U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

62–449 2010

GLOBAL WARMING’S GROWING CONCERNS: 

IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2009 

Serial No. 111–6 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

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

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

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ...................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of South Dakota, opening statement ........................................................ 7 

Hon. John Salazar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 13 

WITNESSES

Jerry Hatfield, Supervisory Plant Physiologist, USDA ........................................ 14 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 17 

Heather Cooley, Senior Researcher, Pacific Institute ........................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 33 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 86 

Tom Troxel, Director, Black Hills Forest Resource Association .......................... 48 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 93 

Ford B. West, President, The Fertilizer Institute ................................................. 60 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 62 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 104 

Johannes Lehmann, Associate Professor of Soil Fertility Management/Soil 

Biogeochemistry, Cornell University .................................................................. 66 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 68 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 107 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, a fact sheet from AIM–AG entitled ‘‘Tennessee Agriculture 

Facts’’ .................................................................................................................... 78 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

GLOBAL WARMING’S GROWING CONCERNS: 

IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m. in Room 2175, 

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

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Herseth Sandlin, 

Salazar, Cleaver, Speier, Inslee, Sensenbrenner, and Blackburn. 

Staff present: Ana Unruh-Cohen and Aliya Brodsky. 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is called to order. 

On Tuesday, the Obama administration released a new report, 

‘‘Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.’’ It is the 

most comprehensive look at the current and potential impacts of 

global warming on the United States to date. 

The results are sobering. Temperatures are increasing. Sea level 

is rising. More extreme downpours are occurring. The report makes 

clear that global warming is happening and that the impacts are 

now being felt in every region of America and across society. 

Today, in the first of a series of hearings on that report, we are 

examining the impacts of global warming on agriculture and forestry. All Americans should be concerned with the impacts on these 

critical sectors. We all must eat. We all use products from forests 

every day. 

The findings of the report that rising temperatures, precipitation 

changes, and increasing weeds, disease and pests will impact the 

productivity of farms and forests should make all of us apprehensive. Land managers rely on the cumulated knowledge about their 

land, weather, and crops. But climate change is rewriting the 

Farmers’ Almanac. The past is no longer prologue, and farmers 

must make decisions in the face of growing uncertainty. The serious consequences for agriculture and forestry provide yet another 

reason to take action now to curb global warming pollution. 

The report indicates that the growing season now starts 2 weeks 

earlier, impacting farming and crops in rural America. Heavy 

downpours in the last 50 years increased 67 percent in the Northeast and 31 percent in the Midwest. Unsurprisingly, this time has 

been marked by record flooding in those regions. Yet, in the rapidly 

growing Southwest, they face a different climate challenge as water 

supplies are becoming increasingly scarce. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
2 

Indeed, farmers and foresters are already suffering the consequences of climate change. But unlike other impacted sectors, 

they can also contribute to the solutions. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. forests and soils sequestered over 

1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2007, almost 15 percent 

of the Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Land management practices designed to increase this carbon sink can pull even more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. 

Biomass can be used to generate renewable electricity, reducing 

global warming pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. Biomass 

can also produce renewable liquid fuels, allowing American consumers desperate for energy independence the ability to power 

their cars with cellulosic fuels from Middle America rather than oil 

from the Middle East. 

Wind turbines are sprouting on farms and ranches, generating 

clean electricity, while continuing the land’s traditional use for food 

production. 

These practices are already growing clean-energy jobs and generating new revenue in our rural communities. With the right energy 

and climate policies, American farmers and foresters will play a 

crucial role in curbing the dangerous build-up of global warming 

pollution while creating new sources of income; money can grow on 

trees after all. 

The witnesses before us will help the select committee understand the challenges and opportunities global warming presents to 

U.S. agriculture and forestry. I look forward to their testimony. 

Let me now turn and recognize the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
3 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 here 62449A.001
4 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 here 62449A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today’s hearing gives the select committee the opportunity to explore 

the impacts the proposed climate legislation will have on the agriculture industry and the effect that it will have on consumers. 

The House Democratic leadership has spent the last 2 months 

rushing to pass a carbon emissions reduction scheme that I call 

cap-and-tax. I call it cap-and-tax because the legislation is a hidden 

energy tax that will increase the price of nearly every staple in 

American life, including electricity, goods and services, and gasoline. Today’s hearing will allow us to explore how this flawed policy 

will hurt American farmers. 

Cap-and-tax will reduce the security of America’s food supply. If 

the government mandates a cap on fossil fuel emissions, many utilities will switch from coal to natural gas to generate electricity because natural gas produces fewer CO2 emissions. As demand for 

natural gas rises, the price will rise as well. But natural gas isn’t 

used solely for electricity. As Ford West, president of The Fertilizer 

Institute says in his written testimony, there is no substitute for 

natural gas in nitrogen production. 

The U.S. domestic nitrogen fertilizer industry supplied about 85 

percent of America’s nitrogen in the 1990s, but the high cost of natural gas has moved much of this production and its jobs overseas. 

Today, just 55 percent of this vital farming resource is made in the 

United States. Much of the imported nitrogen is made in places 

that offer cheap natural gas like the Middle East, China, Russia, 

and Venezuela. These countries have no restrictive climate policies 

like cap-and-tax, and their energy efficiency is generally lower than 

that in the United States. 

Mr. West cites a study by the Doane Advisory Services that 

shows that a cap-and-tax scheme would add $6 billion to $12 billion in additional costs for farmers by 2020. 

A recent study by the Heritage Foundation on the Democrat’s 

cap-and-tax proposal also shows the devastating effects this scheme 

will have on agriculture. Farmers will be forced to pay more, and 

those costs will be reflected in the price of nearly every agricultural 

product. The Heritage study shows that increases in costs are expected to reduce farmers’ incomes by $8 billion in 2012, and by 

more than $50 billion in 2035. The average net income loss between 2010 and 2035 is projected to be $23 billion. 

With numbers like these, it isn’t surprising that 37 food and agriculture groups have opposed the cap-and-tax legislation. In addition to expanding taxes, cap-and-tax will expand the government, 

especially the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Because enforcement of a true carbon cap would debilitate the 

U.S. economy, the legislative proposal currently before the House 

of Representatives allows covered entities to make substantial portions of their reduction outside the cap go through what are called 

offsets. The bill allows 2 billion tons of offsets per year, 1 billion 

of which must come from domestic sources. The value of these billion offsets will easily reach into the tens of billions. Because the 

cap is so broad, agriculture and forestry are the only areas where 

offsets can be applied. The result will be tens of billions of tax dollars flowing into the farm industry. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
6 

As financial and auto industries have learned, Federal money 

does not come without strings. Under the current bill, the EPA will 

be in charge of pulling these strings, and the EPA has no useful 

experience regulating agriculture. 

We have already got a whiff of what would happen if the EPA 

tries to regulate greenhouse gases. The American Farm Bureau 

Federation has said that if the EPA were to apply the Clean Air 

Act to greenhouse gases, nearly every dairy, cattle, and swine farm 

would fall under the regulations, resulting in literally a cow flatulence tax. The EPA has sworn this isn’t their plan, but to exclude 

these farms from the regulations the EPA would have to take steps 

to exempt them, steps that could be challenged in court. This is the 

kind of absurd regulation that is exactly the type of policy we could 

see if the EPA becomes too involved in regulating greenhouse gases 

and agriculture production. 

Republicans believe that any climate change legislation must 

meet four simple principles: It must protect jobs and the economy; 

produce tangible improvements to the environment; advance technological progress; and feature international participation, including that of China and India. If we keep these principles in mind, 

we can address climate without threatening American farmers or 

our economic health. 

And I thank the Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I do appreciate your having the hearing at this time. I am 

a little frustrated, because I have two other hearings that are going 

on. I did want to be here at least for the beginning and wanted to 

share some of my support for what you are doing, because there 

is nobody that has a greater stake in our getting our policies right 

with greenhouse gases more than agriculture. They have much at 

risk. We are seeing it in the Northwest with declining snow pack, 

with changing temperature patterns. If we don’t get this right, agriculture and forestry, in the area that I represent, will be seriously 

at risk. 

Second, we have legislation that has been advanced from our 

friends on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which our distinguished Chair has helped craft, that can make a big difference for 

farmers, opportunities for farms and forests to reduce global warming pollution, for them to make money. As my good friend, the 

ranking member, pointed out, there are potentially billions of dollars available for American agriculture. This is an important opportunity. They also can earn more money, and we are seeing this in 

my State, leasing their land for wind turbines. 

A national renewable portfolio standard is going to develop that 

market even more, and thoughtful members of the agricultural 

community that I have been discussing are excited about it. Done 

right, there is an opportunity for cleaner fuels to come from forestry and agriculture, not questionable things where it is not clear 

that it actually creates more energy and has dire economic and environmental consequences. But we can get this right. We can proVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:59 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 062449 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\D449.XXX D449

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
7 

vide a safety net to protect rural families from higher energy 

prices. 

And I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for the work that you have 

done in your other committee hat to do that. 

This is serious business. The notion that somehow there will not 

be regulation of agriculture, not just for its greenhouse gas emissions but for other things that are consequences of massive family—massive factory farms that put at risk American family agriculture is a pipe dream. We are seeing demands for more thoughtful regulation to protect people, and we are seeing millions of people in urban areas having to spend massive amounts of money to 

deal with the consequences of not having appropriate environmental regulation. It is coming. 

This is part of a framework that can help them make money. Everybody is going to be better off. I appreciate what you are doing 

with this hearing, and look forward to working with you and other 

distinguished members of this panel who have the expertise to 

make sure that we get this right. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms. 

Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you and the ranking member for holding this important 

hearing today on the impact of climate change on agriculture and 

forestry. 

As the at-large Member for the State of South Dakota, a predominantly rural State, this issue is particularly important to my 

constituents. Moreover, the opportunities in the agriculture and 

forestry sectors to participate in mitigating climate change is 

equally an important topic. 

It is estimated that agriculture and forest lands currently sequester approximately 12 percent of our Nation’s carbon emissions. 

With proper proactive management techniques, it has been estimated that the ag and forest sectors can sequester up to 25 percent 

of emissions. As such, the ag and forestry industries are essential 

partners in our efforts to mitigate climate change. 

Forests can both emit and sequester carbon, and through proper 

forest management, which includes thinning overstocked stands, 

working to ensure diversity of types of ages of trees, and other 

steps, we can increase carbon sequestration. 

At the appropriate time, I will look forward to introducing one 

of my constituents on the panel today, but again, I thank the chairman for holding the hearing and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very interested in this hearing today mainly because I am 

a farmer, and my wife and I still farm 3,000 acres back in Colorado. So I look forward to hearing your testimony, and I want to 

thank the chairman for calling this important hearing. 

While I have my concerns about the cap-and-trade bill that is 

coming up, I hope that we get it right. So thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
8 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 here 62449A.003
9 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 here 62449A.004
10 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 here 62449A.005
11 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 here 62449A.006
12 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

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

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Missouri is a part of the U.S. breadbasket, and we produce in our 

State, at least generally, depending of course on weather conditions, about 382 million bushels of corn a year. And I am very 

proud to represent a district in a State that is a leader in promoting alternative energy sources. 

In 2008, my State, Mr. Chairman, was the third State to begin 

implementing a renewable fuels standard, requiring the sale of 10 

percent ethanol blends when ethanol is cheaper than fossil fuels. 

And it is perhaps a little less known that Missouri places outdoor 

recreation up high in terms of its annual production of revenue. 

And I think at a time like this, when recreation sometimes bumps 

heads with agricultural desires and goals, we have got to be very, 

very careful. And my concern is that global warming is real. It is 

no longer a political issue. It is an issue revolving around the survival of this planet as we know it. And the more we can produce 

renewables for fuel, the better off we will be. 

As I have said before, we, this world in which we live, went 

through a time when there were salt wars. People actually fought 

wars over salt. And then as we progressed and made salt less valuable and alternatives more viable, we stopped having wars over 

salt. And refrigeration was a big part of it. 

And I think the same thing can happen with renewables, alternative fuels, that we can reduce the need to have wars over oil. Not 

that we have ever had one. But I thought I might just mention 

that. And so I look forward to listening to our experts and have 

some questions that I would like to raise that would hopefully help 

me. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
13 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 here 62449A.007
14 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

And now we are going to turn to our very distinguished panel. 

Each witness will be recognized for 5 minutes. At 5 minutes, I am 

going to begin to tap. You will have 15 seconds to conclude your 

statement after that 5-minute period when I tap, just so I can give 

you that notice in advance. 

STATEMENTS OF JERRY L. HATFIELD, SUPERVISORY PLANT 

PHYSIOLOGIST, USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 

NATIONAL SOIL TILTH LABORATORY; HEATHER S. COOLEY, 

SENIOR RESEARCHER, PACIFIC INSTITUTE; THOMAS A. 

TROXEL, DIRECTOR, BLACK HILLS FOREST RESOURCE ASSOCIATION; FORD B. WEST, PRESIDENT, THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE; AND JOHANNES LEHMANN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT/SOIL BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our first witness is Dr. Jerry Hatfield, supervisory plant physiologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

the lead author on the agriculture chapter in ‘‘The Global Climate 

Change Impacts on the United States’’ Report. Dr. Hatfield has had 

a distinguished scientific career, authoring over 325 publications 

and serving as laboratory director of the National Soil Tilth Laboratory. He has also served as the president of the American Society of Agronomy. 

So we thank you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY L. HATFIELD 

Mr. HATFIELD. It is a pleasure to be able to present this information on climate impacts on agriculture to this committee. 

Agriculture is extremely sensitive to climate and weather, and 

resilience of our production systems to changes in climate occurs by 

understanding these impacts and their effects. It is also important 

to realize that U.S. agriculture is diverse and that simple, general 

statements about the impacts of climate are not possible. 

Climate change is evidenced by rising temperatures, increasing 

precipitation and intensity of storms, rising carbon dioxide and 

ozone levels that will impact agriculture. These changes are not 

consistent across the United States and may affect some agricultural areas more than others. 

The scenarios of climate change in the U.S. have implications for 

agriculture, which must be understood to protect the capability of 

food, feed, fiber, and fuel production and quality. 

One of the easier ways for us to understand the implications of 

climate on agriculture is to consider the impacts of climate on animals. The increase of temperature and the potential for more heat 

waves and extreme heat events will affect animal production. Animals respond to a combination of temperature and humidity in a 

similar fashion than do humans. When it is hot and humid, we decrease our activity, reduce our food intake, and generally are less 

energetic than at other times. High temperature and humidity reduce the feed intake of animals, which in turn reduces the rate of 

meat, milk, or egg production. 

At the opposite end of the range, cold temperature extremes can 

reduce increase feed intake, but the extra energy is consumed to 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
15 

keep the animals warm, which results in reduced growth or milk 

production. 

Extremes in hot or cold have negative impacts on animals, and 

heat waves can have serious consequences on animals and can create conditions in which there is increased death of animals in 

feedlots or barns. 

High temperature extremes will affect plants as well as animals, 

and of particular concern is the probability of heat waves or high 

temperature events at the pollination stage. Exposure of pollen to 

high temperatures can destroy the pollen and reduce the production of seed or fruit. Occurrences of heat waves at pollen time can 

have significant and negative impacts on plant production. 

Plants differ in their reaction to temperature. Cool season plants 

which are best suited to lower temperatures include many of the 

vegetables, like peas or spinach. Warm season plants, like watermelon, cotton, or cucumber, thrive when the temperatures are 

warm. As temperature warms, this causes the plants to progress 

to their stage of development at a rate which does not allow for 

maximum expansion of leaves, stems, or fruits. 

One example of potential impacts of warming temperatures on 

crop yield has been found for soybean. As temperatures increase, 

soybean yields in the southern U.S. are predicted to decrease by 3.5 

percent, while in the Midwest they are projected to increase by 2.5 

percent. Rising temperatures will exceed the optimum range for 

soybeans in the South while bringing soybean into the optimum 

range in the Midwest. 

Likewise, for many vegetables, warming temperatures will cause 

a reduction in production even more quickly because these are cool 

season crops. While many of the vegetables are grown during the 

winter in temperate climates, the length of this time in which this 

period is optimal will decrease. Increasing winter temperatures 

does increase the length of the growing season, and there are potential negative impacts on fruit trees, which require a certain 

amount of cooling or chilling in order to set fruit. 

Climate models and observations indicate that nighttime temperatures are rising faster than daytime temperatures. This shift 

in temperature patterns during the day has significant impacts on 

plants, particularly during the grain or fruit development periods. 

Warm temperatures at night increase the respiration rate, which 

reduces the amount of sugars and starches which can be stored in 

grain or fruit. This causes the fruit or grain size to be smaller and 

reduces the length of the grain-filling period. 

Quality of agriculture produce is not often thought of when we 

discuss climate change. However, there are many impacts of climate and weather on product quality. Variations in wine quality 

among years are related to subtle changes in weather†sensitive periods in the growing season. And there are direct and indirect effects of climate on agriculture. 

Agriculture has and can adapt to a changing climate. The areas 

in which we grow certain plants demonstrates how we adapt plant 

production systems to the climate. This adaptation has been occurring in agriculture for centuries as farmers have selected the best 

crops for their regions, changed their cultural practices to cope 

with the risks from environmental stresses, and modified their 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
16 

practices to reduce the impacts of biological stresses caused by 

weeds, insects, or diseases. Research has been able to help speed 

this process by providing information to guide the decisions. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Hatfield follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
17 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 62449A.008
18 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 62449A.009
19 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 62449A.010
20 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 62449A.011
21 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 62449A.012
22 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 62449A.013
23 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 62449A.014
24 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 62449A.015
25 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 62449A.016
26 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 62449A.017
27 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 62449A.018
28 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 62449A.019
29 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 62449A.020
30 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 62449A.021
31 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hatfield, very much. 

Our next witness is Ms. Heather Cooley, senior researcher at the 

Pacific Institute. Ms. Cooley works with the Pacific Institute’s 

water program, researching climate change, water privatization, 

and California water issues. She has also studied climate and landuse change at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California. 

We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER S. COOLEY 

Ms. COOLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to offer testimony regarding the effects of climate change on agriculture. As directed, I will limit my discussion 

here to those impacts related to water resources. 

Impacts on water resources will be especially problematic for agriculture. Numerous national and regional assessments, including 

the study released earlier this week, demonstrate that climate 

change is already affecting U.S. freshwater resources, and that 

these impacts will intensify in the future. 

The U.S. Geological Survey regularly reports that agriculture 

uses 70 percent of the Nation’s freshwater resources; thus, impacts 

on water resources will have major consequences for agriculture. 

Rain-fed agriculture is especially vulnerable to changing precipitation patterns. In response to these changes, farmers may shift to 

supplemental irrigation, which may increase tensions over limited 

water resources. We are already seeing this in some areas. For example, in Georgia’s Flint River Basin, farmers are rapidly shifting 

from rain-fed to irrigated agriculture, and this shift is one of the 

factors fueling the ongoing tensions between Georgia, Alabama, 

and Florida. 

Surface water supplies will be increasingly out of phase with agricultural water demand. Surface runoff is expected to decline during summer months at precisely the time when agricultural water 

demand peaks. Floods and droughts will become more common and 

more severe, and these extreme events will have a greater effect 

on crop production than changes in average conditions. Losses from 

droughts already total $6 billion to $8 billion annually, much of 

which is due to impacts on agriculture, and these losses could rise 

in the future. 

Many of the impacts of climate change are now unavoidable. In 

fact, they are already occurring. The good news is that adaptation 

can substantially reduce the risk of climate change for the agricultural sector. But we cannot be complacent. The time to act is now. 

In the time available, I will offer a set of recommendations to reduce agriculture’s vulnerability to changes in water resources. 

First, we must improve the management of surface resources. 

Specifically, the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers should adopt new rules for the operation of water infrastructure in light of climate change. And based on these experiences and 

the methodologies they develop, the Bureau and Corps should provide guidance and oversight to local and state agencies to do similar analyses. 

We must also improve groundwater management. Our dependence on groundwater may increase in the future in response to 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
32 

more frequent and severe droughts. Throughout much of the 

United States, however, groundwater basins are mismanaged and 

overdrafted. In particular, the Federal Government should require 

all States to design and implement comprehensive groundwater 

monitoring and management programs. 

We must also capture water conservation and efficiency potential. Reducing agricultural water use reduces vulnerability to 

drought. However, many conservation practices require substantial 

investment. To help defray these initial costs, the government 

should expand funding for water conservation efficiency within the 

Federal Farm Bill. In addition, we should provide tax exemptions 

or rebates for efficient irrigation equipment and infrastructure. 

We must also eliminate Federal policies that inadvertently increase vulnerability to climate change. For example, the Farm Bill 

provides substantial direct payments for water-intensive crops that 

may not be appropriate under future climate conditions and may 

ultimately increase vulnerability to climate change. 

In its place, we should support new policies that promote climate 

change adaptation. Specifically, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides cost shares for practices that promote agricultural production and environmental quality. EQIP, however, accounts for less than 1 percent of the overall budget, and Congress 

has threatened to reduce funding further. The Federal Government 

should expand funding for Farm Bill conservation programs, especially EQIP. 

We must also continue research and development. Although climate change is a global problem, its impacts are local. Accordingly, 

detailed assessments of climate change risks require thorough 

analysis at the regional level. Without significant investment to 

generate estimates of regional impacts, climate change will remain 

a vague and unwieldy threat. 

The information must then be communicated to the agricultural 

community. Farmers and local communities will ultimately be responsible for implementing adaptation strategies, and the information that is available has not been adequately conveyed to farmers. 

Additional outreach is best accomplished by building on existing relationships. The U.S. Department of Agriculture in consultation 

with NRCS and extension agents should develop training and provide guidance about climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for the agricultural sector. 

We know that climate change is already occurring and that our 

farms are on the front lines. The challenge is to quickly equip the 

most vulnerable sectors and communities with tools to plan for and 

adapt to unavoidable impacts. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Cooley follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
33 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 62449A.022
34 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 62449A.023
35 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 62449A.024
36 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 62449A.025
37 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 62449A.026
38 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 62449A.027
39 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 62449A.028
40 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 62449A.029
41 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 62449A.030
42 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 62449A.031
43 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 62449A.032
44 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 62449A.033
45 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 62449A.034
46 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 62449A.035
47 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 62449A.036
48 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Cooley. 

It is now a great pleasure of mine to be able to introduce the 

next witness to members of the select committee. He is a fellow 

South Dakotan and a friend, Mr. Tom Troxel. 

Tom is the director of the Black Hills Forest Resource Association. Mr. Troxel brings a deep understanding of forestry and the 

forest industry, gleaned from over three decades of experience as 

a forester, working with the forest product companies in South Dakota and Wyoming for about 10 years, or longer than that, but 10 

years in the U.S. Forest Service before then. 

He has been an invaluable resource to my office on issues related 

directly to the Black Hills National Forest and forest practices and 

policies more generally. His expertise is well known at home, but 

also recognized and respected nationally. 

On a personal level, I would like to publicly thank Tom for sharing his advice and counsel with me for many years now, and I 

strongly commend his testimony to my colleagues today. 

Mr. Troxel, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. TROXEL 

Mr. TROXEL. Thank you very much, Representative Herseth 

Sandlin and members of this committee, for this opportunity to discuss climate change and forests. 

Many climate experts are predicting a warmer, drier climate in 

the coniferous forests of the Western United States. If correct, 

based on the last decade of drought conditions over much of the 

West, our forests will be increasingly susceptible to insect 

epidemics and forest fires, both of which have significant effects on 

air quality, water quality, stream flows, wildlife habitat, infrastructure, recreation, and rural communities. 

Sustainable management of forests can, to a substantial degree, 

mitigate global climate change, and there appears to be substantial 

overlap between climate change goals and proper forest management. Forests are unique in that no other means of sequestering 

or offsetting carbon has the added benefits of providing clean air, 

clean water, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and wood 

products. 

Federal policies that invite and encourage sustainable use of our 

Nation’s forests can help produce low carbon energy and sequester 

carbon through management strategies for sequestration, reducing 

fires and insect epidemics, substitution of biomass for fossil fuels, 

and utilization of wood products. Forests can either be a sink or a 

carbon source. A carefully managed forest can both prevent and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Emphasis must be placed on maintaining forest health by 

thinning overstocked stands to reduce the risk of insect epidemics 

and wildfires. When catastrophic events do occur, dead trees should 

be salvaged, the area regenerated to restore forest cover and allow 

young trees to start absorbing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. 

Emissions of greenhouse gases can be reduced through the substitution of biomass for fossil fuels to produce heat, electricity, and 

transportation fuels. The Congressional definition of renewable biomass in the RES is critical for cogeneration plants to be financially 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
49 

feasible. Forest biomass from Federal lands must be eligible, and 

all sustainably managed forests, public or private, should be equally eligible to supply biomass. 

I would like to show several slides, if we can have the slides, 

please. I am going to go through these quickly in the interest of 

time. 

This is the result of a mountain pine beetle epidemic in the 

Black Hills. These dead trees are a carbon source and a fire risk. 

This is a mountain pine beetle epidemic in Colorado. These dead 

trees are also a carbon source and fire risk. All the stands in this 

entire landscape are lodge pole pine. They are the same age, and 

they are overstocked. This was a mountain pine beetle epidemic 

waiting to happen, and increased temperatures pulled the trigger. 

This is the smoke column from the Jasper fire in the Black Hills. 

Fires are a huge source of greenhouse gases and particulates. 

This is the Jasper fire area. It is now a carbon source as the 

trees decay. There is a risk of reburn. And the burned area needs 

reforestation to restart the sequestration cycle. 

This is an unthinned stand of Ponderosa pine in the Black Hills. 

A stand like this is very susceptible to fires and forest insects. 

This is a thin stand of Ponderosa pine in the Black Hills. This 

is a healthy stand with low susceptibility to fires and insects. This 

is a carbon sequestration factory. There is strong public support for 

thinning like this in the Black Hills, because residents understand 

the link between overstocked forests and fires and mountain pine 

beetles. 

This is a slash pile. The Forest Service burns thousands of these 

each year. These are a source of greenhouse gases and particulates. 

These should but do not meet the RES definition of renewable biomass. 

My last slide is a picture of the Case Number 1 area. This is the 

site in the Black Hills National Forest where the first timber sale 

from the entire national forest system was sold in 1899. This area 

has been thinned and harvested several times since 1899. Since 

then, approximately 6 billion board feet have been harvested from 

the Black Hills National Forest, and at the same time, the standing volume has increased from about 1.5 billion board feet to almost 6 billion board feet. Sustainable forest management really 

does work. 

Including forestry in the climate change equation offers an opportunity to have our cake and eat it, too. We can make our forests 

healthier, reduce the risk of wildfires and insects, better utilize 

slash in small trees, create new jobs in rural communities, and 

produce renewable energy from American resources. 

In conclusion, thank you very much for allowing me to testify 

today. I appreciate your time and attention, and I offer my full assistance to the committee, to Chairman Markey, and also to you, 

Representative Herseth Sandlin. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Troxel follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
50 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 62449A.037
51 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 62449A.038
52 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 62449A.039
53 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 62449A.040
54 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 62449A.041
55 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 62449A.042
56 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 62449A.043
57 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 62449A.044
58 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 62449A.045
59 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 62449A.046
60 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Troxel. 

Our next witness joining us today is Mr. Ford West. He is president of The Fertilizer Institute. Mr. West brings 30 years of experience with The Fertilizer Institute, representing the association before Congress, Federal agencies, and the media. 

We thank you for being here today, Mr. West. You are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF FORD B. WEST 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

The fertilizer industry supplies nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphate, and potash, to farmers who grow food for America’s dinner 

table. Fertilizer is a strategic commodity in food production, because 40 to 60 percent of the world’s food supply is tied to the use 

of fertilizers. 

Now, all sectors of our industry will be impacted by climate 

change policy, but I am going to focus on the nitrogen sector this 

morning, which is most vulnerable to the impacts of the cap-andtrade system. And it is our goal at the end of the day, if Congress 

passes cap-and-trade, that it will not place our industry in a serious competitive disadvantage compared to our global fertilizer producers that we compete with, such as China, Russia, Venezuela, 

and will not force the domestic fertilizer industry overseas to countries with no carbon reduction policies. 

The nitrogen industry uses natural gas as a feedstock or an 

input required to make nitrogen. We use natural gas as an ingredient in a fixed chemical process that combines nitrogen from the 

air and hydrogen from natural gas to produce nitrogen fertilizer, 

ammonia, and we produce CO2. And outside of changing the laws 

of chemistry, there is nothing we can do to change this process, and 

90 percent of the cost of producing a ton of ammonia is tied directly 

to the price of natural gas. And so this makes the nitrogen industry 

one of the most energy-intensive, greenhouse-gas-intensive, and 

trade-intensive sectors of our economy. 

Now, the industry has worked hard to be as energy efficient as 

we can. We have cut the amount of natural gas used to produce 

a ton of ammonia by 11 percent. Not only does that save energy, 

but it also reduces CO2 emissions, and the U.S. EPA estimates that 

we have cut about 4.5 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year out 

of our production process. We want to be more efficient, but the 

chemical nature of our process limits our ability to find much more 

efficiency gains in our production process. 

One of our big concerns here is fuel switching. We don’t have a 

very good history with fuel switching when Congress repealed the 

Fuel Use Act in 1987 and allowed utilities to burn natural gas to 

produce electricity. As the utilities began that process and went 

from zero to about 20 percent of our electricity produced by burning 

natural gas, the price of natural gas went from like $2 to about $8, 

and we shut down 26 nitrogen plants in that process. We were the 

poster child of leakage in that public policy, and it is a challenge 

we have. 

Currently, we have 29 nitrogen plants operating in the U.S.; we 

import about 55 percent of our nitrogen; and 82 percent of that niVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:59 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 062449 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\D449.XXX D449

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
61 

trogen comes from countries that are not necessarily eager to regulate carbon and reduce CO2 emissions. 

So I would hope you can understand that we have some concerns 

with our remaining domestic nitrogen production as the utilities 

again will turn to natural gases and alternatives to generate electricity. And I know that we are trying to go to the solar and wind 

to produce electricity, but the backup, when the sun is not shining 

and the wind is not blowing, is natural gas. 

So it is important to understand that fertilizer is a gold commodity traded in the world market. We are not only having to compete against those countries that are not interested right now in 

climate change policy, but we also have got to be concerned with 

those governments who are signed on to Kyoto who are looking for 

ways to protect their energy-intensive industries. And we just hope 

that this American policy that we develop on cap-and-trade doesn’t 

cause us more plant closure and raise the amount of imported nitrogen that we have. 

The average nitrogen plant that we have today employs 150 to 

200 people. These are good jobs. The average salary is about 

$75,000. They are located in rural communities. They are good jobs, 

good benefits, and these facilities give a great deal back to the communities. 

I think you can see that the price of energy is a major concern 

in agriculture. We did ask the Doane Advisory Service to do an 

analysis of energy costs and what that may mean to farmers. It is 

somewhere around $6 billion to $12 billion dollars based on the 

Lieberman-Warner bill. And that is why you find agriculture so 

concerned about having an offset program that they could participate in to help recover some of their costs. 

We are very supportive of that. We have been working with fertilizer best management practices in Alberta, the province of Alberta, to develop a protocol based on the 4R nutrient stewardship 

system. And we think the best management practices have a potential to not only increase ag yields, as we are called on to increase 

agriculture production 50 percent by 2025 and double it by 2050, 

but we can also enhance fertilizer use, significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gas, and improve our water quality. 

I thank you and look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. West follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
62 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 62449A.047
63 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 62449A.048
64 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 62449A.049
65 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 62449A.050
66 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. West. 

Our next witness is Dr. Johannes Lehmann, associate professor 

of soil fertility management and soil biogeochemistry at Cornell 

University, and the world’s expert on biochar. Dr. Lehmann has 

conducted research around the world, recently studying nutrient 

and carbon management in the Central Amazon for the Federal Research Institution of Forestry. 

Dr. LEHMANN, welcome to the select committee. You are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JOHANNES LEHMANN 

Mr. LEHMANN. Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and 

members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss biochar for sustainable climate change mitigation and global 

soil. 

Biochar is a fine grain light material that is produced through 

heating of biomass under fire conditions. Upon such heating to relatively low temperatures, the chemical properties of biomass carbon changes to form structures that are much more resistant to microbial degradation. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Sir, could you make sure your microphone is on. 

Mr. LEHMANN. Through this so-called pyrolysis, biomass can be 

transformed from materials that are subject to rapid decomposition 

to material that decomposes much more slowly, thereby creating a 

long-term carbon sink. Such thermally altered material is about 1.5 

to 2 orders of magnitude more stable in soils than uncharred organic matter, thus creating solar carbon pools with a mean resident time of several hundreds to thousands of years. 

Biochar production and its application to soil provides several additional important value streams beyond direct climate change 

mitigation. These include waste management, energy production, 

and soil improvement. Biochar can be produced from a variety of 

feedstocks that would otherwise constitute a financial and environmental liability. Examples include animal manures in agricultural 

regions with high phosphorus and nitrogen loadings, green waste 

that might generate nitrous oxide or methane during landfill, or 

biomass from forest thinning for fire prevention. 

The second value stream arises from the bioenergies generated 

during biochar production. Between 2 and 7 units of energy can be 

produced for each unit of energy invested during the life cycle of 

various biochar systems. 

The third value stream is the improvement of soil quality upon 

biochar additions. Crop yields and many less productive soils can 

be significantly increased, and losses of agro chemicals, such as fertilizer nutrients, herbicides, and pesticides, can be decreased. 

Taken together, these three sources of value can enhance food 

and energy security while also combating climate change. 

Delivered biochar additions to soils have a number of implications for carbon trading. Additionality can be demonstrated because biochar is currently not added to soil to any appreciable extent. Monitoring of biochar sequestration is facilitated by the fact 

that we can easily record the carbon that is added at any time, and 

its sequestration impact does not need to develop over time. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
67 

Verification of sequestration is possible because biochars bear a 

chemical signature that can be distinguished from other organic 

matter and soil. 

The national and global potential of biochar to help mitigate climate change is only theoretical at this point because too few 

biochar systems exist at scale of implementation. Conservative 

modeling of the technical potential place biochar as an approach to 

contribute on the order of 1 gigatron carbon removal annual by 

2050. 

Such widespread adoption of biochar systems will require sustainability criteria. Biochar must therefore be integrated into existing food production systems and not be an alternative for food production; make use of already developed best management practices 

such as conservation agriculture; and build on residue†collection 

systems that are already in place. 

While few fully implemented modern biochar systems exist 

worldwide, the necessary engineering and science capacity is available to evaluate a diverse set of biochar systems at scale of implementation in the near term. In fact, biochar has rapidly evolved 

even over the past 12 months. Evaluation does not rely on a fundamental advance in science, but on application and adaptation of existing science. The underlying technology is robust and sufficiently 

simple to make it applicable to many regions globally. 

Current hurdles to implementation are availability of pyrolysis 

units at sufficient maturity to allow all necessary research and development and as a direct consequence a lack of demonstrated carbon trading activities, a sufficient development of best biochar 

practices and of demonstration of soil health benefits for the full 

spectrum of agro ecosystems. 

The distributed nature of biochar systems and the potential for 

variability between systems creates significant opportunities for 

sustainability, but also hurdles to widespread adoption, regulation, 

and financial viability. 

Establishment of policies at national and international levels is 

required to remove hurdles to implementation and support full 

evaluation of biochar systems. 

Mechanisms for carbon trading need to be put into place that 

recognize biochar soil carbon sequestration. Methodologies must include full lifecycle accounting of emission balances to deliver net 

climate benefits. 

The entire value chain of mitigation approaches must be recognized to reward those activities that have multiple environmental 

and societal benefits. 

Biochar must not be an alternative to making dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions immediately, but it may be an 

important tool in our arsenal for combating climate change. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Lehmann follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
68 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 62449A.051
69 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 62449A.052
70 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 62449A.053
71 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 62449A.054
72 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 62449A.055
73 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 62449A.056
74 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 62449A.057
75 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 62449A.058
76 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Dr. Lehmann. 

I thank all of our witnesses for their testimony. I will go ahead 

and start out the first set of questions. 

And, Mr. Troxel, I want to spend a few minutes focusing on your 

testimony regarding the substitution of biomass for fossil fuels to 

produce heat, electricity, and transportation fuels. 

If you could discuss what impact the Federal definition of renewable biomass in the renewable electricity standard and the renewable fuels standard has on developing wood-based sources of energy; and, how would including woody biomass from Federal lands 

in the RFS and RES impact Federal forest land management? 

Mr. TROXEL. Thank you, Representative Herseth Sandlin. The 

definition of renewable biomass in both the RFS and RES would 

make a great deal of difference in the financial feasibility of plants 

that would either produce electricity or cellulosic ethanol because 

of the financial incentives that are associated with both of those 

pieces of legislation. 

In the case of the RFS definition of renewable biomass, woody 

biomass from the national forest was completely excluded. Most of 

the forest in the Black Hills are Federal Black Hills National Forest, and so that whole stream of biomass is taken off the table. 

In the current version of the RES, there are really three components of woody biomass that would go into any of those facilities. 

There are mill residues. There is slash from the slash piles that we 

saw the picture of, and there are precommercial thinnings. 

In the RES definition, the mill residues would be included. But 

the way I read and understand the definition is that the 

precommercial thinnings and the slash piles would be excluded 

from the renewable biomass because of a specific phrase that excludes timber from mature forest stands. And that is a term, it is 

a fairly generic term. There is not a definition for it. I think it is 

open to debate or challenge, and especially when we get into the 

Federal process of making decisions that could be subject to appeal 

or litigation, and it just opens a lot of uncertainty. 

The other part of the current RES definition that is problematic 

is the requirement that it be harvested in environmentally sustainable quantities as determined by the appropriate Federal land 

manager. As foresters, I am completely supportive of sustainable 

quantities and management, but I don’t know, and this is open to 

speculation, about what the process would be to make that determination and what kind of analysis or decision would be required 

to get there. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Troxel. 

As you may know, we are deep in negotiations as it relates to 

altering the definition that currently exists in the bill that was 

marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we hope 

to be able to make the changes that you suggest so that we are 

able to utilize precommercial thinnings and other woody biomass 

through current forest management practices on Federal forests. 

But would you like to speak for a minute or two about the importance of how this affects private forest owners as well? 

Mr. TROXEL. Most of the timber lands in the Black Hills are Federal. I think it is important, though, to include private timber lands 

and make sure that those private landowners do have a chance to 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
77 

contribute toward production of renewable energy. And I would encourage you to continue your efforts to make sure that that definition does adequately include both private and Federal lands. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Troxel. 

I will reserve some of my other questions for the second round 

of questioning and would now recognize the gentlewoman from 

Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to be with 

us today. We all appreciate it. 

I am sorry I was late to the hearing, but as you have learned 

probably from others, today we have three hearings; Energy and 

Commerce has three hearings that are going on. And, of course, 

trying to step into those and then be here is tricky. But we have 

the opportunity to make them all and appreciate it. 

Agriculture is a very vital part of the economy in Tennessee, 

which is where my district is found. And we are hearing quite a 

bit about the Waxman-Markey bill and the effect it is going to have 

on agriculture. 

And, Madam Chairman, I have two pages that one of our constituents sent over. These are just ag facts. I would love to submit 

those into the record for this hearing if that is possible. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Without objection, so entered. 

[The information follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
78 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 62449A.059
79 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 62449A.060
80 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I appreciate it. This is all about agriculture in Tennessee, and it is $44 billion 

of our state’s economy. That is 11 percent of our state’s economy. 

And we have 79,000 farms that are employing more than 300,000 

people in our state, and over 40 percent of our state is actually 

farmland. So the issues that we are discussing today are of vital 

importance to us on so many different levels. And, as I said, people 

are very concerned about what Waxman-Markey is going to do to 

their livelihood, their ability to earn a livelihood. 

The estimate that has come out so far is that the farmers’ net 

income would decrease by $23 billion annually over the next 25 

years. We have got a lot of farmers that live off that income. And 

also, the increase in construction costs to farm buildings and equipment is expected to be a 5 percent to 10 percent increase added to 

whatever the inflationary rate is. So when you look at what the 

farmers are up against with the cost of buildings and construction 

and equipment and maintenance, and then you get into actually 

dealing with the crop itself—and, Mr. West, fertilizer is a big part 

of that. 

And when I am in West Tennessee, and we are talking about not 

only the row crops but the soybeans and the cotton, fertilizer is a 

huge component of that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And what I would like to hear from you, what 

my constituents are asking from me, if cap-and-trade, if WaxmanMarkey is passed into law, what is it going to do to the fertilizer 

industry? What is it going to do to your prices? And equally as important, what is it going to do to the availability of the product? 

And you touched on nitrogen. And you touched on the offshore 

competition. And I would like for you to drill down on that just a 

little bit. 

Mr. WEST. I think the issue for us is availability. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay. 

Mr. WEST. Because, we see the price of natural gas going up, and that will affect our agriculture across the board. Every $3 increase 

in natural gas is $1 billion to our industry. That is how much gas 

we use in producing ammonia. And so the question becomes are we 

going to produce a nitrogen fertilizer, for example, in the United 

States? Are we going to import the majority of our nitrogen fertilizer? 

Now we import 55 percent today. So we don’t set the price of nitrogen fertilizer in the United States. It is set in the world market. 

And a year ago, the demand for fertilizer around the world as we 

had a food scare and as you know, we had a big conference in Rome 

in June of last year about scarcity of food, we had countries around 

the world hoarding food. We had countries hoarding fertilizer, 

keeping it off the world market. The price of fertilizer went off the 

charts. And, of course, the worldwide drop in the economy has 

changed that and the prices have come down. But if we raise our 

input costs, the world price of fertilizer stays the same, we will 

shut down our production facilities. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I don’t want to interrupt you, but I do have 

one other question I want to go to before my time expires. 

Dr. Hatfield, you mentioned that some of the studies show that 

the optimum range of temperature for the crop harvest actually inVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:59 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 062449 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\D449.XXX D449

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
81 

creases as CO2 in the atmosphere increases. So very quickly how 

do you see this affecting our Southern States like Tennessee? 

Mr. HATFIELD. I don’t know that we made a statement that said 

that. Would you repeat that? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That the optimum range of temperature for 

crop and harvest increases as CO2 in the atmosphere increases. 

Mr. HATFIELD. Actually, there are two different processes that 

are going on. Temperature requirements for plants is really not 

linked to the CO2. If we said that, that is a misinterpretation. The 

temperature plays a real role and CO2 is really that basic building 

block in terms of taking CO2 through the atmosphere through the 

process of photosynthesis, it grows that. It is temperature mediated. And when one of the pieces of that occurs in this is not the 

photosynthetic process but actually the respiration process that is 

affected as well which is entered by temperature. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you for that. And my time is expired. 

I will yield back. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize 

the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Troxel, about 50 

years ago there was a severe insect infestation across the West and 

some of the forests. We find that same problem here today. It is 

significant in Colorado, we have seen many of forests, the pictures 

you have shown today are quite telling. 

Many people actually blame climate change for being the sole 

factor. I mean, this thing has happened. It is kind of cyclical. It has 

happened in the past. Could you comment on that? 

Mr. TROXEL. Thank you, Representative Salazar. I believe the 

underlying problem is the condition of the forests. And as I described the picture in Colorado, it is a single species. They are all 

the same age, and they are in overstocked stands. And it seems 

like this is one of those cases that we have to keep relearning the 

same lessons. And managing a forest is a lot like managing a stock 

portfolio. Diversity is good. Our forests in Colorado, our Lodgepole 

Pine Forests are roughly the equivalent of having an entire stock 

portfolio in Enron several years ago. And when it goes south, it all 

goes south. And that is what has happened to our forests. 

Looking ahead what we need to do is concentrate on diversity of 

age classes, diversity of species and keeping those stands thin and 

vigorous and healthy going forward so that they are better able to 

resist and withstand stress and not be as susceptible to fires and 

insect epidemics. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Lehmann, to a layman like myself, explain biochar. I don’t 

understand it. 

Mr. LEHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. Biochar is very much 

like charcoal in the sense that the organic structures change entirely when you heat biomass. For instance, a wood log, you cover 

it in modern pyrolysis units. This is achieved in so-called reactors 

where air is excluded from the process. And the biomass is heated 

to about 300 to 600-degrees Celsius. 

At that temperature, the properties of the biomass change and 

there forms so-called charcoal. Charcoal is a substance that has 

been produced throughout the history of humanity at all stages. It 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
82 

has been one of the earliest industrial processes. So the process is 

very similar, identical almost, as producing charcoal. What it differs is that biochar is produced for the purpose of soil amendment. 

And that means, several charcoals may make good biochars but 

there have been found to be a lot of different biochars made from 

feedstocks that would not make a very good fuel, which is what we 

usually produce charcoal for. 

And this biochar material has remarkable properties that enhance soil fertility, soil quality. It is like a sponge. It is like a substrate where nutrients can hold on to where micro organisms can 

find a habitat. And it has also been dubbed as a microbial reef in 

soil. 

The chemical changes that happen through these so-called 

thermodecomposition, this thermal treatment, is so profound that 

the stability of the organic matter is dramatically increased. What 

was a leaf or a grass that would have decomposed within a few 

days or weeks or months, is now a charred leaf that is stable for 

many decades, hundreds of years, even thousands of years. 

Mr. SALAZAR. So is it like a sponge, then, for example if you 

apply nitrogen fertilizer to the soil, will that actually hold the nutrient and release it as the plant needs it? 

Mr. LEHMANN. Yes, very similar to, we are all very familiar with 

the value of soil organic matter. Every farmer, every gardener will 

agree that when we increase soil organic matter, we hold nutrients 

in the soil. We improve soil plant growth ability. 

And very much the same is happening with biochar. The interesting aspect is that biochar is more effective in providing these attributes, these desirable attributes of soil organic matter than, for 

instance, other organic material because it is more stable and it 

has a higher surface area, it has a certain structure that provides 

this ability. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you. My time is expired. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. The 

Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. LEHMANN, let me ask you. There is great exciting news coming from companies like yours that suggest that if we pursue 

biofuels, we are going to see a reduction in greenhouse gases of 

some 70 percent. A company in my district called Solazyme that is 

using algae to produce aviation fuel right now and has the potential of producing it for cars as well. Its big problem, and I am wondering if it is yours, as well, is the fact that it needs to gear up. 

It needs the resources to be able to create a large facility so that 

it can, in fact, produce the products in large volumes. I guess my 

question to you is what do you recommend that Congress do to 

focus on the technical and economic challenges that many of you 

are facing in your efforts to scale up? 

Mr. LEHMANN. Thank you, Ms. Speier, for the question. Just for 

the record, I am not a representative of a company, but I am a university professor and have no company affiliations. 

You are asking about the fuel production ability of bio in the energy stream using pyrolysis. And that is correct, pyrolysis is able 

to generate fuels and so are other bioenergy streams that you mentioned, fermentation, even combustion. Bioenergy, as a whole, 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
83 

needs to deliver net climate and net environmental benefits. And 

we need to look at the full life cycle impact both economically as 

well as from a carbon footprint point of view, that I think we have 

learned the hard lesson with the current ethanol debate. 

Biomass in itself is a, in many instances, a commodity that is 

distributed in the landscape, and that means that when they need 

to be gathered, carbon needs to be invested to achieve that. It is 

a handling issue. It is a storage issue. And so we need to look hard 

at those opportunities where we can harness the most environmental and climate benefits. 

Colleague Troxel has already shown us a few examples where 

biomass actually constitutes, or biomass burning, the decomposition and die-back of forests constitute an environmental and economic liability. These are opportunities that can be harnessed first. 

There needs to be very judicious discussion and very judicious observation of biomass bioenergy to be sure to develop net climate 

and net economic benefits. Thank you. 

Ms. SPEIER. Let me further ask you. We make the mistake from 

time to time of picking winners and losers, whether it is in health 

or, in this case, choosing ethanol over other potential alternative 

fuels, and finding out that, in fact, there are huge repercussions. 

Do you have any recommendations to us on how we go about 

being somewhat more neutral in allowing those that are in the 

area of producing new alternatives to be able to do so in a way that 

don’t create a winner or a loser and yet also gives the opportunity 

for the entities that are out there to gear up? 

Mr. LEHMANN. That is a very good question. And it is indeed important to not pick winners or losers because there will likely be 

opportunities for many different avenues and they need to be 

geared to the local conditions. And what is worse probably they will 

change over time even during the course of the year which biomass 

streams are viable. So we need to look at integrated concepts of 

bioenergy. 

And there are initiatives underway by companies as well as by 

academic institutions and research organizations to look at bioenergy as an integrated concept not as just a one side track for 

dealing with biomass. And that is very important. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. West, I have read your testimony. I am sorry I didn’t get to 

hear it. But I have read your testimony. And I want to ask you a 

couple of questions about this important subject. In the underlying 

text of the bill that has passed the Commerce Committee, we have 

a provision that is called the Doyle-Inslee amendment that has free 

allowances to trade-sensitive, energy-intensive industries, and it is 

my understanding that the fertilizer industry would qualify for 

that, both as trade sensitive and energy intensive. 

Is that your understanding? 

Mr. WEST. That is my understanding, yes, and thank you for 

doing that, putting it in there. 

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
84 

How would you quantify the benefits to the industry in that regard? Have you put a dollar figure on it or a percentage of cost? 

Mr. WEST. Well, we are subject to those free allowances. As you 

know, 15 percent of the total allowance is set aside for energy-intensive energies. We are probably one of what, 45, 50 sectors that 

would be eligible for that. 

Right now I don’t know exactly how many allowances we are 

going to be able to receive from that because, as you know, we have 

going to through the rulemaking and let EPA and everybody report. My gut tells me that there is probably not enough in there. 

And I would love to see the nitrogenous sector with a set amount 

so that we can plan a little bit more about what that means to us 

and can we survive in the global economy over say that 10 years 

that that is going to be available. 

Mr. INSLEE. When Mr. Doyle and I were doing this, we wanted 

to be fairly aggressive in protecting these sectors. And I think it 

is a pretty good slug of allowances that we have come up with. But 

your concern is that your natural gas increases would be larger 

than the value of those allowances? Is that your concern? 

Mr. WEST. That is correct. Your provision deals with as you know 

direct and indirect costs. And then we have this big old boogie man 

out here of what is the cost of natural gas, $3.5 today. We seem 

to have a lot of natural gas, but everybody seems to be turning to 

natural gas and natural gas is the environmental fuel of choice. 

And if we don’t get this right, our allowances will be eaten up by 

the price of natural gas. And we won’t be competitive in the world 

market. 

Mr. INSLEE. The EPA, I am told, and I haven’t read this in detail, but I am told that the EPA did an assessment of this and 

found that there really, they didn’t feel there would be natural gas 

price spikes associated with this that you fear. Have you looked at 

their assessment? 

Mr. WEST. I don’t know if I have looked at their assessment. But 

natural gas has spiked above $10 three times since 2000. So it is 

going to be very difficult not to put, with the demand for natural 

gas, that natural gas prices will not increase as everybody turns to 

it. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am told that their assessment suggested that, and 

I am not saying there won’t be spikes in natural gas and they are 

not saying that either. It is spiked without this bill. There have 

been big spikes in natural gas without this legislation of course. 

The question is what this legislation would do. 

And my understanding of their conclusion is that the combination of the free allowances, the fact that we have got considerable 

natural gas supplies still subject to development, the fact that we 

have got significant efficiencies we are all still working on, the fact 

that there are other alternatives besides natural gas, it is not the 

only one, they have concluded that they didn’t see a probability— 

we are all dealing, you describe it as the boogie man, maybe that 

is the right way to look at it, we deal with possibilities and probabilities here. But they felt that the probability was that we 

wouldn’t experience that. And if you have any critiques of that assessment, send it by. We would love to see it. And thank you for 

your testimony. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
85 

Mr. WEST. Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. We have less than 5 minutes remaining 

in a very long series of votes. If this were normal series of votes, 

we would recess for a period of time and come back for additional 

questions that I and others have. But there are at least 28 votes 

in this series. And so I would encourage my colleagues to submit 

any additional questions that they have for the record. I have a series as it relates to incentives and tools for agriculture to employ 

to adapt and what H.R. 2454, how it addresses those incentives or 

tools as well as sufficiently robust offsets program that Mr. West 

explained. 

But I want to emphasize to our panelists today the importance 

of your testimony. As I stated previously, negotiations are intense 

and ongoing as it relates to possible changes to the draft that was 

marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee. And the upcoming days and possibly few extra weeks are immensely important. And the issue of agriculture and forestry is a primary focus 

of those negotiations. 

So we appreciate your testimony. 

We will submit our questions to you in writing and hope that you 

will have time to get back to us as quickly as possible based on the 

impact that your responses could have for those negotiations that 

are ongoing. So I want to thank all of our witnesses today. 

I thank my colleagues for their participation. 

And the hearing now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
86 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 62449A.061
87 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 62449A.062
88 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 62449A.063
89 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 62449A.064
90 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 62449A.065
91 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 62449A.066
92 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 62449A.067
93 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 62449A.068
94 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 62449A.069
95 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 62449A.070
96 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 62449A.071
97 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 62449A.072
98 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 62449A.073
99 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 62449A.074
100 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 62449A.075
101 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 62449A.076
102 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 62449A.077
103 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 62449A.078
104 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 62449A.079
105 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 62449A.080
106 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 62449A.081
107 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 62449A.082
108 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 62449A.083
109 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 62449A.084
110 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 62449A.085
111 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 62449A.086
112 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 62449A.087
113 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 62449A.088
114 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 62449A.089
115 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 62449A.090
116 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150/200 here 62449A.091