to increase CAFE standards for our vehicles, 

strengthen energy efficiency for a wide range of products, and promote the use of more-affordable American biofuels. I am continuing 

to work to advance those goals with my Open Fuel Standards Act, 

which would require that 50 percent of new cars sold in the United 

States by 2012 are flex fuel and 80 percent by 2015, meaning that 

they are able to run on any combination of ethanol, methanol, or 

gasoline. 

18 

But it is not just the transportation sector that contributes to climate change. It is much bigger than that, and that is why we are 

gathered here today. We must implement a cap on carbon emissions. We must work together as scientist, entrepreneurs, and 

Americans, simply Americans, to deploy the next generation of energy that will allow us to build the next generation’s economy. 

I look forward to today’s hearing, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had the privilege of serving on your Select Committee on Global Warming, and 

I have seen some very incredible testimony, some stunning testimony including some from the witnesses that are in front of us 

today. I want to thank the witnesses for your hard work, for coming over here today, for facing this panel. I have been in business. 

I have seen some incredible technology out there. I know we can 

do this, and, you know, we have heard plenty about the choice between the economy and moving forward in reducing our electronics, 

that this is our going to hurt our economy. That is a false choice. 

We have the technology, we have the wherewithal in the United 

States of America to do this, and it is going to create jobs, and it 

is going to make us have a strong economy. 

I look forward to working with members of this committee and 

hearing your testimony and we will end this dependence on oil and 

we will create a great green economy. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

I very much look forward to our esteemed witnesses’ testimony. 

The climate crisis is upon us. The earth is warming and the 

threat is real. Our economy, our national security and the public’s 

health and well-being are all at risk. Global warming will obviously 

affect our economy. According to the well-respected Stern Review, 

every dollar we spend to reduce greenhouse gases now will save us 

$5 later. Already the rising sea level has left residents of a small 

village in northwest Alaska unable to fish, unable to build safe 

homes, and that is just one example. 

In my home State of California, a study by the economists from 

the University of California Berkley found that $2.5 trillion worth 

of real estate assets are vulnerable to flooding and sea rise. In addition, $500 billion of transportation facilities are at risk as a result of rising sea levels, including five major California airports 

that sit on the coast. One of these airports is the Santa Barbara 

Airport that I fly in and out of each week. 

The climate crisis also threatens our national security. Policy analysts have issued several reports finding that a failure to act will 

19 

have dire consequences triggering humanitarian disasters and political instability in what are already some of our most fragile regions such as Africa and the Middle East. 

Finally, as a public health nurse, as the grandmother of a child 

with asthma, I am gravely concerned about the effect of global 

warming on the public’s health. For example, rising temperatures 

increase ozone smog, which worsens the condition of people suffering from respiratory diseases like asthma. Increased levels of 

carbon dioxide may prolong the pollen season, intensifying the suffering of the 36 million American plagued with seasonal allergies. 

Increased temperatures have also caused extreme heat waves with 

tragic consequences. In July 2006, an extreme heat wave in California caused at least 140 deaths. Our sources of clean drinking 

water are also at risk, especially again in California. Many of my 

constituents rely on the Colorado River for a portion of their drinking water. The river faces long-term drought due to global warming 

and it is estimated that it would take 15 to 20 years of normal 

rainfall to refill the river’s main reservoirs. 

We need to address this situation. I am thankful that this process is beginning today. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. All opening 

statements by members of the subcommittee have been completed. 

I note that a member of the full committee, Ms. Christensen from 

the Virgin Islands, is here, and if you would like by unanimous 

consent, is there a 1-minute statement you would like to make at 

this time? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and thank you for allowing me to sit in on the hearing, and 

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, 

Ms. Capps from California, but I also wanted to point out that 

while climate change is an important issue for everyone everywhere, it is especially critical to the Caribbean, where my district 

sits, and despite the fact that we contribute relatively little to 

greenhouse gases, we are likely to face the severest of impacts, and 

also the reports have shown that the cost of inaction for us is 

unsustainable; so I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady, and we thank her for visiting with us today. 

That completes all opening statements. We will now turn to our 

very distinguished panel, and I will begin by recognizing our first 

witness, who is Dr. Daniel Schrag. He is the Director of the Center 

for the Environment and the director of the Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography at Harvard University. He is a former 

member of the board of reviewing editors for Science magazine, and 

a MacArthur fellow, a winner of that genius award. We look forward to your testimony, Dr. Schrag. Whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

20 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL SCHRAG, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER 

FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, DIRECTOR OF THE LABORATORY 

FOR GEOCHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SCHRAG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As an earth scientist 

who studies how the climate has changed in the past, I believe the 

geologic data suggests that most scientific assessments of global 

warming err on the conservative side. This has led to a misunderstanding of the risk of adverse impacts of climate change. I will 

give a few examples today. 

[Slide shown.] 

To quickly remind the committee, and if you could click once on 

the slide, humans are changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the 

atmosphere, mostly from burning coal, oil, and gas. The current 

level, more than 380 parts per million, is higher than it has been 

for at least the last 650,000 years and perhaps for tens of millions 

of years. By the middle of this century, we will be at 500 parts per 

million. The issue before us is not whether we will get to 500, but 

whether we stop at 500 or go to 1,000. It is an uncontrolled experiment filled with uncertainty, and just like uncertainty in financial 

markets, it is a reason for grave concern. 

Observations and models tell us that climate change in this century may be dramatic, perhaps even catastrophic. We tend to focus 

on the more extreme and more adverse consequences, not because 

we are aware of any beneficial outcomes, but simply because global 

warming is like an insurance problem. We need to understand the 

probability of the most undesirable outcomes to best gauge what 

steps to take to avoid them. I will give two examples of how conservative the scientific community can be. Next slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

First, consider the sea ice distribution in the Arctic in September 

of 2007. Previous studies, including the IPCC, predicted that the 

Arctic icecap might disappear in the summer toward the end of the 

century, certainly no earlier than 2050. Then in 2007, there was a 

20 percent decline in aerial extent of sea ice below the previous 

record, which was 2005. New studies now predict that the Arctic 

may be ice-free as soon as the middle of the next decade, a milestone that will drastically change the Arctic climate, will change 

world commerce, and will enhance the melting of land ice on 

Greenland because the Arctic sea ice keeps Greenland cold. 

[Slide shown.] 

A second example, next slide, is the IPCC’s discussion of future 

sea level rise. The IPCC predicts 10 to 25 inches based on different 

emission scenarios of overall sea level rise, but most of that is actually due to the thermal expansion of seawater. Only 2 inches over 

the century are attributed to melting of Greenland, even though 

Greenland ice has about 23 feet of potential sea level rise stored 

on it. The projection is an extrapolation of the current rates of 

warming, assuming that the current melting of Greenland will go 

on and stay the same throughout the century with no change, a 

highly unlikely outcome. It illustrates the basic problem. When 

pushed, the scientific community often falls back on an answer that 

can be defended with confidence, even though it may not provide 

21 

you, the policymakers, with an accurate picture of the risk involved. 

Why are scientists so conservative in their assessment of climate 

change? A major reason is that the scientific method teaches us to 

be conservative and to state things only when we know them with 

high confidence, such as 95 percent confidence interval. This is in 

striking contrast to questions of national security, as illustrated by 

the 1 percent doctrine articulated by former Vice President Cheney. 

In Cheney’s formulation, if a probability of a high-consequence 

event such as nuclear terrorist attack is only 1 percent, then we 

should treat it as an absolute certainty and act accordingly. It is 

really just an extension of the precautionary principle. But climate 

change may have just as serious implications for national security. 

Consider the advance of the timing of mountain snowmelt as the 

earth warms. 

[Slide shown.] 

In the western United States, next slide, please, this could mean 

as much as 60 to 80 days earlier snowmelt than today by the end 

of the century, and again, this could be conservative. If the river 

draining the Sierra Nevada in California, for example, were to run 

dry by mid-summer, then California agriculture would be impossible, and this is mild compared with other parts of the world. The 

great rivers that drain the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau, the 

Indus, the Ganges, the Mekong, the Yangtze, and the Yellow all depend on melting snow and ice for a large fraction of their water. 

How might the decline of the Indus, for example, affect the political 

stability of Pakistan and the support for Islamic terrorism? How 

will China and India deal with reduced water resources, and will 

it lead to more regional conflict? The risk of serious water stress, 

not just in Asia but around the world, contributing to failed states 

and major security disasters is well above a 1 percent threshold for 

serious action and illustrates how global warming poses an enormous challenge to peace and stability around the world. 

A final point I would like to make before this committee is that 

many steps to mitigate climate change will also result in an increase in our national security. Energy security is at the heart of 

many issues of security around the world including funding our enemies or the strengthening influence that Russia has over Europe, 

because of dependence on natural gas imports. Most new technologies that can reduce carbon emissions will also reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. Energy efficiency is the 

most important strategy as it will likely result in significant savings to our economy. Investments in renewable energy resources in 

appropriate locations, as well as carbon capture and storage for 

coal-fired power plants and other large stationary sources of CO2, 

will reduce our need to import greater amounts of liquid natural 

gas in the future. And our dependence on foreign oil will only be 

reduce in the long run if we can develop clean, domestic alternatives such as synthetic fuels produced from blending biomass 

and coal with carbon sequestration. Through such steps we can 

lead the rest of the world down a path toward greater prosperity, 

stability, and security. If we fail in this task, we risk threatening 

the stability of our climate, our society and our entire planet. 

Thank you. 

22 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schrag follows:] 

23 


63825.001
24 


63825.002
25 


63825.003
26 


63825.004
27 


63825.005
28 


63825.006
29 


63825.007
30 


63825.008
31 


63825.009
32 


63825.010
33 


63825.011
34 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Professor Schrag, very much. 

Our second witness is General Gordon Sullivan, who is the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Association of the United 

States Army, and a former chief of staff of the U.S. Army. He headed the Military Advisory Board for the Center for Naval Analysis 

Corporation’s report on national security and the threats of climate 

change. We are honored to have you with us, General Sullivan. 

Please proceed when you are ready to go. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL GORDON R. SULLIVAN (RET.), 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ASSOCIATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY 

General SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Two years ago I appeared before the first meeting of the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming in my capacity as the chairman of the Military Advisory Board for CNA reporting on national security and the threat of global climate 

change. The advisory board consisted of three- and four-star flag 

and general officers from all four services. Mr. Chairman, I request 

that this report be once again entered for the record. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

General SULLIVAN. Our charge was to learn as much as we could 

in a relatively short period of time about the emerging phenomenon 

of global climate change using our experience and expertise as military leaders to process our learning through a national security 

lens. In other words, we were asked, what are the national security 

implications of global climate change. 

In summary, what I reported at that time is the following. First, 

global climate change is a serious threat to our national security. 

Second, climate change will be what we call a threat multiplier. In 

many areas of the world that will be hardest hit by climate change, 

impacts are already being stressed by lack of water, lack of food 

and political and social unrest. Global climate change will only 

magnify those threats. Third, projected climate change will add to 

tensions even in stable regions of the world, and lastly, climate 

change, national security and energy dependence are a related set 

of global challenges. 

In the 2 years since I appeared before this committee, we have 

seen no evidence to contradict those findings. In fact, we have only 

seen the findings confirmed and reinforced. 

In concurrence with one of our recommendations, a National Intelligence Assessment on global climate change was conducted by 

the National Intelligence Council. The NIA remains classified but 

public accounts of the assessment suggest very strong agreement 

with our findings. Since our report, the scientific community including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has also 

continued their important work in examining climate change. What 

we have learned from their most recent work is that climate 

change is occurring at a much faster pace than the scientists previously thought it could. The Arctic is a case in point. Two years 

ago scientists were reporting as has been stated here twice already 

that the Arctic would be free from ice within about 40 years. Now 

35 

they are telling us that it will happen in a couple of years. As a 

matter of fact, the northern part of the Bering Sea is now free of 

ice. The acceleration of the changes in the Arctic is stunning. 

The trends of climatological data and concrete evidence of change 

continue to suggest the globe is changing in profound ways. I am 

not a scientist, nor are most of my colleagues on the Military Advisory Board. I would characterize us as military professionals accustomed to making decisions during times with ambiguous information with little concrete knowledge of the enemy intent. We base 

our decision on trends, experience, and judgment. We know that 

demanding 100 percent certainty during a crisis could be catastrophic and disastrous. 

And so we ask, quo vadis? Where do we go? I ask it in Latin because I believe it is a very fundamental question for the United 

States of America. Where we go will be a reflection of how we feel 

about the world in which we live. I feel right now we are drifting— 

excuse the metaphor—in uncharted waters. This is not the time to 

wait for 100 percent certainty. The trends are not good. 

What can guide us in choosing our path is up to you. I believe 

there is a relationship between energy dependence, climate change, 

economic revitalization, and our national security. These are deeply 

related issues. When we consider investments in one, we must consider the impact on the whole. 

My personal view is that the United States of America is obliged 

to play a leadership role in this area. Leadership by the United 

States will be key. The best opportunity for us to demonstrate our 

global leadership on this issue is in Copenhagen, and I do believe 

we must take bold and swift steps even here at home to gain the 

credibility necessary to participate in those discussions with credibility. 

We must show leadership in developing energy alternatives that 

reduce our need for fossil fuels. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Gen. Sullivan follows:] 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL GORDON R. SULLIVAN, USA (RET.) 

Chairman Markey, members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to 

offer my testimony today. My last duty position was as Army Chief of Staff. I retired 

from active service in 1995 and am now the President of the Association of the 

United States Army. 

Two years ago, I appeared at the first meeting of the Select Committee on Energy 

Independence and Global Warming in my capacity as Chairman of the Military Advisory Board to the CNA report on ‘‘National Security and the Threat of Climate 

Change.’’ The Military Advisory Board consisted of 3- and 4- star flag and general 

officers from all four Services. Mr. Chairman, I request that this report be entered 

for the record. 

Our charge was to learn as much as we could in a relatively short period about 

the emerging phenomenon of global climate change using our experience as military 

leaders to process our learning through a National Security lens. In other words, 

what are the national security implications of climate change? 

In summary, what I reported then was that: 

•First, climate change is a serious threat to our national security. 

• Second, climate change will be what we called a ‘‘threat multiplier’’. Many areas 

of the world that will be the hardest hit by climate change impacts are already 

being stressed by lack of water, lack of food, and political and social unrest. Adding 

climate change to this mix will only serve to exacerbate the existing instabilities. 

•Third, projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the 

world. 

36 

• And fourth, that climate change, national security and energy dependence are 

a related set of global challenges. 

In the 2 years since I appeared before the Committee, we’ve seen no evidence to 

contradict those findings. In fact, we’ve only seen them reinforced. 

In concurrence with one of our recommendations, a National Intelligence Assessment on global climate change was conducted by the National Intelligence Council. 

The NIA remains classified, but public accounts of the assessment suggest very 

strong agreement with our findings. 

Since our report, the scientific community, including the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change, has also continued their important work in examining climate 

change. What we have learned from their most recent work is that climate change 

is occurring at a much faster pace than the scientists previously thought it could. 

The Arctic is a case-in-point. Two years ago, scientists were reporting that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2040. Now, the scientists are telling us that it could happen 

within just a few years. The acceleration of the changes in the Arctic is stunning. 

The trends of climatological data and concrete evidence of change continue to suggest the globe is changing in profound ways. I am not a scientist, nor are most of 

my colleagues on the Military Advisory Board. I would categorize us as military professionals accustomed to making decisions during times of uncertainty. We were 

trained to make decisions in situations defined by ambiguous information and little 

concrete knowledge of the enemy intent. We based our decisions on trends, experience, and judgment. We know that demanding 100% certainty during a crisis could 

be disastrous. 

And so we ask: Quo vadis? Where do we go? I ask it in Latin because I mean 

to imply that it’s a fundamental question. Where we go will be a reflection of our 

values. Right now, we are drifting off into uncharted waters. This is not the time 

to either wait for 100% certainty or simply hope our environment is not changing. 

What can guide us in choosing our path is an understanding of the interrelated 

nature of these issues. Energy dependence. Climate change. Economic Revitalization. National Security. These are deeply related issues. As we consider investments 

in one, we must consider their impact on the whole. 

My personal view is that the US is obliged to play a leadership role: Leadership 

by the US is key. The best opportunity for the US to demonstrate our global leadership is in Copenhagen, but I do believe we must take bold and swift steps here at 

home if we’re to have the credibility necessary to lead in those important negotiations. 

We must also show leadership on developing energy alternatives that reduce our 

reliance on fossil fuels from unstable regions of the world, reduce our energy consumption, and improve our nation’s energy posture. That is the subject of the Military Advisory Board’s next report on energy security and America’s defense. I am 

hopeful that this report, which we will release soon, will make an important contribution to the national effort to retool America by advancing low carbon energy 

solutions that improve our nation’s energy and national security posture. 

I’ll close with another reminder of something I said two years ago. I reflected on 

decades of service - working along side many great public servants who worked hard 

and risked their lives to protect our country. And I had begun to see that our country is now being threatened by a different kind of enemy. I’m here today as a retired 

military leader, making a case for you to consider climate change and energy dependence as national security threats. But I don’t want to skate past this last point. 

What this country looks like, what it feels like to live here, will also be changed. 

Tapping sugar maples in New England winters. Fishing off the Cape. Those were 

images I held close when stationed overseas. Those images were important to a solider. I hope they’re important to Members of Congress. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank you, General. 

Our next witness is Mr. James Woolsey. Mr. Woolsey is a venture partner with VantagePoint Venture Partners in San Bruno, 

California, and serves on the National Commission on Energy Policy. He is also a senior executive advisor for Booz Allen Hamilton. 

He has served presidential appointments in both Democrat and Republican administrations, most recently as Director of the Central 

Intelligence Agency. Thank you, Mr. Woolsey, for being with us 

here today. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

37 

STATEMENT OF R. JAMES WOOLSEY, VENTURE PARTNER, 

VANTAGEPOINT VENTURE PARTNERS, FORMER DIRECTOR, 

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be 

with you. 

The subject of the hearing suggests that energy in the current 

environment needs to be secure, needs to be clean, and needs to be 

affordable, and in moving in that direction, we have to keep in 

mind, I think, two different types of threats to our security. One 

is what a colleague of mine calls malevolent as distinguished from 

malignant. A malevolent threat is one that someone plans, and 

with respect to our energy infrastructure, probably the two most 

dangerous are dependence on oil from the Middle East and the results of four funding both sides of the War on Terror and on and 

on, a set of issues I don’t need to go into detail with this committee. 

But the electricity grid is another extraordinarily vulnerable part 

of our system. A National Academy of Sciences study of 2002, 

which I participated in, said simultaneous attacks on a few critical 

components of the grid could result in a widespread and extended 

blackout. Conceivably, they could also cause the grid to collapse 

with cascading failure in equipment far from the attacks, leading 

to an even larger long-term blackout, and may I say, Mr. Chairman, if we had a serious attack on the grid either by way of cyber 

attacks or by way of physical attacks, and we lost a chunk of it, 

we are not back in the 1970s in the pre-Internet Web days; we are 

back in the 1870s in the pre-electricity era. That set of issues has 

not been successfully addressed in the last 7 years since we wrote 

for the National Academy of Sciences. 

If we look at malignant threats, threats no one is trying to create 

but which come about because of the complexity of systems, there 

are a number, and one, I think, of the most serious is certainly climate change. That issue is dealt with in pages 2 through 9 of the 

attached chapter of the book which the staff has kindly allowed me 

to attach to my testimony, and I will simply say that I believe Professor Schrag summarized those issues extremely well. We have a 

habit from the non-scientific community of looking at change as if 

it is linear, whereas, in fact, some of the most troubling changes 

can be exponential and particularly in this climate area, it is difficult for us to get our minds around it. 

The other is that we don’t need to believe that all of climate 

change is anthropogenic, is caused by human beings, in order to believe that it is a serious problem. The world may well be in the 

middle of a several-thousand-year warming trend now for historic 

reasons. The world’s climate has changed many times. But we are 

certainly doing something quite serious to it by doubling, tripling 

and more than tripling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I 

think that one needs to keep in mind that one needs to remember 

both these malignant and these malevolent problems as one makes 

progress. We don’t want, for example, to deal with climate change 

in a way that enhances the vulnerability of the electricity grid. 

As a device to illustrate this, the last seven pages or so of the 

attached chapter of mine is a dialog between a tree hugger and a 

hawk. My tree hugger is the ghost of John Muir and my hawk is 

the ghost of George S. Patton. Muir is concerned only about carbon. 

38 

Patton is concerned only about terrorism. What they keep finding 

is that on many proposals they are able to agree on what to do 

even though they are not doing it for the same reasons. For example, energy efficiency in buildings, so look at what Walmart has 

been able to do. Patton and Muir agree on that. Combined heat and 

power, generating huge amounts of electricity from waste heat— 

Denmark gets a third of its electricity from waste heat. We get a 

tiny percent, just because of policies by the public utility commissions. Patton and Muir agree on that. Distributed generation encouraged by such steps as the German feed-in tariff, which Congressman Inslee and others are working on here, can help us move 

toward renewables substantially. Decoupling revenues from earnings for electric utilities, as California did 20-plus years ago and a 

few States have followed since, can add a substantial set of incentives toward energy efficiency. Moving toward flexible fuel vehicles, 

as Congressman Engel has suggested, as Brazil has done, making 

the fuels out of cellulosic and waste feedstocks and to some extent 

turning toward electricity as in plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, all of these matters, Patton and Muir in my construct find 

great common cause in. Interestingly enough, Muir is more open to 

adding large power plants either from renewables or from coal with 

carbon capture and sequestration, assuming it is successful, or 

from nuclear than is Patton because Patton says I don’t want to 

add to the electricity grid. He says the electricity grid is much more 

vulnerable than the Maginot Line. The Maginot Line could at least 

be defended from one direction. The way we are going about it now, 

the grid can’t be defended at all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolsey follows:] 

39 


63825.077
40 


63825.078
41 


63825.079
42 


63825.080
43 


63825.081
44 


63825.082
45 


63825.083
46 


63825.084
47 


63825.085
48 


63825.086
49 


63825.087
50 


63825.088
51 


63825.089
52 


63825.090
53 


63825.091
54 


63825.092
55 


63825.093
56 


63825.094
57 


63825.095
58 


63825.096
59 


63825.097
60 


63825.098
61 


63825.099
62 


63825.100
63 


63825.101
64 


63825.102
65 


63825.103
66 


63825.104
67 


63825.105
68 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Woolsey, very, very much. 

Our next witness is Dr. Kristie Ebi, an independent consultant 

specializing in impacts of and adaptation to climate change. She is 

a lead author of both the human health chapter of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and for the United States Climate Change Science 

Program’s Synthesis Assessment Product on the effects of the global change on human health and welfare and human systems. We 

thank you, Dr. Ebi, for being here. Whenever you are comfortable, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTIE L. EBI, PUBLIC HEALTH CONSULTANT, LEAD AUTHOR, PUBLIC HEALTH CHAPTER OF THE 2007 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, 

FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT 

Ms. EBI. Thank you very, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with all the members here on the Subcommittee on 

Energy and the Environment. 

Climate change poses current and future risks for U.S. citizens. 

Although data are limited, injuries, illnesses, and death due to climate change may already be occurring with the magnitude and extent of adverse health impacts expected to increase with additional 

climate change. The risks include greater numbers of preventable 

illnesses and deaths due to increases in the frequency, intensity, 

and length of heat waves with the greatest risk among older 

adults, those with chronic medical conditions, infants, children, 

pregnant women, outdoor workers, and the poor. Climate change is 

projected to increase heat-related mortality several fold, increases 

in the frequency and intensity of floods, droughts, wildfires, and 

windstorms with the risk highest among the poor, pregnant 

women, those with chronic medical conditions and those with mobility and cognitive constraints. Projecting additional health burdens is difficult because extreme weather events, by definition, are 

rare. However, the impacts can be large for single events, higher 

concentrations of ground-level ozone with the highest risk among 

asthmatics and those with chronic heart or lung disease, diabetics, 

athletes, and outdoor workers. 

Without taking into account possible changes in the precursors 

required for ozone formation, ozone-related morality is projected to 

increase at least 4 percent by 2050 in the New York area alone. 

Ozone-related morbidity also would be expected to increase, including more asthma attacks among susceptible individuals. Certain 

food- and waterborne diseases with the highest risks among older 

adults, infants, and those who are immunocompromised. The number of cases of salmonella, which has caused several recent 

foodborne outbreaks, increases with ambient temperature. Possible 

changes in the geographic range and incidence of waterborne and 

zoonotic diseases. Reports are appearing of infectious disease outbreaks in areas that previously have been considered too cold for 

their transmission. 

Other health impacts also may increase. For example, there are 

anecdotal reports of increases in suicide rates among native Alaskans associated with the loss of culture, lands, and livelihoods because of melting permafrost, loss of sea ice, and other changes due 

69 

to climate change. The magnitude and extent of these impacts will 

vary significantly across regions, requiring understanding of the 

local factors that interact with climate change to increase the 

health risks. Demographic trends such as an older and larger U.S. 

population will increase overall vulnerability. In addition, the 

United States may be at risk from climate-related diseases and disasters that occur outside our borders. The unprecedented nature of 

climate change may bring unanticipated consequences for public 

health. The current and projected health impacts of climate change 

are significantly larger in low-income countries, challenging their 

ability to achieve the millennium development goals. 

Adaptation and mitigation are equally important for addressing 

these health risks. Neither is sufficient. Focusing only on mitigation will leave communities inadequately prepared for the changes 

expected in the short term and focusing only on adaptation will increase the amount of future climate change to which communities 

will need to adapt. The United States has well-developed public 

health infrastructure and environmental regulatory programs that 

if maintained would moderate the risks of climate change. However, there are limits to the degree to which adaptation can reduce 

these health impacts. Some low-income countries are struggling to 

adapt to the climate change impacts they are experiencing now. As 

we heard, that does increase our national security threats. 

Actions that lead to greenhouse gas emissions reductions can 

have significant positive impacts on human health. For example, in 

the year 2020, thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of asthma-related emergency room visits could be prevented 

from the implementation of a range of activities that reduce fine 

particulate matter concentrations associated with carbon dioxide 

emissions. In addition to saving lives, the associated economic benefits would range from $6 billion to $14 billion, and that is in 1 

year. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ebi follows:] 

70 


63825.106
71 


63825.107
72 


63825.108
73 


63825.109
74 


63825.110
75 


63825.111
76 


63825.112
77 


63825.113
78 


63825.114
79 


63825.115
80 


63825.116
81 


63825.117
82 


63825.118
83 


63825.119
84 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Ebi. Just for the members’ information, the House is in recess subject to the call of the chair, so we 

are going to have a good stretch here in order to the listen to the 

witnesses and to cross-examine them. 

Our next witness is Dr. Frank Ackerman, an economist who has 

written extensively on environmental economics and climate 

change. He is the senior economist at the Stockholm Environmental Institute, the U.S. Center as well as a senior research fellow at the Global Development and Environmental Institute at 

Tufts University. We welcome you, Dr. Ackerman. Whenever you 

are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK ACKERMAN, SENIOR ECONOMIST, 

STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE U.S. CENTER, TUFTS 

UNIVERSITY 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you for inviting my testimony. 

As several people have said already today, the debate has largely 

shifted from science to economics. Climate change is real. It is 

caused by human activity. It is going to be increasingly bad for us. 

The question now before us is, can we afford to do anything about 

it. As a group of prominent economists including several Nobel laureates said, the most expensive thing we can do is nothing. There 

is a growing recognition in the economics profession of the costs of 

doing nothing. The Stern Review sponsored by the British government was a major step forward in understanding that. As has been 

mentioned, the Stern estimate of the cost of doing nothing ranged 

depending on how you understand the damages from 5 percent to 

20 percent of world output compared to the cost of solving the problem, eliminating most of those impacts which Stern estimated at 1 

percent of world output for some decades. There are many studies 

of local and regional impacts of climate change, varied impacts on 

different ecosystems, different climate regions within the United 

States. There is an excellent study by Matias Ruth of the University of Maryland reviewing a lot of these. 

My research, which is described in my written testimony, was in 

response to requests for a total dollar estimate for the costs of inaction for the United States. We did one study of the United States 

and a study looking more in depth at Florida. We found that just 

a few categories of damages would amount to 1.5 percent of U.S. 

income by the end of this century. For Florida, which is much more 

in harm’s way, four categories of damages could amount to as much 

as 5 percent of the State income by the end of the century. The categories that we looked are hurricane damages, the effects of sea 

level rise solely on residential real estate, not on all the properties 

in the State, cost to the electrical system of the changes in demand, 

costs of more expensive and difficult water supply for the United 

States. For Florida, we were not able to produce a similar water 

estimate but we estimated the costs of losses to the State’s very important tourism industry. 

Now, I would emphasize that these numbers, while they are larger than the 1 percent estimate of the costs of action, they are partial estimates of the costs of inaction. There is no such thing as a 

total dollar estimate for the costs of inaction. Lives will be lost to 

climate change if we do nothing about it. There is no meaningful 

85 

way to put a dollar cost on those but you can’t forget it. The costs 

of Hurricane Katrina were not just property losses, there were also 

more than 1,000 people who died there. Damages to nature and extinction of species, likewise, have no meaningful price. Turning to 

economic categories, we did not estimate agricultural losses except 

to the extent they were included in water losses. We didn’t estimate wildfires and forest die-off costs or the costs of floods in the 

Midwest and California and elsewhere. We didn’t look at the cost 

of infrastructure along the coasts other than the cost to residential 

real estate, and a very important point, which has come out in the 

economics literature lately, is the importance of looking at worstcase risks rather than averages. Climate change will get worse on 

average, and the worst-case risks are indeed ominous. The risks of 

an abrupt discontinuity climate catastrophe has to be taken seriously. When people buy insurance, they buy insurance against 

worst cases, not average. On average you don’t need fire insurance. 

On average you have 99 percent confidence that you don’t need fire 

insurance. You can live a richer life if you cancel the fire insurance. 

Not taking seriously the worst-case risks the same way that we do 

when we buy fire insurance is taking a huge gamble. The future 

is only going to happen once. If we were lucky, we wouldn’t need 

insurance but that is not the way anybody thinks about these risks 

in their ordinary life. 

So we concluded that climate change will be bad for the economy. 

Just a few categories of economic damages for the United States as 

a whole exceed the cost of action. For Florida, it is much worse. We 

did a similar short study of the Caribbean, where we found devastating costs to the island economies that are completely at risk 

from climate change. Those are likely to cause a flood of refugees, 

as the speakers discussing security have mentioned. There are real 

issues about refugees caused by climate change. Where are people 

leaving the Caribbean because of climate change going to go? Probably not to Venezuela. 

And finally, there is an international dimension to this. I have 

been to a lot of climate change conferences in the last 8 years. It 

has been embarrassing to go to them as an American. People tend 

to come at you again and again about what are you thinking of, 

doing nothing about it, and why we should do anything about it 

when the world’s largest economy is doing nothing. So I am very 

happy to see that we have a chance to change that and to go back 

and challenge the rest of the world to keep up with us. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerman follows:] 

86 


63825.120
87 


63825.121
88 


63825.122
89 


63825.123
90 


63825.124
91 


63825.125
92 


63825.126
93 


63825.127
94 


63825.128
95 


63825.129
96 


63825.130
97 


63825.131
98 


63825.132
99 


63825.133
100 


63825.134
101 


63825.135
102 


63825.136
103 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate your 

testimony. 

And now we will move to our final witness, who is Dr. Patrick 

Michaels. Dr. Michaels is a senior fellow of environmental studies 

at the Cato Institute. He is also a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist 

with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. Thank you for 

joining, Dr. Michaels. Please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. MICHAELS, SENIOR FELLOW IN 

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE 

Mr. MICHAELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to 

thank the subcommittee for inviting my testimony on the impacts 

of climate change. The subcommittee is asking very important 

questions: what are the implications of climate change for national 

security, economic development and public health. But before providing informed opinion on the costs of climate change, one must 

have confident predictions of climate change itself. 

[Slide shown.] 

On my first slide, if I could, one, proceed from changes in atmospheric composition to changes as modeled by climate models, and 

then, ultimately, to the impacts. What I would like to examine is 

what is going on with our climate models. We often hear that the 

science is settled on global warming. In fact, this is far from the 

truth. Our models are not, repeat, not simulating global temperature trends in recent decades. 

[Slide shown.] 

Here I am going to examine in the next slide the ensemble of 21 

models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change for their midrange projection of carbon dioxide 

emissions, and the world has been going along with this emissions 

scenario. The changes in concentration in the atmosphere have 

been very close to these estimates. Note that the behavior of the 

models is linear. They tend to predict a constant rate of warming. 

This is from 2000 to 2020. The individual models vary quite a bit 

from model to model and in fact some models can even have cooling 

trends in them for certain periods of time. 

[Slide shown.] 

The next slide shows the observed temperatures since the second 

warming of the 20th century started in the late 1970s. One of the 

things that you see is it actually too is constant, despite this much 

talked of peak in 1998, which is clearly a high point in the record 

as a result of solar activity, in addition to an El Nino and pressure 

from greenhouse warming. 

Now, what I am going to do is, I am going to give us the range 

of predictions from each model, next slide. From all 21 models, I 

ran them for various periods of time, 5-year trends, 6-year trends, 

7 years and out to 15-year trends. The bottom line is the 2nd percentile of warming. The top line is the 97.5 percentile. So this is 

the 95 percent confidence range in the climate models, and the 

solid black line are the observed temperature trends for the last 5 

years, 6 years, 7 years, et cetera, on out to 15 years. You can see 

that they are running at or below the bottom limit of the model’s 

confidence. This is not very good, and unfortunately tells us that 

104 

we are undergoing a systematic failure of our midrange models in 

recent decades. 

[Slide shown.] 

The next slide shows what happens as this persists. Assume that 

the temperatures in 2009 globally are the same as the average for 

2008. That is a reasonable assumption because we are in what is 

called a La Nina, which is a relatively cool period, and the addition 

of yet another year to these 15-year trends gives you everything 

below the 95 percent confidence level. It is very unfortunate but it 

tells us a lot that we need to do. Now, everybody knows that the 

behavior of the last 10, 12 years seems to be a bit unusual, so let 

us extend this analysis in the next slide to the last 20 years, if we 

could. That would be in the next image. There you go. 

[Slide shown.] 

We have to take out the effect of Mt. Pinatubo, which occurred 

in 1991 and introduced a cooling at the beginning of the record so 

there was a rapid warming that was induced that biases that 

record. The models themselves do not have volcanoes in them so an 

apples-to-apples comparison takes that out and you can see again 

that the observed temperature range, now with trends on out from 

14 to 20 years, is falling below the 95 percent confidence level. 

What do we say? One implicit assumption about calculating the 

costs of inaction is that we know that reasonable confidence with 

the climate change will ensue as carbon dioxide accumulates in the 

atmosphere. This demonstration shows that oft-repeated mantra in 

Washington, ‘‘The science is settled’’ is not true at all. More important, the rates of warming on multiple time scales are invalidating 

the midrange sweep of IPCC models. 

This is a problem that has received very little attention but it is 

very germane to this committee. Until we know, until we have 

models that in fact accommodate the behavior of recent decades, we 

appear to be overestimating the rate of climate change. As you can 

see, it is all at the lower end, where the observations are. If climate 

change is overestimated, then so are the impacts of that change, 

and that is something we must pay attention to as we address this 

issue. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Michaels follows:] 

105 


63825.137
106 


63825.138
107 


63825.139
108 


63825.140
109 


63825.141
110 


63825.142
111 


63825.143
112 


63825.144
113 


63825.145
114 


63825.146
115 


63825.147
116 


63825.148
117 


63825.149
118 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Michaels, very much. The chair will 

now recognize himself for 5 minutes for a round of questioning. 

Professor Schrag, you just heard what Dr. Michaels said. He is 

basically saying we just shouldn’t worry as much about global 

warming because it is not going to be as bad as the models predicted. Your quick response to that? 

Mr. SCHRAG. Well, I think it flies in the face of all of our knowledge, both about earth history—we can actually get a very good 

sense of the sensitivity of the earth’s climate to changes in carbon 

dioxide from looking at the past over various time scales, over ice 

ages, or even back millions and tens of millions of years, and the 

general answer we get is in fact that the models tend to be less 

sensitive than the real world. It is very clear from that estimate 

that in fact we are in for bigger trouble. 

Looking at the last 2 decades is a very tricky thing, what Dr. Michaels was talking about, simply because we also have sulfate 

aerosols that we are putting out from burning a lot of coal, especially now that China is burning so much coal and putting sulfur 

dioxide into the air. That counteracts the effect of CO2, and because 

we don’t know that number very well, it means that we don’t understand the rate of forcing perfectly, but it would be a deep mistake to think that that should give us comfort. In fact, the opposite 

conclusion is the case. If in fact temperature has not warmed as 

much because of sulfur emissions, sulfur doesn’t last in the atmosphere very long, whereas carbon dioxide lasts for hundreds of years 

and that means we are in for a big shock in the decades ahead. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Professor Schrag. 

General Sullivan, you were Army Chief of Staff back in the early 

1990s and I know you had decisions to make about Somalia at that 

time and the events that ultimately led to ‘‘Blackhawk Down,’’ the 

movie. Could you talk a little bit about climate change, Somalia, 

Darfur, that whole region in terms of how, as a military group, you 

were analyzing the climate change data? 

General SULLIVAN. Well, as you stated, Somalia, Darfur, that 

part of Africa has been buffeted by drought for years. The drought 

enabled, frankly, the warlords to start controlling food aid that was 

going in. They were controlling the food, selling the food to their 

people. That created the deaths of other tribes that weren’t supported by the warlords, which created instability and it enabled, 

frankly, Somalia to move on to where it is a failed state now, and 

as we all know, you now have privates operating out of Darfur, 

which are destabilizing the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. It is all 

related to the same thing which is going on in Darfur, where you 

have migratory farmers, herders superimposing themselves on the 

top of farmers and it is a vicious cycle. 

Mr. MARKEY. And you relate this to drought that leads to famine 

ultimately caused by this climate change phenomenon? 

General SULLIVAN. Absolutely we can, and when we see the 

Himalayas, as was mentioned by Dr. Schrag, when we think about 

the water loss there, you can see the same picture in Bangladesh, 

India, Pakistan, and elsewhere, not to mention, by the way, Israel, 

Jordan, the Palestinians. The water in that part of the world comes 

from the Jordan River, and it is all related. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, General Sullivan. 

119 

Mr. Woolsey, could you expand upon General Sullivan’s point 

with regard to the national security implications for our country if 

we see deterioration because of climate change in these regions of 

the world? 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it can hit us very close to home. 

One of the fastest set of melting glaciers is apparently in the 

Andes, and if we think we have trouble coming up with a sound 

and agreed-upon immigration policy for the United States now, 

what is it going to be like if our southern borders are seeing millions of our hungry and thirsty southern neighbors headed toward 

temperate climates? Also, from the point of view of our being able 

to ameliorate some of the terrible events from weather pattern 

changes and so forth, such as the U.S. armed forces did, particularly the Navy, so well in response to the tsunami in Indonesia a 

few years ago, it is going to be very difficult for any country, even 

us, to shoulder much of a humanitarian burden if we are seeing direct and immediate effects that we have to deal with that stress 

our own systems here. 

I chaired the policy panel for a defense science board study last 

year that was chaired by former Secretary of Defense Schlesinger, 

and our report called ‘‘More Fight, Less Fuel’’ is on the defense 

science board Web site. It might be worth the committee having a 

look at because it talks about the interaction of energy policies and 

the capabilities of the armed forces, and there is a classified annex, 

which the committee certainly can have access to, I am sure, 

through the Defense Department, and I can tell the staff about 

that. 

Mr. MARKEY. And Mr. Woolsey, you would recommend that the 

members see that classified annex because it does relate to climate 

change and it impact on—— 

Mr. WOOLSEY. It does. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. National security? 

Mr. WOOLSEY. It relates principally to specific vulnerabilities of 

our military as a result of things like electricity grid vulnerability. 

Mr. MARKEY. My time has expired. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. But that is one of the subjects, but the classified 

part deals mainly with that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Woolsey. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to make a 

couple of comments and get the reaction from you all. First of all, 

General Sullivan, your statement, energy alternatives to reduce reliance on fossil fuels needs to be a priority, is one that I think most 

of us share, and I appreciated that. 

Admiral Woolsey, we have had some briefings, I guess you could 

say, in the last year about the vulnerability of our grid and what 

terrorists might be able to do, and I would hope that if this stimulus package passes, that some of those concerns can be addressed 

in terms of the smart grid. Maybe that is something that we need 

to have a hearing on at some point later this year. It came to a 

head last year with Chairman Boucher. 

Mr. MARKEY. We will do that. 

Mr. UPTON. But I would like to just make a couple of comments. 

We haven’t done just nothing. In my view, we have actually done 

120 

a lot, and Dr. Ackerman, you shouldn’t be embarrassed by the lack 

of activity when you look at the progress that our country has 

made. Until this year, we have had a growing economy, growing 

population, and we have tried to figure out how we are going to be 

prepared by the year 2030, when our electricity use is expected to 

go up as much as 40 to 50 percent. We have done a lot on conservation. We are focused on renewables. A number of States, including 

mine, now have an RFS standard. Texas is another State that has 

done the same thing. With maybe the exception of Nantucket, we 

are actually doing something about wind but we will deal with that 

Massachusetts issue another day. Nuclear has been to me, I have 

been embarrassed. I have been embarrassed about the lack of 

progress on nuclear, that we haven’t actually turned that switch 

back to green after 20-some years. We made progress on autos. I 

know the chairman and I were both at the auto show here in D.C. 

this last week, and it is amazing to see some of the new cars that 

are going to be in the showroom not only this year but in the future and you look at some of the electric hybrids that the Big Three 

are developing, all to be in the showroom by some time next year. 

We have seen great strides on appliance standards, building 

standards, Jane Harman, my colleague, on light bulbs, who is here, 

those kick in within a couple years and we are going to save tons 

of carbon from being emitted into the atmosphere, and it was something that we worked on together. 

FutureGen, I think there is money in the stimulus package for 

FutureGen, and I hope that that works. I am a very strong supporter of clean coal, and I would say that we are probably doing 

more as a Nation on carbon capture than just about anything else. 

In the hearing that we had with U.S. CAP a couple weeks ago, you 

know, they are hoping by 2015 we are going to have an answer. 

Again, we are the leaders on that technology. 

And when you look at that, since 2002, despite, you know, we 

have had a growing economy, our greenhouse gas intensity has actually fallen by an average of about 2 percent per year from the 

year 2002 to 2007. When you counter that with what has happened 

in the E.U., it came up with a scheme, as Mr. Gore would say, on 

cap and trade and their emissions have actually gone up, not gone 

down. So our concern, when you look at these statistics, the United 

States emits about 51⁄2 billion tons of energy based on CO2 each 

year. The developing world does 14 billion tons, almost three times 

as much. By 2030, we are going to increase allegedly by about 2 

billion tons annually but again the developing world is going to go 

up by another 12.8 billion, or six times what we are expecting to 

do. Now, we need incentives for clean energy. I think we can do it. 

We need to be on that path, but what happens if the developing 

countries, China and India, China now the world’s largest emitter, 

what if they don’t follow that track? My State is so hard hit, we 

are devastating by the job losses and our economy is just totally 

in the tank, and I can just see that this will be yet another incentive for those jobs and economic opportunities to go someplace else. 

I don’t know who would like to respond to that but I wouldn’t 

be embarrassed. I think we have been on a road of progress, and 

I look forward to continuing that road of progress, to have the incentive to actually see us get to the conclusion that certainly GenVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:20 Jun 27, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-3 CHRIS
121 

eral Sullivan would like us to see. In my remaining time, who 

would like to respond? 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman has 2 seconds left for the panel to 

answer. We will give one person down here a chance to respond. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. First of all, Congressman Upton, thanks for the 

promotion but I never got above captain—— 

Mr. UPTON. All right. I am sorry. 

Mr. WOOLSEY [continuing]. In General Sullivan’s organization, 

the Army. I think you make a good point. In our own way, we have 

made some progress in a number of these areas but we haven’t always chosen the most effective way to do it. For example, the renewable portfolio standard has some positive features but you get 

just as much credit for moving away from natural gas to renewables as you do moving away from coal, whereas if you had a feedin tariff, you would have a lot more incentive, I think, to move, not 

only for large facilities like, say, solar power plants and wind farms 

but also to distribute it a generation. I think it is a far superior 

mechanism. The Germans have shown how well it works in Germany. So we haven’t really picked, I think, in many circumstances 

the mechanisms that can move us quickly, and I agree with you 

very much about plug-in hybrids. I drive one myself, and the infrastructure I picked up at Walmart for $14.95. It is an orange extension cord, and that is all the new infrastructure you need for a 

plug-in. It is a pretty good deal. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Schrag, one of the issues that Congress is going to have 

to deal with if it puts together a cap-and-trade bill is setting the 

targets from year to year and what the shape of the curve is going 

to be over time, and the panel today has talked about a sense of 

urgency about wanting to take action, and I think you have heard 

a lot of folks, Members of Congress, also acknowledge that sense 

of urgency. But we have got this challenge because there are certain technologies out there that are not at the level of maturity 

that we would like them to be for us to have real certainty about 

our ability, whether it is carbon capture and sequestration, whether it is alternative fuels, cellulosic ethanol, whatnot, so I wondered 

if you could talk to me for a bit about your thoughts about what 

the shape of the curve should be. If you don’t know what specifically what the shape is, how should we decide what those targets 

should be from year to year? 

Mr. SCHRAG. I think that is a very good question. I think that 

there clearly there needs to be, and economists and scientists 

would both agree, that there clearly needs to be a price on carbon, 

but putting a price on carbon too quickly too high would have a bad 

effect because, as you said, some of the major technologies that are 

going to be necessary to meet these challenges aren’t really demonstrated yet, and what that means in practical terms is that 

banks and financial institutions aren’t willing to invest in those 

projects. 

So I think there is a two-prolonged approach. One is, I think 

through the stimulus package and additional things that this Congress will do over the next 2 years, we need to see government supVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:20 Jun 27, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-3 CHRIS
122 

port, perhaps loan guarantees, for getting some number, a dozen, 

10, 20 major projects in these categories, carbon capture and storage, synthetic fuels that are clean, that are low carbon and are capital intensive, and we need to demonstrate to the market that these 

technologies can work. Find out what works and find out what 

doesn’t work and find out what it really costs. We need to build 

some nuclear plants and figure out what they really cost. But it is 

also very important in setting the price on carbon through a cap 

and trade or whatever additional mechanisms are used by this 

Congress that you forecast to the market that the long-term price 

is going to rise because unless that is done, you won’t get the right 

type of investment in technology. It is very important that I think 

you start out with a low price that doesn’t really hurt our industry 

in the short run, but in the long run that price has to rise and we 

have to forecast that it will rise. 

My final point is the concern that the Congressman from Michigan and many others have expressed of loss of jobs overseas. It is 

a very serious issue. I actually think the best way to get China and 

India engaged is to take a start and focus on the technologies that 

will apply to their economies, and there are some trade issues that 

we could deal with, like a non-discriminatory tariff that would level 

the playing field, much more easier to enforce if we got together 

with the E.U. and then went to China and India and talked. I 

think those are very interesting ideas that need to be explored. 

Mr. MATHESON. I think your ideas have merit but I have to say, 

it also still points out this challenge that we have of, you have 

talked about the notion of perhaps government-sponsored efforts to 

encourage how we learn about these technologies over the next couple years and yet we are talking about moving a bill this year that 

is going to set these cap levels and these targets year by year. But 

we won’t have that information yet in the next 2 or 3 years or however long it is going to take to develop those technologies, and I 

don’t know if I am asking you another question or just pointing out 

the challenge I think we face here in terms of trying to get this 

right. 

Mr. SCHRAG. I think that the low-hanging fruit in all of this is 

energy efficiency. It is probably negative cost, or at least it is not 

extremely expensive. It makes us leaner and more competitive 

around the world, and I think the initial impact of a low price on 

carbon through a cap-and-trade bill is going to be a huge investment in energy efficiency and that is great for the U.S. economy 

and its competitiveness. Some of the bigger, deeper cuts down the 

road as the cap tightens in the future will come from these other 

technologies and that means separate from the cap and trade. We 

have to get some of these technologies built, not just at a demonstration scale, but at a real commercial scale so we can see what 

happens. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Woolsey, you mentioned the last time about 

the feed-in tariff in Germany. Could you explain that a little more 

to the committee right now? 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes, I will say very briefly, Congressman Inslee 

has forgotten more about that issue than I will ever know so he 

is one of the resident experts up here but the Germans came up 

with this mechanism, and it has been adopted in a number of other 

123 

countries to guarantee a reasonable price for generation of renewables that one has a right to whether one is a small rooftop generator, photovoltaics on the roof of the farmhouse like I have on mine 

or whether one sets up a large number of solar panels, let us say, 

in a retirement complex for hundreds of homes. In most of the 

United States, the utilities and the public utility commissions have 

a mindset that the way to produce electricity is to build big power 

plants and string transmission lines and distribution lines. They 

have been doing that for well over a century. They know how to 

do it and these are the policies they implement. What a feed-in tariff does is say if you are doing renewables, you can get paid a reasonable price by the utility in order to send back to the grid a certain amount of renewable power, and it may be a relative large 

amount if you are a small corporation, or it may be a small amount 

if you are a household. In much of the United States, you can do 

what we do at our farm. You can run your meter backwards to zero 

by having photovoltaics on the roof, but you can’t make money, and 

the Germans have figured out, I think better than anybody else, 

how to incentivize renewables with a relatively simple process. It 

is easier for them because they have—our electricity is largely done 

State by State, not everything, but a lot, but that is a broad outline 

of the issue. 

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. I am sorry. I 

did not see the gentleman. The chair, with the indulgence of Mr. 

Whitfield, will recognize the ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am such a shrinking 

violet, it is easy to overlook me. 

I want to start out with Dr. Michaels by complimenting you on 

being here, and I want the record to show that the rules of the 

committee ostensibly require that there be two Minority witnesses, 

or a third of the witnesses be Minority, which if you take six witnesses, we should have two Minority, but Dr. Michaels is our only 

one, so it is five to one, which we appreciate you being the one, Dr. 

Michaels, for showing up. 

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTON. I will at the end of my time if we can get a little 

extra time. 

Mr. HALL. I may forget what I am going to ask you by that time. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. I will yield. I only have 4 minutes. 

Mr. HALL. I just wondered if you knew that the chairman had 

four, and when he found out Dr. Michaels was really going to be 

here, that he added Professor Schrag and made it—it must really 

say something for Dr. Michaels. 

Mr. BARTON. That is one way to—— 

Mr. HALL. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BARTON. Anyway, Dr. Michaels, you are an active official of 

the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Is that not 

correct? 

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes. 

124 

Mr. BARTON. OK. So you are not some out in right field guy who 

is just observing, you are active in the participation of the IPCC? 

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. These models that you refer to in your testimony, 

for lack of a better term, they are the official models of the U.N.? 

Mr. MICHAELS. The U.N. uses three suites of models that they 

concentrate on in their latest report. The one I looked at was the 

midrange suite because that is the one at which the concentrations 

of CO2 that are in the atmosphere resembles the most. 

Mr. BARTON. But these aren’t models sponsored by Exxon-Mobile 

or—— 

Mr. MICHAELS. No. 

Mr. BARTON. These are the official U.N.—— 

Mr. MICHAELS. There are—— 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Subset of—— 

Mr. MICHAELS [continuing]. Twenty-one different models that 

they use. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Now, I’m going to read from your testimony, 

or at least paraphrase from your testimony. We often hear that the 

science is settled on global warming. This is hardly the case. There 

is considerable debate about the ultimate magnitude of warming. 

I must report that our models are in the process of failing. When 

I say that, I mean that the ensemble of 21 models used in the midrange projection for climate change for the IPCC. If it is demonstrable that these models have failed, then there is no real scientific basis for any estimates of the cost of inaction. Now, why do 

you say that the models are failing? And again, these are the official U.N. climate change models. These aren’t some business-sponsored, anti-climate change models, these are the ones that everybody is basing their so-called projections on. Why do you say they 

are failing? 

Mr. MICHAELS. What I did is, I looked at the range of projections 

made by these models and I looked at them for multiple, multiple 

iterations. For example, I used 20 years of models and for 5-year 

projection ranges, I moved forward 1 month beginning at 60 

months and then 1 plus 61, etc. It was a very, very large sample 

size that can give you the distribution of warming rates for different lengths in time predicted by the models and then you can 

compare that to the observed warming rates for the last 5 years, 

for the last 10 years, for the last 15 years and the last 20 years, 

and what you see is that the observed temperatures fall along or 

below the 95 percent confidence limit for the model. 

Mr. BARTON. So they fail because they don’t predict the—— 

Mr. MICHAELS. They predict too much warming, and if you take 

a look at the systematic behavior of the models, which is very interesting, they generally predict constant ranges of warming, not 

increasing rates of warming, and in fact, the rate of warming since 

1977 does correspond to a constant rate. It just happens to be right 

at the lower limit of the rates that are given by the families of 

models. That tells me something. Nature has been responding to 

carbon dioxide for decades, and maybe we ought to listen to nature 

rather than to computers. 

Mr. BARTON. Dr. Schrag showed a chart early in his presentation 

that shows the last 650,000 years of temperature as far as we 

125 

know it and it shows it going up and down, up and down, up and 

down. For most of that time period there were no human beings 

as we know them today on the earth, so what caused the rapid increase in temperature those previous times since there were men 

around? 

Mr. MICHAELS. Well, these are the Ice Age oscillations that you 

see in these ice core records. Those were caused by earth orbital 

changes, we think. That is the current myth. That myth is ultimately subject to—— 

Mr. BARTON. But it obviously couldn’t have been caused by manmade CO2? 

Mr. MICHAELS. It was not caused by carbon dioxide, no. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, could I have one more question? 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. I know my time has expired. 

Mr. MARKEY. Of course. 

Mr. BARTON. Dr. Michaels, I am told that in these core samples 

and the pinecone samples and all of those data sets that it appears 

that the temperature goes up before the CO2 concentrations go up 

by a time period somewhere between 100 to 800 years. So in other 

words, the dominant variable is temperature and the dependent 

variable is CO2. Is that correct? 

Mr. MICHAELS. There are instances in that record where in fact 

the temperature changes precede the changes in carbon dioxide. 

Mr. BARTON. So what we have is a theory that CO2 is driving 

temperature but that is all it is. It is a theory. It is not a scientific 

fact, is it? 

Mr. MICHAELS. Well, no. This argument gets very, very complicated. Carbon dioxide in laboratory experiments is demonstrated 

to absorb in the infrared, and everything else being equal, you will 

get a warming from CO2. That is really not the point that I am trying to make. The point is that the warming has been tending to 

run underneath what is projected by our midrange models and so 

therefore there is a reasonable argument that the sensitivity that 

is within the models for very complicated reasons has been overestimated. 

Mr. BARTON. That little beep beep means our time has expired. 

Mr. MICHAELS. I am sorry. 

Mr. BARTON. We appreciate the discretion of the chairman and 

we look forward to him showing more discretion in future hearings. 

Mr. MARKEY. And it will be forthcoming. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington 

State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Dr. Michaels, I am stunned that you have come here 

and talked about things that just don’t seem to make any scientific 

sense to me. I have listened to your testimony with care, and what 

you did is, you compared observational data in the past to models 

in the future and you said that the rate of change in the models 

of the future are different than the observational data in the past, 

that there must be something wrong with the model. Now, that 

makes no sense whatsoever on a scientific basis. If you want to 

compare models to observational data, you have to do it in the 

same time period, and in fact, the observational data with the modeling data in the past is quite consistent. You showed a difference 

126 

between observational data in the past and modeling projections in 

the future, and there is some difference because it shows an accelerated rate of warming, which is consistent with what is going on 

in the real world. Now, how can you possibly come here and think 

you are going to blow this one right by us and nobody is going to 

figure this out? Do you take us for real chumps up here? 

Mr. MICHAELS. I really would prefer that we do not get personal. 

In fact, there is substantial overlap between the period that I 

looked at. Half of the period that I looked at overlaps the models. 

Number two, and we could go to my graphics. I don’t know how 

hard they would be to come up with. Can we go to—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Sure. Let us do that. Let me ask the staff to put up 

the global mean surface temperature chart, source IPCC/AR-4. Can 

you put that up, please? Because I think what we will see is if you 

were forthright with this committee, you would say that the modeling data is quite consistent with the observational data in the 

past. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a second? I 

would ask my colleague from Washington State not to disparage 

and call the panelist a liar. When you propose the fact that he is 

not forthright, you are making the premise that he is actually providing testimony that is not true. He is a noted citizen, respected 

policy observer on the U.N. climate, and I think it is just egregious 

that we attack the only Republican panelist we have on this committee when you have five on your side. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me just note that the gentleman from Washington State did not use the word ‘‘liar.’’ 

Mr. SHIMKUS. He said he was not forthright. Mr. Chairman, we 

can quibble about words but we know what that means. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I appreciate that, but I think, as we 

know—— 

Mr. MICHAELS. I think I can defuse this with a very simple answer. 

Mr. MARKEY. If I may, Dr. Michaels, there is a difference in 

terms of which term is used in terms of the response someone is 

trying to elicit from a witness, and we are going to put the time 

back on the clock for the gentleman from Washington State, and 

I don’t think that the gentleman from Washington State was doing 

anything other than trying to engage in—by using the word ‘‘forthright’’, trying to use terminology that would have a scientific discussion. If he had used the word ‘‘liar’’ or if any member uses the 

word ‘‘liar’’ here, I am going to rule them out of order in this hearing or any other hearing. If he engages in the use of language 

which is commonly considered to be abusive, I will do that. I don’t 

think using the word ‘‘forthright’’ in the way in which he did it in 

this scientific discussion really was intended to be a personal insult. If anything, the gentleman from Washington was using the 

word ‘‘chump’’ to refer to himself in this discussion and I felt that 

that was also an inappropriate word. 

Mr. INSLEE. That may have been over the line. I will apologize 

for myself—— 

Mr. MARKEY. In my opinion, that was—— 

Mr. INSLEE [continuing]. My self-descriptive chumpdom. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. A self description. 

127 

Mr. INSLEE. And I want to say for the record—— 

Mr. MARKEY. I will put the time back on the clock up to approximately 3 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, and I want to make clear that Mr. 

Shimkus is always forthright, and I appreciate his observations. 

But I do want to point out that I think a forthright assessment of 

the scientific principles is that one does not compare apples to oranges and criticize a model that has essentially been accurate with 

observational data, and if you look at the chart that is on the 

screen now, it will compare the modeling data to observational data 

prior to the year 2004, and I think you will see there is a very high 

degree of correspondence between the two showing that the modeling data compared to observational data in the past are very, 

very close. Now, what we have seen with the modeling data, a 

forthright statement is that the model suggests an accelerating 

rate of global warming and in fact that is what we have experienced and that is why everyone with their eyes open are now seeing very significant changes in our climatic system. I will ask Professor Schrag to comment on that if that is a fair assessment of the 

evidence. 

Mr. SCHRAG. I think that is a fair assessment, and I think it is 

correct that the models are predicting an accelerated response over 

the next several decades. Part of the reason is what I said earlier, 

the aerosol effect that has been essentially dampening the effect of 

CO2 is short-lived and over time we will see the CO2 continue to 

accumulate and the impact of CO2 grow and grow relative to the 

aerosol forces. 

Mr. INSLEE. And I may note the acceptance of this forthright scientific data is becoming so widespread that this is a debate we 

should not be having. Today I just got a message on my BlackBerry 

that Exxon Oil was at a meeting yesterday or this morning talking 

about the need to respond to global warming. This just isn’t a debate anymore, and it is unfortunate that our committee is sort of 

fighting the Civil War again, and we have to stop fighting the Civil 

War and try to find a bipartisan consensus on how to move forward, and I really look forward to the day when the witnesses who 

are before us from the Republican side will talk about how we design a cap-and-trade system that will minimize any dislocation. I 

just look forward to that day. I hope it is coming shortly because 

I think the forthright conclusion we can draw on a bipartisan basis 

is that we know what is going on, it is not good, and I look forward 

to the day we can jointly figure out a way to solve that. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MICHAELS. Mr. Chairman, can I respond? 

Mr. INSLEE. You have 15 seconds if you like. Go ahead. 

Mr. MICHAELS. OK. These are the A1B scenarios. I hope you 

have good eyes. You can see that the rates are in fact not accelerating over the course of 100 years, in fact, they are constant, and 

that the rates that are being observed which are also constant are 

at the low end of the projection ranges made by the A1B scenarios. 

Those are constant. If you have good eyes back there, you can see 

that. Thank you very much. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you to all witnesses. 

128 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the frustrating thing about this debate is, I read an article the other day 

where someone said that in all my years of doing science, I have 

never seen this sort of gag order on people trying to speak their 

views, whether they disagree or agree with the projections of the 

impact of global warming, and that stems from the fact that Dr. 

Michaels, because of actions taken by Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, Dr. Michaels was state climatologist and actually lost his job 

there and at the University of Virginia because he continued to 

speak out on global warming, which was different than the position 

of the governor. In addition to that, an official in Oregon lost his 

job because his views were different than those of the governor of 

Oregon. He continues to speak out on global warming. In Delaware, Governor Ruth Ann Minner got upset because one of the climatologists there participated in an amicus curiae brief before the 

Supreme Court in which they were questioning some of the scientific evidence on global warming. In Washington State, Mark 

Albright lost his job for the same reason. And I think it is disturbing that on an issue this important that can have the impact 

in the future that this has, that we get into these kinds of situations. I think the important aspect of this is that everybody give 

their views and then let us make decisions and try to solve the 

problem. 

I noticed that Professor Schrag made the comment that generally 

they are very conservative in their arguments about global warming and the impact of global warming and yet when I read Dr. Ackerman’s testimony on footnote 4, which he talks about on page 5, 

he said since the future will only happen once and we want to 

know how bad the risk of future damages could be, we are going 

to use the worst limit of what IPCC calls the likely range of outcomes, and that is fine, but as politicians when we go out to civic 

clubs and everywhere else and we make speeches, we try to find 

evidence that will back us up, and when you get people who are 

really totally convinced that we need to take drastic action to prevent the impact of global warming in the future, we are going to 

take the studies, the worst-case scenario being according to Dr. 

Ackerman that by 2100, U.S. temperatures are going to rise 12 to 

13 degrees Fahrenheit. In Alaska they are going to rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit. Sea levels are going to increase by 45 inches and 

hurricane intensity will create damages estimated to be $397 billion by 2100. 

Now, I might also say that Chris Lancey, who was contributing 

to the IPCC in the area of hurricanes, resigned from the IPCC because he said that the leading author had a press conference and 

emphatically stated that increased hurricane intensity was due to 

global warming, and Lancey resigned from that. The reason I know 

about that because we had a lengthy oversight hearing about that 

a number of years ago. Now, Dr. Ackerman, I know you want to 

make a comment, Dr. Michaels wants to make a comment, so Dr. 

Ackerman, you go ahead. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. OK. We did look at not the absolutely worst case 

but the 83rd percentile of the range that was suggested, the worst 

129 

of the IPCC likely. It means the 83rd percentile. The future is 

going to happen once and a cost-benefit calculation based on the 

average or most likely gives you a 50 percent chance of not being 

bad enough. People don’t think that way in ordinary life. Insurance, which never passes a cost-benefit test, is what people do 

when they are facing a severe risk which they can’t afford. That 

is absolutely what we are facing here. The science, you know, what 

it looks like at the 83rd percentile of risk for this century looks 

pretty bad. Now, in terms of the hurricane debate, I know there 

has been a lot of debate about the details of that. Roger Pielke Jr. 

is one of the critics of the position that we took on hurricanes, read 

over my reports. I had a long correspondence with him. He persuaded me that I had a small numerical error that made it 6 percent too high. He was very happy to hear that I corrected it. There 

is another footnote in my testimony that tells you that I am using 

the numbers based on my correspondence with him. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And thank you very much for that. My time has 

expired but I would like Dr. Michaels to be able to make his comment as well. 

Mr. MICHAELS. Well, there are several places that I would like 

to comment and obviously do not have time for it. I will say in the 

Stern Report, which has been oft quoted here, that the worst-case 

climate scenarios are assumed and the discount rates are thought 

to be economically very unrealistic. With regard to the employment 

problems that certain people have had, I just think that is very 

sad. We thrive on intellectual diversity. People are not promoted 

from assistant to full professor at major universities for doing nothing, and for the political process to have interfered there is a very, 

very, very black and sad thing. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into some of 

the questions, I would like to ask Mr. Woolsey, you made a statement a few minutes ago that you get the same credit for not burning coal to create electricity as you do if you don’t burn natural gas, 

and that is not what I understood. I thought that coal plants emit 

much more carbon than, say, a natural gas plant. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Coal plants do produce a greater amount of carbon 

per BTU than natural gas does. What I was saying was that the 

instrumentality of the renewable portfolio standard doesn’t really 

discriminate between gas and coal. It just wants an increase in renewables. There was a very good op-ed in the Wall Street Journal 

about this a couple of weeks ago and that I thought a feed-in tariff 

was a superior mechanism to a renewable portfolio standard for the 

purpose of emphasizing renewables in a more effective way. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you for that clarification because if we are 

looking at controlling carbon, a renewable standard may be one of 

the avenues, but we also need to make sure that renewable standard is something that you are ultimately going after with the carbon capture or the carbon sequestration. 

Dr. Ackerman, in order to evaluate the cost of inaction on climate 

change, you compare the economic consequences of two possible climate scenarios in a business-as-usual case or unchecked growth in 

greenhouse gas emissions with rapid stabilization case, whereby 

130 

the United States reduces its emissions by 80 percent accompanied 

by a 50 percent reduction in total world emissions. Under your 

rapid stabilization case, what happens if only the United States 

acts to reduce its emissions while major emitters such as China or 

India do not follow suit? Will the cost of inaction become smaller 

or greater? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. There is really no hope of solving this problem 

if we don’t have a global agreement on it. No country represents 

more than 20 percent of the total. The United States and China are 

both at about that point so—— 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Since we only have 5 minutes and I have 

a whole lot of questions, I thank you for that. My next follow-up 

is, so in your opinion, it is crucial that reductions in greenhouse 

gas emissions are linked to a global action to reduce carbon emissions? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Absolutely. It has to be done globally. 

Mr. GREEN. Could we ever achieve a rapid stabilization case 

without strong mandatory reductions by other major emitters? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. No. Everybody has to agree to reduce. 

Mr. GREEN. Your analysis found that under the business-asusual case, combined increased costs for electricity added up to 

$141 billion per year in 2001 or .14 percent of projected U.S. output. Last year there was an EPA analysis of climate change legislation, Senate bill 1766, by Bingaman and Specter and the Senate 

found that electricity prices were projected to increase 40 percent 

in 2030 and an additional 25 percent in 2050. How do these increased costs of climate change addressing climate change in the 

EPA analysis compare with your estimates under a business-asusual case for electricity rates? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I haven’t looked at that EPA study. I know that 

our subcontractors, who analyze the electric power system were actually quite conservative in the costs that they were able to look 

at, mostly looking at increased air conditioning load. There are a 

number of other effects on the power system which they were not 

able to quantify so I would not be surprised if someone else came 

up with a higher number. 

Mr. GREEN. I appreciate it coming from a part of the country 

that we need LIHEAP from May to September for our poor folks. 

I appreciate that. 

Mr. Woolsey, you made several observations in your work on malevolent and malignant threats regarding climate change impacts 

on our energy infrastructure. Can you further elaborate on your 

point that our energy systems are vulnerable to climate change? 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Well, they contribute to climate change insofar 

particularly as they use coal and oil but they are also vulnerable. 

For example, Hurricane Katrina barely missed the Colonial Pipeline, which is a major pipeline from the Gulf up to the East Coast. 

Most of us around here would have done a good deal more bicycling 

and walking had Katrina been just a mile or two different from 

where it was, and the electricity grid in Cleveland suffered an outage in August of 2003 when a tree branch touched a power line in 

the middle of a storm, and within 9 seconds some 50 million consumers were offline in the United States and eastern Canada. Now, 

probably 2 decades ago that would have been an outage in part of 

131 

Cleveland, but because our electricity grid is so stressed and is so 

overloaded with the demands of running a deregulated system and 

everybody being able to shop all over the country for every little 

bit of electricity and so on, it has produced an extraordinarily vulnerable system, vulnerable to natural interference, such as a tree 

branch touching a power line, and unfortunately, terrorists are a 

lot smarter than tree branches. 

Mr. GREEN. And I appreciate that, and hopefully this stimulus 

reinvestment bill that has money in there for transmission expansion and also other things will help that, because that is one of the 

issues. We need to have alternatives to having just one line. 

I have one more question if I could—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Very quick. 

Mr. GREEN. Dr. Ebi, can you explain how increasing temperatures could facilitate the development of ground-level ozone and 

how this could impact public health within pollution-prone areas? 

Specifically, do you suggest that the United States coordinate the 

public health responses to climate change across the level of Federal Government? 

Ms. EBI. The rate at which ground-level ozone is formed, and it 

is formed on clear, cloudless days, the rate is temperature dependent. All else being equal, if the temperature goes up there will be 

more ground-level ozone. 

Mr. GREEN. And how do you suggest we coordinate between our 

public health responses? Because, again, coming from the Houston 

area, we have an ozone problem, and is it coordination of the federal agencies in response to that is what we should do? 

Ms. EBI. There needs to be coordination not only with the Federal Government but across borders because there is also hemispheric transport of ozone. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 61⁄2 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did an opening statement so—— 

Mr. MARKEY. I am going to balance you out with Mr. Green. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like, Mr. 

Chairman, if we could submit James Connaughton’s report from 

December 2007 on the Energy and Climate Policy. In here there is 

a couple of noted aspects, $37 billion in climate change. Before the 

stimulus bill, that would have been real money in Washington. 

Now $37 billion is chump change, but I would say that is doing 

something. I would also want to highlight an issue in here about 

the important transitions of emitting countries. It does address 

what are some of the answers. We are really flatline growth from 

1990 projected to 2095. It is the developing countries. I can guarantee you the developing countries are not going to go into a worldwide climate policy. We met with the Chinese a few years ago, 

asked them a couple times. Their basic response was, you had your 

chance to get to the middle class, now it is ours. 

The only thing we have is fear left, Mr. Chairman. It is fear on 

the stimulus, $900 billion. It is fear for immediate action on climate change. When in the world do we stop attacking a messenger 

of a divergent scientific opinion? And shame on us for doing so. If 

132 

we were to apply the Fairness Doctrine that we are going to try 

to ram down America on telecommunications policy, the Fairness 

Doctrine would say three panelists for a view on climate change 

that is supportive of what Dr. Michaels is speaking of and three 

in opposition, so I would hope that as we talk about Fairness Doctrine, that would be brought to the committee. 

Let me ask, how would each of you respond—of course, I have 

very limited time—to this statement: We will harness the sun and 

the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. True 

or false, Dr. Michaels? 

Mr. MICHAELS. I can’t give you an answer. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dr. Ackerman? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would need more information. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dr. Ebi? 

Ms. EBI. I agree, there would need to be additional information 

before I could comment. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Here is a statement: We will harness the sun 

and the winds and the soil for fuel to fuel our cars and run our 

factories. Mr. Woolsey? 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Today I drive a plug-in hybrid and I have photovoltaic cells on my roof and batteries in my basement, and I drive 

40 to 50 miles a day on sunlight. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I mean yes or no. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes, it can be done. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And your electricity comes from what commodity 

product? 

Mr. WOOLSEY. It comes from Baltimore Gas and Electric, which 

is whatever they use. Some of it is coal, some of it is other. But—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But that is not wind and that is not solar. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. They are moving into—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is not renewable as by the definition of 

our—— 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Solar is part of it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, I am just saying this statement. 

OK. Let us go to General Sullivan. 

General SULLIVAN. I have no idea. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Yes. Thank you. An honest answer. I will tell 

you, you are not going to operate a United States steel mill on 

wind, on solar, on renewables. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. It will take a lot longer. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I will say you will never run a United States 

steel mill on wind, on solar, on renewables. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. I disagree. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is what this process is all about. 

Professor Schrag? 

Mr. SCHRAG. I think what is missing from this question is the 

time scale. In the next decade it is going to be very hard to switch 

off of fossil fuels. It is more than 80 percent of our energy. Longterm scales, we are going to have to because we are going to run 

out and that is just the way it is. It is going to get very expensive. 

And, you know, today in Iceland, for example, Alcoa is building aluminum smelting plants that are run on geothermal so it is possible, 

it is just expensive in other parts of the world and in the United 

States today, but at some point fossil fuels are going to get even 

133 

more expensive, and the security issues associated with that are serious. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, in this part of our debate on climate change, 

because those of us who are for all-of-the-above strategy, if you 

want to talk national security and having reliable power, the nuclear power has to be part of this debate. The environmental left 

has yet to come to the table to believe that growth in the nuclear 

power movement in this country. They continue to block the ability 

to store high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. They will 

allow the continued storing of this on site to a point where the reservoirs will be full, and these sites will have to be decommissioned. 

We are actually paying federal tax dollars to these companies to 

store the waste that we have agreed to hold. 

I would like to ask Dr. Michaels, I think a lot of us are concerned 

especially with the comments made today and your lone voice and 

this issue of fear. I mean, you hear the world is going to end and 

we have to do something now. Tell me why you believe there is this 

rush to act. 

Mr. MICHAELS. That is a very complicated question. It is obviously political. Obviously a lot of voices are not being heard. And 

my fear, my fear is that that is going to have a very counterproductive effect and I really want the committee to consider this. 

If you take capital out of the system with expensive taxes and capand-trade programs, that capital would normally be used by individuals in their 401(k)s for investment and those investments are 

often made in companies that produce things efficiently or produce 

efficient things compared to their competitors. They are advantaged in the competitive marketplace. So you can have a very counterproductive effect by putting in regressive energy taxes or other 

programs like that. You take capital out of the system that would 

normally be used for investment in companies that produce things 

efficiently. This is very, very obvious that people are doing this. I 

ask you to take a look at the share prices of various producers of 

automobiles and take a look at the share prices of those—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And let me be real quick, Professor Schrag, just 

your quick answer on coal-to-liquid technologies. Support it? I 

mean, in your testimony you talked about being able to pull off the 

carbon stream. 

Mr. SCHRAG. Coal to liquids, if done improperly the way the 

South Africans do, is one of the dirtiest technologies in the world. 

If it is done properly with biomass blending and carbon sequestration, it can be among the cleanest technologies in the world. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, did you hear that testimony? It is 

your witness. Did you hear his answer? 

Mr. MARKEY. I am sorry. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am teasing. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, can you repeat the answer? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am just teasing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I would really like to hear the answer again, 

please. 

Mr. SCHRAG. The answer was that the same technology that 

makes incredibly dirty fuel in South Africa, twice the emissions of 

regular oil, if done properly with the right regulations, with blending biomass with the coal, and what we are talking about could be 

134 

waste biomass or wood chips, and capturing the carbon from the 

process can actually produce very efficient, clean fuel, but it has to 

be done right, not in a dirty fashion. 

Mr. MARKEY. I will just say to the gentleman, in the stimulus bill, the House put in $2.5 billion for carbon capture and sequestration, trying to find ways of using technologies that can sequester 

the carbon. The Senate put in about $4 billion. The debate is not 

over whether or not we should be doing something in this area, the 

debate is over how many billions of dollars we should be spending 

in this area. So that is really not what this debate is about. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and we haven’t seen the commerce report, Mr. Chairman, but I think that has now been cut to $1 billion from 

what I have heard. But I do need to just give credit to the quote 

I used on ‘‘We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to 

fuel our cars and run our factories,’’ President Barack Obama, my 

State. We are very excited but this is part of the research you have 

to do to find out exactly what people are saying because this is impossible in the near term. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman and I thank all of the witnesses as well. This has been a very, very helpful stage-setting 

hearing for us. We discussed the economics, the national security, 

and the health implications of climate change, and I think what we 

heard here today is that there is a real urgency for our country to 

become the leader, and that is the intention of this subcommittee 

and full committee. We intend on acting this year in a way that 

deals with the urgency of the problem, and there is good news. The 

good news includes the fact that 42 percent of all new electrical 

generating capacity installed in 2008 was wind power, 50 percent 

was natural gas, so that is not a bad formula for dealing with climate change, and I think that is going to accelerate in the years 

ahead, even as we do the research and deal with carbon capture 

and sequestration to try to accommodate coal in the years ahead. 

So that is a huge number, 42 percent of all new electrical generation capacity. It can be expected to go to 50 and 60 percent in the 

years ahead as a national renewable electricity standard is adopted. 

So I am very optimistic, and this panel has helped to pinpoint 

the problem, but talk about some of the solutions as well, and we 

thank you for that, and with the thanks of the committee, this 

hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding our subcommittee’s first hearing this morning to evaluate the impacts of climate change on the United States. 

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports clear scientific consensus that human activities have increased emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming. 

The questions many continue to grapple with, however, are to what extent will 

future warming occur and at what costs to our society? 

Several experts in academia, government, and the private sector believe climate 

change could have ramifications not only on global temperatures, but on America’s 

overall economy, public health, and national security. 

For example, a representative from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 

testified last Congress that climate change is likely to have a ‘‘significant impact on 

135 

health’’ caused by extreme heat and weather, air pollution, and water-borne infectious diseases. 

For urban areas like Houston, higher temperatures have been shown to facilitate 

the development of ground-level ozone which can lead to respiratory illnesses, asthma, and lung damage. 

I am also concerned with the anticipated impacts of climate change on severe 

weather systems, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The Gulf Coast has already recently been battered by Hurricanes Ike and Katrina 

which have proven the vulnerability of these areas to loss of life and property. 

Perhaps the timeliest factor is the economic cost associated with addressing, or 

not addressing, climate change. 

America is facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and many 

family budgets are already stretched past their breaking point. 

Last year, government analysis by both the EPA and EIA found that climate 

change legislation would increase the cost of gasoline and electricity for American 

consumers and businesses. 

I have concerns with the timing of this extra burden on hard-working Americans 

and believe any efforts to address climate change must protect both our environment and our economy. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

136 


63825.012
137 


63825.013
138 


63825.014
139 


63825.015
140 


63825.016
141 


63825.017
142 


63825.018
143 


63825.019
144 


63825.020
145 


63825.021
146 


63825.022
147 


63825.023
148 


63825.024
149 


63825.025
150 


63825.026
151 


63825.027
152 


63825.028
153 


63825.029
154 


63825.030
155 


63825.031
156 


63825.032
157 


63825.033
158 


63825.034
159 


63825.035
160 


63825.036
161 


63825.037
162 


63825.038
163 


63825.039
164 


63825.040
165 


63825.041
166 


63825.042
167 


63825.043
168 


63825.044
169 


63825.045
170 


63825.046
171 


63825.047
172 


63825.048
173 


63825.049
174 


63825.050
175 


63825.051
176 


63825.052
177 


63825.053
178 


63825.054
179 


63825.055
180 


63825.056
181 


63825.057
182 


63825.058
183 


63825.059
184 


63825.060
185 


63825.061
186 


63825.062
187 


63825.063
188 


63825.064
189 


63825.065
190 


63825.066
191 


63825.067
192 


63825.068
193 


63825.069
194 


63825.070
195 


63825.071
196 


63825.072
197 


63825.073
198 


63825.074
199 


63825.075
200 


63825.076
201 


63825.150
202 


63825.151
203 


63825.152
204 


63825.153
205 


63825.154
206 


63825.155
207 


63825.156
208 


63825.157
209 


63825.158
210 


63825.159
211 


63825.160
212 


63825.161
213 


63825.162
214 


63825.163
215 


63825.164
216 


63825.165
217 


63825.166
218 


63825.167
219 


63825.168
220 


63825.169
221 


63825.170
222 


63825.171
223 


63825.172
224 


63825.173
225 


63825.174
226 


63825.175
227 


63825.176
228 


63825.177
229 


63825.178
230 


63825.179
231 


63825.180
232 


63825.181
233 


63825.182
234 


63825.183
235 


63825.184
236 


63825.185
237 


63825.186
238 


63825.187
239 


63825.188
240 


63825.189
241 


63825.190
242 


63825.191
243 


63825.192
244 


63825.193
245 


63825.194
246 


63825.195
247 

Æ 


63825.196