U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

62–359 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 109–1094 

REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES’ CLIMATE 

POLICY, THE $5 BILLION BUDGET REQUEST 

FOR CLIMATE–RELATED SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY IN FISCAL YEAR 2006 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

AND IMPACTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 20, 2005 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPACTS 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, 

Ranking 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 20, 2005 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 44 

Statement of Senator Vitter .................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES

Cicerone, Ralph J., Ph.D., President, National Academy of Sciences ................. 28 

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

Conover, David W., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy 

and International Affairs; Director, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, Department of Energy .............................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Mahoney, Hon. James R., Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 

and Atmosphere; Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) ....................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Reifsnyder, Daniel A., Director, Office of Global Change, Bureau of Oceans 

and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of 

State ...................................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

APPENDIX

Response to written question submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to 

Dr. James R. Mahoney ........................................................................................ 53 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to: 

Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone ....................................................................................... 66 

David W. Conover ............................................................................................. 68 

Hon. James R. Mahoney .................................................................................. 61 

Daniel A. Reifsnyder ........................................................................................ 67 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to: 

David W. Conover ............................................................................................. 69 

Hon. James R. Mahoney .................................................................................. 54 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John McCain to Hon. James 

R. Mahoney ........................................................................................................... 62 

(1) 

REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES’ CLIMATE 

POLICY, THE $5 BILLION BUDGET REQUEST 

FOR CLIMATE–RELATED SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY IN FISCAL YEAR 2006 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPACTS, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. David Vitter, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Good morning, I’m very excited to hold this first 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts. This hearing will focus on our national climate strategy with 

particular focus on two things: first, the Administration’s Fiscal 

Year 2006 budget request for climate-related science and technology programs; and second, how our climate policy may be effected by the recent G8 Summit in Scotland, and other international climate forums later this year. I’m really not sure whose 

idea it was to give a freshman a gavel, but I like the idea, it’s the 

first time I’ve actually been able to sit up here, at least when other 

people were in the room. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. So, it’s great to be here to chair this. Seriously, 

though, it’s a very important topic, and I expect the Subcommittee 

to spend a lot of time on this topic in Congress, this is only the first 

in a series of hearings that I plan to pursue on the issue. As you 

know, the Commerce Committee has very broad jurisdiction in regard to climate change, we intend to exert our full authority over 

that issue, the Science Program, the Technology Program, the 

agencies that will be responding to the changes caused by climatic 

variability; therefore, all of you should get comfortable here, because I know we’re going to be delving into this issue very seriously. 

As the President recently confirmed at the G8 Summit in Scot- land, the United States has spent over $20 billion in climate-related science and technology programs, clearly much more than 

any other nation. In addition to half a billion dollars in tax incentives, the President has also requested an additional $5 billion for 

2 

these programs in Fiscal Year 2006 alone. It’s a tremendous 

amount of money, and I’m very interested to learn of our witnesses’ 

plans for 2006, how this relates to our larger policies on climate 

change, and our role in the international community. My top priority here is ensuring that our taxpayers are getting their money’s 

worth, there are a lot of things any of us could decide to do with 

$5 billion, and I hope you are, and will continue to provide tangible 

results for our country and the world. 

In addition, the Senate recently passed comprehensive energy 

legislation which is now in conference. This is critical, and overdue, 

to our national energy policy and includes a number of the important policy changes that reflect the advances in our science and 

technological base, and I think it’s a really good step forward for 

our country. 

Finally, many people have used some of the temperature trends 

and climate changes and their potential effects as something that 

our children and grandchildren will have to deal with, however, 

some of those changes we’re experiencing, for instance, in Alaskan 

villages today, really cannot wait that long. I’m certain Chairman 

Stevens will pay particular attention to this as the Committee conducts its work this Congress, and if I know what’s good for me, this 

Subcommittee will have particular focus on that, probably with 

field hearings on that as well. That is one of the very specific and 

concrete, and important, impacts that the name of this Subcommittee directly refers to, because it is about climate change and 

impacts. 

Being from Louisiana, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention another very important, specific impact that we will also touch on 

this Congress, and that is coastal erosion in Louisiana. In Louisiana we lose up to 35 square miles a year due to coastal erosion, 

that is a football field of land every 38 minutes. Recent reports by 

NOAA and USGS show that these same areas are also sinking 

through subsidence faster than anywhere else in the world. Some 

areas of coastal Louisiana have dropped over 20 inches in the past 

decade, almost two feet, and so we’re experiencing the practical effects of sea level rise in Louisiana, and we’re going to need to address these problems as well. 

Before we move on to the Ranking Member’s statement, I would 

like to quickly acknowledge that Dr. Mahoney announced his retirement yesterday. Dr. Mahoney is the Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce, and Director of our Climate Science Program. Doctor, 

I know you’re not leaving right away, but I want to thank you for 

your service, standing up for a science program involving 13 different agencies is an extraordinary task, and I know you and your 

family have been through a lot lately, so thank you for all of that 

service. We certainly wish you and your family the best in all of 

your future endeavors. 

Dr. MAHONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VITTER. Absolutely, and with that, let me turn it over to 

Senator Lautenberg, the Ranking Member. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks Mr. Chairman, this is a kind of a 

new experience for each of us, neither one of us are new to the 

Congress, but this is a Committee just identified in this last year, 

and so we have an important task. I look forward to working with 

Senator Vitter, and I hope that we will get ourselves going in a 

way that identifies the seriousness of some of the problems that we 

have seen, and that Dr. Mahoney—we’re sorry to see you leaving— 

but we look forward to hearing anything that you’ve got to say, 

even after you’ve left. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thanks for convening the hearing, I look forward to working with you on this issue. Climate change, or global 

warming, is one of the most daunting challenges affecting our future, and I’m concerned that we’re not treating it with the urgency 

that it deserves. Now, if one found out that their house was on fire, 

they would immediately call the fire department. They wouldn’t 

wait until all the neighbors agreed about how long the fire had 

been burning, or about how much damage it would do. You would, 

immediately, when you see it and feel it, you would call the firemen to put it out. Well, that’s my feeling about global warming, we 

know that the Earth is getting hotter, the four warmest years ever 

recorded were in 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004, and judging by recent 

temperature levels around here, it looks like we’re headed for an 

unenviable new record. The 10 hottest years we’ve experienced 

have all occurred since 1987, that grouping tells you something. 

The last 55 years, the volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean has been 

reduced by 45 percent, and the Chairman mentioned what kind of 

loss they’ve had of land in the area around Louisiana. 

As this ice has melted, sea levels have risen around the world, 

and in New Jersey, the sea rose about 17 inches in the last century. Now, we also know that burning fossil fuel produces carbon 

dioxide and methane, and they are the two most important gases 

that intensify the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, and these are 

the facts: the National Academy of Sciences recently released a 

joint statement with the Science Academies of ten other nations. 

They declared that scientific evidence of global warming is solid 

enough to warrant mandatory reduction of greenhouse gases. It’s 

the strongest statement yet from the National Academy of 

Sciences, and it represents the overwhelming consensus of the 

world scientific community. It’s time for action. The United States 

must provide the leadership. We have the leadership position that 

dominates so much of the world, and we have a responsibility to 

accept that leadership and put it into place. With only 4 percent 

of the world’s population, we produce 25 percent of all greenhouse 

gases, and if we fail to act, how can we expect other countries to 

pick up their share of the burden? Most of us realize the seriousness of the issue, and that is why we’re spending $5 billion a year 

on climate science and climate technologies. Our Subcommittee is 

responsible for seeing that these studies are delivered in a timely 

manner and that they are free of political spin. 

Now, unfortunately, we’ve seen both, spinning and delays. We 

had a White House official, Mr. Cooney by name, a man with no 

scientific background, editing reports on global warming, and now 

4 

he’s gone back to work for the oil industry where he was before. 

A national climate assessment from the Administration was due to 

Congress a year ago, but we still haven’t seen it, and there is evidently no plan to produce it. And to those who say there’s nothing 

we can do about global warming, I would point to my home state, 

New Jersey, has an aggressive program for reducing greenhouse 

gases, major state utilities have established data registries to track 

emissions, and to those who say, ‘‘It costs too much,’’ I ask, what 

is the cost of doing nothing? What would be the economic impact 

if the State of Florida is under water, or if the sea rises another 

two feet along New Jersey’s 125 miles of shore, as it is projected 

to do by the end of this century if we fail to take action. Left unchecked, global warming will ravage our environment and our 

economy, and it is not the legacy that I as a grandfather want to 

leave for my 10 grandchildren. They are my most precious assets, 

and I think I owe it to them to at least give them a chance to 

breathe clean air, to be able to drink water that’s not contaminated, and to live in a world in which we don’t have natural 

changes that bring us nothing but problems. 

There’s one more indisputable fact about global warming, that 

we can’t do anything in the short-term to reverse it. So, it means 

long-term planning, long-term investment. Carbon dioxide is a 

long-lived gas, and once it’s released into our atmosphere, it pretty 

much stays there. We can’t reverse global warming, we can only 

slow it down by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every day that 

we fail to act is lost forever. 

Now, I took the time a couple of years ago to go down to Antarctica to visit the South Pole, and to see what the National Science 

Foundation was doing there, and you could almost hear the pain 

that the ice structure was feeling. The groaning at night, and no 

nights at that time, barely any that were going through the reaction. And then to see these huge chunks of ice floating off into the 

ocean, and where we had 70 percent of the world’s fresh water 

stored in that ice, that’s rapidly disappearing. 

And in Australia, kids have to wear full bathing suits before 

they’re allowed to go out on the beach because of the threat of skin 

cancer, because of the global warming and the hole in the ozone 

layers, so Mr. Chairman, we’ve got a lot to do, and I thank you for 

giving us the opportunity to begin our work on such an important 

issue. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Senator, and now we’ll move to our 

distinguished panel. 

We have the Honorable James Richard Mahoney, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, and also Director of the Climate Science Program in the U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. 

David Conover, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy and International Affairs; Director, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, in the U.S. Department of Energy; Mr. Daniel 

Reifsnyder, Director of the Office of Global Change in the U.S. Department of State; and, Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences. Thank you all for being here today and 

participating in our hearing, and we will start with Dr. Mahoney. 

5 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. MAHONEY, PH.D., 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS 

AND ATMOSPHERE; DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL 

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

Dr. MAHONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Senator Lautenberg, also. I’m pleased to be here today, since you graciously mentioned my health challenges and my just-announced 

plan to retire, I want to note for the record, as I begin my statement, that I am doing that on the basis that I will stay in my post 

through the time when my successor is confirmed and ready to 

begin, so I understand—and my supervisors do, too—that that may 

be months, it may be the end of the year, or beyond. So, I wanted 

to be clear for the record that I don’t view today to be a statement, 

and then I’m leaving, unfortunately because I had been very much 

looking forward to working through this term of the President, it 

is the responsible thing for me to step down because of the health 

challenges I’ve had, but I don’t intend to be off-the-scene right 

away. And I look forward to dialoguing with you, and responding 

to some of the very serious questions and challenges, including 

some that have been brought to our attention quite recently, so I 

would just note that for the record in the beginning. 

I’ll get along with my statement, I’m obviously very pleased to 

appear here today, and I want to start by noting that President 

Bush certainly recognizes climate change to be a very important 

issue for us to address, and in fact, the same metric that you 

cited—while there are many others—the fact that the President 

has, among other things, requested a budget this year, as in prior 

years, of more than $5 billion, represents his commitment to understanding the depth of the problem, and taking action, so I want to 

note that at the beginning of my statement. 

I also want to note the statement that he made at the event, the 

evening before the G8 session began recently. He said, specifically, 

‘‘We note that the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the 

problem.’’ And I note, of course, that the research that we’re doing, 

and the technology development we’re doing is aimed at directly 

addressing those matters. 

So, I want to begin with that, and then I’ll move along with the 

rest of my statement here. In mid-2001, and then again in February of 2002, the President set out a new program for strengthening the approach to the research and technology development 

that this government is following, and he created both the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and the related Climate Change 

Technology Program, both building on the work that had been done 

over the decade before, at that time. He furthered these commitments with the many discussions he had at the G8 meeting, and 

we’ve seen the outcome of that just recently. 

The Climate Change Science Program, as the Chairman indicated, integrates the work of 13 Federal agencies, addressing the 

climate change issue. I will focus on that, my colleague, of course, 

David Conover will address the technology side directly, although 

I think we’re most ready to answer collaborative questions as they 

may arise. 

6 

While I note the budget number is approximately $2 billion, with 

one more digit accuracy, the request this year for the 13 agencies 

combined is about $1.8, or even more accurately, $1.83 billion. So, 

for those to whom another $170 million is a difference, it is not 

quite two billion, it’s a little bit less, but it’s in the range of the 

request in recent years. 

Briefly describing, giving the initiative that this subcommittee is 

now taking, what we have done with the Program, we began with 

the President’s initiatives, and actually, they were pretty much coterminous with my swearing into my post in early 2002, as well. 

We began with an inventory of the research programs that the Federal agencies were conducting at that time, to set out to refresh, 

and re-prioritize, and re-budget, that kind of inventory of programs 

has been continued annually, since then and in the process of trying to increase the prioritization, and make sure that we don’t get 

in the pattern of ‘‘same old, same old’’ where we repeat the work 

from the year before and we have set a mark specifically. While 

much work needs to continue because it relates to long-term trends 

and analyses, but we have set a mark in our prioritization and 

budgeting, aimed specifically at assuring that even at a level budget environment that we are, in fact, pursuing initiatives, which 

means, automatically, that we’re also letting fall off the bottom of 

that distribution some things in order to keep our budgets level in 

that period. 

I want to note in background that just 2 years ago this month, 

almost this day, 3 days from now, we released a massive strategic 

plan for our climate science program work that had been developed 

over the better part of the year before with massive public input, 

massive input by the science community. We had a workshop 

which was attended by about 1,300 climate scientists from around 

the world to discuss and debate the draft of that plan. We engaged 

the National Academy of Sciences, from whose President you will 

hear shortly here, to review not only our draft, but we specifically 

engaged them to review the draft and make comments, and stay 

on board to review the final version that resulted from all of the 

earlier comments, their own included. I note for the record, it’s in 

my statement, to say briefly, the Academy heavily praised the plan 

for balance, I also note that they raised many cautions, and they 

raised many issues that needed special attention. But if I could 

quote just one sentence from their report, it was that ‘‘the revised 

strategic plan, having in mind the changes that have been made, 

is much improved over the first draft, and now includes the elements of management framework that can permit it to effectively 

guide research on climate and associated global change over the 

next decades.’’ 

I’ll quickly go on to note, we produce an annual report on Our 

Changing Planet, and I want to say in the work we’re trying to do 

to develop our scientific information in a form to deliver for the decision process, we have taken a three-step framework. 

The first step is to develop very detailed synthesis and assessment products aimed at getting us the best current view on the 

state-of-science, and the state-of-relevant-science in the areas we’re 

concerned with. This is especially important because there’s so 

much that adds in quickly in our science, that if we don’t really 

7 

challenge ourselves and get the best approach with good peer review on this, we’re really stuck. So, we’re doing that, we’re working 

on adaptive management for planning for climate change, this 

means addressing questions of drought, fire suppression, agriculture, coastal development and so forth, and that’s all a big part 

of this, and at the end of the day, we’re dealing with the questions 

of the use of our rapidly expanding climate modeling capability to 

address the policy questions about what is the U.S. role, and what 

are the world roles in dealing with the climate change. 

Let me just note for the record, too, that when we look at our 

science advancement, we tend to look in three areas. First, detection—how well do we know what is really changing in the climate, 

since the climate record is, in any case, a noisy record, and the key 

issue is how well can we segregate real change from the normal 

variability. 

Second, attribution—how well can we segregate between natural 

variability and human influences, because that is core to the issue 

of our ability to make plans to mitigate those human influences 

over time. 

Third is projection—if we have all of that, how good are our models and how well can we project going forward, so let me just mention that. I know my time is about up, I want to just mention a 

couple of last things. I have in my statement extensive information 

about the NOAA climate program. Within the overall Administration program, NOAA is a mission agency which, at its core, is responsible, we are responsible for developing scientific data and 

using it for weather forecasting, fisheries management, many other 

purposes, and you will see extensive information about that in my 

statement, including dealing with El Nin ̃ o conditions, western 

drought conditions, working closely with the Western Governors 

Association, and many other things, including some important 

international efforts which, for reasons of time I won’t mention further. 

I’ll close with just a note on our budget request, and I’ll be delighted to talk about this more in response to questions as may be 

appropriate. First of all, speaking about NOAA, we request right 

around $240 million as our part of the climate program, and for 

NOAA’s specific activities in Fiscal Year 2006 request, I’ll mention 

for the CCSP Program, remember, I already mentioned $1.83 billion, and there are some important segregations between long-term 

satellite-based observations and other science work and that, if it’s 

appropriate, we can get to in the questions with all of that. 

Thank you for allowing me to give you this overview, and I’m delighted to work with you and your colleagues, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mahoney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. MAHONEY, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE; DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

Good morning, Senator Vitter, Senator Lautenberg, and members of the Subcommittee. I am James R. Mahoney, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Deputy 

Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I 

am also appearing today in my capacity as Director of the Federal interagency Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). I am very pleased to have this opportunity 

8 

1Formerly known as the National Academy of Sciences. 

to describe the progress of the Administration’s climate science program as well as 

the NOAA Climate Program and its contribution to CCSP. 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

President George W. Bush recognizes climate change to be an important issue for 

the United States to address. On May 11, 2001, the Administration commissioned 

the National Academies 1—National Research Council (NRC) to examine the state 

of our knowledge and understanding of climate change science. Based on the resulting NRC report, and the Administration’s ongoing climate science planning activity, 

President Bush created a new cabinet-level management committee (the Committee 

on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration) in February 2002, to supervise the approximately $5 billion annual investment in climate change science and 

technology. The President’s direction resulted in the creation of the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP), combining the existing U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), as 

well as the creation of the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). President 

Bush furthered these efforts at the recent G8 Summit in Scotland, where the U.S. 

committed to grow economies, aid development, and improve the environment 

through technological innovation to achieve the combined goals of addressing climate change, reducing harmful air pollution and improving energy security. 

The Climate Change Science Program integrates Federal research on global 

change and climate change, as sponsored by thirteen Federal agencies (the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy 

(DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), the Department of State, the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Agriculture (DOA), Health and Human Services 

(HHS), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Defense (DoD), 

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Smithsonian Institution), and with liaisons in the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council 

on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council, and the Office of Management and Budget. 

We know that the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem. Research conducted 

through CCSP is deepening our understanding of the interplay of natural and 

human-caused forces. CCSP is charged with investigating natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system; monitoring important 

climate parameters; predicting global change; and providing a sound scientific basis 

for national and international decisionmaking. 

Since CCSP was created, the program has successfully integrated a wide range 

of research, climate science priorities, and budgets of the thirteen CCSP agencies. 

With an approximately $2 billion annual expenditure, CCSP has taken on the most 

challenging questions in climate science, and is developing products to convey the 

most advanced state of knowledge to be used by Federal, state, and local decisionmakers, resource managers, the science community, the media, and the general public. We have identified several methods to address these challenges. I briefly describe the steps we have already taken, the scientific advances we have achieved, 

and our future directions. 

Inventory of Research Programs: A comprehensive inter-agency inventory of 

climate and global change research programs was initiated in May 2002, and has 

been updated annually since then. This essential stocktaking exercise (the first conducted in several years) enhanced coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of the 

entire research effort. All CCSP agencies participated in this inventory. 

CCSP Strategic Plan: In July 2003, CCSP released its Strategic Plan for the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the first comprehensive update of a national 

plan for climate and global change research since the original U.S. Global Change 

Research Program strategy was issued at the inception of the program in 1990. 

We took several steps to ensure that the Plan received extensive public input and 

scientific review. The Administration released a CCSP Discussion Draft Strategic 

Plan for public review in November 2002. The Discussion Draft outlined a comprehensive, collaborative approach for developing a deeper understanding of climate 

change and its potential impacts. It was guided by the priority information needs 

identified by scientists and stakeholders, both nationally and internationally. 

External comments, obtained through several mechanisms, played an important 

role in revising the draft plan. First, CCSP held a workshop, in December 2002, that 

was attended by 1,300 scientists and other participants, including individuals from 

47 states and 36 nations. This workshop was designed to facilitate extensive discusVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
9 

sion and comments on the draft plan. In addition, written comments on the Discussion Draft were submitted during a public review period, and amounted to nearly 

900 pages of input. Last, CCSP commissioned a special committee of the NRC to 

review the plan. The NRC conveyed its comments and recommendations on the Discussion Draft in a February 2003 report. 

After consideration of the extensive external input and internal inter-agency review process, the (revised) Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program was released in July 2003. In February 2004, the NRC review committee 

issued a second public report, Implementing Climate and Global Change Research: 

A Review of the Final U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan. This 

NRC report expressed the committee’s conclusions on the content, objectivity, quality, and comprehensiveness of the updated Strategic Plan, on the process used to 

produce the Plan, and on the proposed process for developing subsequent findings 

to be reported by the CCSP. The following quote is taken from the Executive Summary of the 2004 NRC report: 

‘‘The Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program articulates a 

guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope. It encompasses 

activities related to areas of long-standing importance, together with new or enhanced cross-disciplinary efforts. It appropriately plans for close integration 

with the complementary Climate Change Technology Program. The CCSP has 

responded constructively to the National Academies review and other community input in revising the strategic plan. In fact, the approaches taken by the 

CCSP to receive and respond to comments from a large and broad group of scientists and stakeholders, including a two-stage independent review of the plan, 

set a high standard for government research programs. As a result, the revised 

strategic plan is much improved over its November 2002 draft, and now includes the elements of a strategic management framework that could permit it 

to effectively guide research on climate and associated global changes over the 

next decades. Advancing science on all fronts identified by the program will be 

of vital importance to the Nation.’’ 

We have frequently noted that the CCSP Strategic Plan is a living document and 

we look forward to continued dialogue with Congress, the NRC, the scientific community, and the public throughout the implementation of the Plan, as the science 

evolves and priorities change over time. 

Annual Program Report, Our Changing Planet: Our Changing Planet is an 

annual report of the CCSP. This program report is issued as a Supplement to the 

President’s Fiscal Year budgets and submitted to Congress pursuant to a requirement of the 1990 Global Change Research Act. The document is intended to provide 

summaries and related budget data of ongoing CCSP-supported climate change 

work. 

CCSP Assessment Information to Support Decisionmaking: The CCSP Strategic Plan identified three broad types of deliverables to be produced in support of 

enhanced policy development and decisionmaking by national and regional government officials, resource managers, planners, and the scientific community. 

(1) Synthesis and Assessment Products: Twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment 

Products are identified in the Strategic Plan. These reports are designed to address a full range of scientific questions and evaluate options for responses that 

are of greatest relevance to decision and policymakers and planners. These 

products are intended to provide the best possible state of scientific information, 

developed by a diverse group of climate experts, for the decision community. In 

response to an April 14, 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, 

Congressional inquiries, and our own internal assessment, on July 15 we presented to this committee, and other interested Members, a revision of the schedule and scope of the Synthesis and Assessment Products. We look forward to 

further dialogue with you on these important issues. 

(2) Adaptive management and planning for resources and infrastructure: 

‘‘Adaptive management decisions’’ are operational decisions, principally for managing infrastructure (e.g., waste water treatment systems), natural and managed resources (e.g., water supply, agriculture), and societal response mechanisms (e.g., health alerts). They typically occur within existing frameworks (e.g., 

legal, institutional, economic), usually recurring on annual or shorter time 

scales. ‘‘Planning’’ focuses on these and additional sectors (e.g., urban or regional planning), typically involving development of infrastructure and institutions with long lifetimes (several decades or more), and with decision processes 

over long timescales (years to decades). CCSP research results, data products, 

forecasts, and model results are already being applied to adaptive management 

10 

and planning in a number of regional and sectoral case studies. Specific examples include climate observations and projections for crop management, water 

quality management, and urban planning, as well as integrated products illustrating snowpack, precipitation, streamflow, and the potential for drought conditions. 

(3) Support for policymaking: As described in the Strategic Plan, CCSP is focusing on two objectives in the area of support for policymakers: (1) developing scientific syntheses and analytical frameworks to support integrated evaluations, 

and (2) initially conducting a limited number of case studies with evaluation of 

the lessons learned, to guide future analyses. Integrated analysis of climate 

change is essential for bringing together research from many contributing disciplines and applying it to gain comparative insight into policy-related questions. Full integration of information including research on human activities, 

greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, land-use and land-cover change, cycling 

of carbon and other nutrients, climatic responses, and impacts on people, the 

economy, and resources is necessary for analyses of many important questions 

about the potential economic and environmental implications of changing greenhouse gas concentrations and various technology portfolios. Specific examples of 

this type of work under CCSP include the DOE Integrated Assessment of Climate Change Research Program that sponsors research to develop comprehensive benefit/cost models for use in assessing the implications of potential climate 

change policies. NOAA, EPA, and NSF sponsor additional studies to improve aspects of such models, and to allow for the application of the models to address 

particular questions. 

Scientific Advancements: CCSP has supported a highly integrated array of 

Earth system observations as well as a broad set of new scientific information. A 

large bibliography of new peer-reviewed scientific studies reflecting the advances in 

climate change detection, attribution, and projection, described below, will be reported in the upcoming edition of Our Changing Planet, and these studies will be 

reflected in the relevant CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Products. 

Detection: CCSP-sponsored observational and scientific studies have more completely characterized the nature of observed increase in surface temperatures, and 

have significantly advanced our understanding of observed variability in ocean salinity and heat content. CCSP research has also investigated changes in the global 

distributions of snowfall and snowpack, and natural fluctuations in ocean circulation 

that influence the transport of heat and energy around the globe. 

Building on the CCSP observations and monitoring strategy identified in its Strategic Plan, the U.S. Government has taken several steps toward establishing a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained Earth observation system since hosting the 

inaugural Earth Observation Summit in June 2003. CCSP agencies have provided 

leadership, definition, and support for the Earth Observation meetings, and are 

closely integrating the U.S. observation and data management programs with the 

international programs launched by this effort. At the most recent meeting, the 

Earth Observation Summit III in Brussels, a ten-year Implementation Plan for the 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) was adopted, and the 60- 

member intergovernmental Group on Earth Observations was established to begin 

implementation of the 2-, 6-, and 10-year targets identified in the plan. The U.S. 

contribution to GEOSS is the Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS). In April 

2005, the U.S. Government Committee on Environment and Natural Resources 

(CENR) released the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System that addresses the policy, technical, fiscal, and societal benefit components of 

this integrated system, and established the U.S. Group on Earth Observation 

(USGEO), a subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 

Attribution: CCSP research also works to establish and understand the most likely causes for climate change, with special emphasis on distinguishing between natural variability and human-induced effects. Recent advances in attribution research 

include the use of additional variables in climate models (e.g., salinity, runoff, and 

regional-scale attribution) to obtain more insight on the origin of the climate signals 

and trends, as well as expansion of climate models to include improved representation of aerosols (airborne fine particles) and variability in solar energy output. These 

climate models, which have been produced for CCSP, include improved representations of physical processes and increased resolution to effort to enhance our climate 

modeling capabilities. 

Projection: Through climate projections, CCSP attempts to present scientifically 

justifiable illustrations of the future climate and its potential impacts upon key elements of the Earth system. We are working in conjunction with the Climate Change 

11 

Technology Program (CCTP) to update greenhouse gas emissions scenarios that incorporate improved socio-economic data and consider expanded use of emerging 

technological options. These scenarios are being used with a new generation of climate models to develop improved climate projections for consideration by decisionmakers. 

Expanded CCSP/NRC Advisory Contract: CCSP has recently expanded its 

contract with the NRC to incorporate important new elements of NRC advice to the 

program. The enhanced NRC advisory assignment involves three areas: 

(1) Overall NRC advice on the CCSP research program on a continuing basis 

over the next 3 years, involving an NRC committee with wide areas of expertise; 

(2) A comparative evaluation of relevant previous climate change assessments 

conducted around the world, to provide background information for the assessments being prepared by CCSP in compliance with the GCRA; and 

(3) Designated support from two existing committees of the NRC that are well 

positioned to support CCSP with expertise in areas central to CCSP’s core responsibilities, the Climate Research Committee and the Committee on the 

Human Dimensions of Global Change. 

The Administration has endorsed the scope of the expanded contract to ensure 

that CCSP receives independent and credible scientific advice, as CCSP continues 

to implement its Strategic Plan. 

Climate Change Science Program Workshop: Climate Science in Support of 

Decisionmaking: CCSP will hold a public workshop November 14–16, 2005, in Arlington, VA. The CCSP Workshop will address the capability of climate science to 

inform decision-making and will serve as a forum to address the progress and future 

plans regarding CCSP’s three decision-support deliverables as described above. The 

Workshop will provide an opportunity for scientists and user communities to discuss 

needs and future application of scientific information on climate variability and 

change, as well as discussion on expected outcomes of CCSP’s research and assessment activities that are necessary for sound resource management, adaptive planning and policy. 

NOAA Climate Program 

NOAA is responsible for developing and making accessible climate information 

products and services for near-term issues such as drought management and longterm issues such as potential effects of climate change on managed and natural ecosystems. As a mission agency, NOAA has a direct responsibility to provide climate 

information, products, and services that enable us to understand and respond to 

changing climate conditions. 

The NOAA Climate Program goals are aligned with the CCSP goals outlined in 

the CCSP Strategic Plan. Climate is one of NOAA’s four mission goals; it is designed 

to produce two outcomes. First, a predictive understanding of the global climate system on time scales of weeks to decades with quantified uncertainties sufficient for 

making informed and reasoned decisions; and second, a climate-literate public effectively incorporating NOAA’s climate products into their plans and decisions. These 

outcomes are achieved through the following programs that are described in our Fiscal Year 2006 Budget: 

• The Climate and Global Change (CGC) program goal is to establish a national information service based on reliable assessments and quantitative predictions of changing global climate in partnership with the university community. CGC will help NOAA provide high-quality predictions and assessments to 

the public and private sectors, other Federal and state agencies, and the international community. The near-term objective is to provide reliable predictions 

of global climate changes, both natural and human-induced, and their associated human effects on time scales ranging from seasons to that of a century or 

more. The Climate and Global Change Program is an important part of CCSP. 

Activities include atmospheric composition, carbon cycle, physical climate research, analysis of the climate record, climate predictions on time scales of seasonal, interannual, and decadal, and regional integrated sciences and assessments. 

• The Climate Observations and Services (COS) program supports the development of the information and insights needed to help reduce impacts to the 

Nation from climate variations and change. We do this by monitoring the 

Earth’s climate system, delivering data, developing predictions and impact assessments, and continuing performance-enhancing research. This is an integrated, multi-line organization activity within NOAA and involves the Office of 

12 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; National Environmental Satellite, Data, 

and Information Service; and the National Weather Service. The program involves an important transition of research observing and data systems into 

operational systems and products. NOAA activities supporting the Climate 

Change Research Initiative (CCRI) are also administered under the Climate Observations and Services program. Activities under this program include atmospheric and ocean observations, data assimilation and data management, transition of the Tropical Atmospheric Ocean (TAO) buoy array from research to operations, and assessments of climate change and variability (i.e., Stratospheric 

Ozone, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and CCSP Synthesis and 

Assessment Products). NOAA is leading the production of seven of the 21 CCSP 

Synthesis and Assessment Products called for in the CCSP Strategic Plan, and 

is contributing to eleven others. 

• The Arctic Research Program (ARP) is coordinated with other U.S. Government agencies through the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) 

program. The specific role of the ARP is long-term climate observations and 

analysis of Arctic climate data. ARP continues to focus on key aspects of the 

Arctic climate system. The information provided will improve forecasts of temperature, precipitation, and storms across Alaska and the mainland United 

States. This information will also support improvements in forecasting and 

planning for energy needs, growth seasons, hazardous storm seasons and water 

resources, as well as provide for better management of Alaskan and Arctic resources. 

• Partnership Programs cover a wide range of activities with a multitude of 

external research partners. These partnerships extend to other parts of NOAA; 

other Federal, state, and local government entities; international government 

programs; universities; and industry. 

Recent Highlights of the NOAA Climate Program 

NOAA is Detecting and Forecasting El Nin ̃ o Conditions: NOAA’s Tropical 

Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array provided the observational backbone for detecting 

and forecasting evolving El Nin ̃ o conditions in 2004. TAO array buoys, along with 

complementary buoys maintained by Japan in the western Pacific, are used to track 

the evolution of subsurface ocean warming that typically precedes the full-blown development of El Nin ̃ o. In 2004, the buoys detected a weakening of the trade winds 

and warming surface ocean temperatures. These data, which are available to operational weather forecasting centers and climate researchers around the world, led 

to NOAA’s recent declaration of a weak El Nin ̃ o currently forming in the tropical 

Pacific. 

NOAA Leads Implementation of a National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS): In a letter to the President on August 30, 2004, the Western 

Governor’s Association recommended a team led by NOAA begin implementation of 

the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). NOAA is coordinating with stakeholders, states, and Federal agencies to implement NIDIS. NIDIS 

goals include fostering and supporting research, creating an early drought warning 

system, providing interactive delivery systems, providing a framework for interacting with and educating decisionmakers and the public, and developing an understanding of the impacts and data needs at the local level. 

NOAA Implemented International Climate/Air Quality Field Study: NOAA 

is helping to lead and implement a multi-agency air quality and climate study performed under the auspices of the International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation (ICARTT), which was initiated in New 

England in Summer of 2004 (New England Air Quality—Intercontinental Transport 

and Chemical Transformation Study). Colleagues from five nations are engaged in 

the endeavor, which extended from the western U.S. to continental Europe. This research is addressing significant information gaps and delivering sound science that 

will improve the understanding of the long-distance transport processes that influence the air pollution levels that impact the population centers such as the New 

England region. 

NOAA Contributes to Increased Understanding of Regional Weather and 

Climate Patterns: NOAA successfully completed the North American Monsoon Experiment (NAME) 2004 field campaign in collaboration with other U.S., Mexican 

and Central American agencies and academic institutions. NAME 2004, provided an 

unprecedented collection of detailed atmospheric, oceanic, and land-surface observations in the core region of the North American Monsoon over northwest Mexico, 

southwest U.S., and adjacent oceanic regions. It documented the evolution of the 

monsoon convection and precipitation, and helped to outline the key physical procVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
13 

esses that must be parameterized for improved simulations and predictions with climate models. 

NOAA Implements an Operational Critical Climate Forecast System: In 

August 2004, a global ocean and atmosphere coupled Climate Forecast System 

(CFS) became operational at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction of 

the National Weather Service. The Climate Forecast System is a fully coupled model 

representing the interactions between the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. These 

interactions are critical for determining climate on seasonal time scales. This implementation is a recent example of a successful transition of research into operations 

through long-term, ongoing collaborative efforts by NOAA scientists, other Federal 

Agencies (NASA, NSF), and the university research community. 

NOAA Supports Development of Urban Climate Planning Website: NOAA 

has supported the development of the Climate Change Information Resource for the 

New York Metropolitan Area (CCIR–NY), a website (http://ccir.ciesin.columbia 

.edu/nyc) that includes information tools developed for decision-makers and those 

interested in planning for climate in an urban environment. Users of CCIR–NY include city, municipal, and county planners; natural resource managers; transportation managers; water managers; waste managers; educators and citizens. In addition to providing basic information about climate in the NYC area, the website 

serves as a forum for users to share expertise and information related to climate 

change and variability in the NY metropolitan area. The website is serving as an 

international model for the development of similar web tools in Tokyo and London. 

NOAA Contributes to Operational Seasonal Wildland Fire Outlooks: In 

Fiscal Year 2003, NOAA helped to support the first operational annual nationwide 

fire assessment workshop, bringing together climatologists, predictive service meteorologists, fire analysts, and wildland fire managers from state and Federal agencies 

across 11 geographic area coordination centers. The result was to begin production 

of climate-informed, regional- and national-scale seasonal fire potential outlooks for 

the United States. A sustained commitment from NOAA and the Department of 

Commerce has resulted in the development of innovative methods for combining scientific expertise with regional and local knowledge to produce unique, stakeholderdriven decision support products. Through the National Interagency Fire Center, it 

is now possible for managers to access interactive geographic and national-level fire 

outlook maps over daily to seasonal timeframes. As NOAA expands its vision of providing operational climate services, this approach will serve as a model for additional climate applications, such as drought outlooks, air-quality predictions, improved land-use planning, and crop-yield forecasts. 

NOAA Deploys Ocean Climate Observing Systems: NOAA is working with 

international partners to establish and maintain a sustained Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS, a program of the International Oceanographic Commission) necessary for long-term monitoring of the climate system and improved climate projections. NOAA provides a major U.S. contribution to the global component of the U.S. 

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), integral to the U.S. Integrated Earth 

Observing System (IEOS) and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

(GEOSS). NOAA’s contribution to the observing system consists of various buoy networks, profiling floats (Argo), tide gauges, surface drifting buoys, tropical moored 

buoys, ocean reference stations) and ship observations (ships of opportunity, routine 

oceanographic surveys, air-sea flux studies). GOOS will be 51 percent complete by 

the end of Fiscal Year 2005. 

NOAA Advances Seasonal-to-Interannual Prediction Capabilities: Due to 

our advanced observing systems (TOGA/TAO and satellites) as well as over 10 years 

of research and operational innovation, NOAA has recently developed the capability 

to make skillful U.S. winter forecasts associated with strong El Nin ̃ o or La Nin ̃ a 

conditions. We also have improved the accuracy of our forecasts of the level of Atlantic and Gulf seasonal hurricane activity. Major challenges remain for warm season 

prediction, especially of precipitation, as well as cold season prediction in the absence of a strong El Nin ̃ o or La Nin ̃ a. To meet these challenges, we are expanding 

observations to the Indian Ocean with international partners; developing predictions 

of the southwest monsoon over North America; and transferring information to resource managers to prepare for extreme weather events, fisheries impacts, and management of water resources. 

NOAA Provides Weather and Climate Products to the FEWS Network: The 

International Weather and Climate Monitoring Project at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is an extension of an earlier USAID Famine Early Warning System 

(FEWS) program that originally covered only Sub-Sahelian Africa. The project has 

now grown to encompass all of Africa, Afghanistan, Central America, and the Caribbean, the Mekong River Basin, and much of southern Asia. Work is underway to 

create a global weather and climate monitoring program to address any interVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
14 

national region where humanitarian support is needed. The goal of the program is 

to provide weather and climate related information to users within USAID as well 

as international partner organizations, such that a greater level of humanitarian assistance may be offered. The goal is only accomplished through constant interaction 

with our partner groups such as the USGS, NASA, USAID, private-sector contractors, and local African organizations. A more thorough and accurate analysis of conditions is possible via these collaborations. 

NOAA Supports RANET: The RAdio and InterNET for the Communication of 

Hydro-Meteorological Information for Rural Development (RANET) program is an 

international collaboration with based funding from USAID and NOAA to make 

weather and seasonal information available to remote populations in developing 

countries in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. To achieve its mission, the program works 

to improve the basic communication and dissemination capacities of National 

Hydro-Meteorological Services (NHMSs) and related national agencies. The RANET 

program addresses its core objectives by applying technologies that can bridge and 

extend existing dissemination networks, by providing technical training, developing 

and using unique applications of technology, and nurturing an overall communitybased dialogue on issues related to weather and the environment. As a testament 

to RANET’s sustainable design, several of the recipient national meteorological services have dedicated personnel and resources to their own RANET efforts. In keeping 

with recent language from the G8 action plan on climate and energy, RANET exemplifies strategies that seek to further scientific capacity in pursuit of larger social, 

environmental, and economic objectives in ways that are truly consistent with local 

and regional realities. 

NOAA Climate Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 

The NOAA Climate Program is requesting $239.9 million in Fiscal Year 2006, re- flecting a net increase of $19.6M over the Fiscal Year 2006 base level. This increase 

includes $10.6M for the high priority Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI); 

$7.4M to reactivate activities requested under Climate Observations and Services 

(COS) in the Fiscal Year 2005 President’s Budget; and $1.6M to restore funding requested in Fiscal Year 2005 for other ongoing climate activities. 

This increase responds to the long-term observational requirements of climate 

predictions and assessments. Funding to reactivate COS activities will ensure continuation of climate observing networks, such as the highly regarded Climate Reference Network (CRN) and NOAA’s Baseline Observatories. NOAA will be able to 

ensure critical monitoring of long-term trends in important climate variables and to 

improve forecasting capabilities and applications development over timescales from 

weeks to seasons. 

These programs serve as a foundation for NOAA’s participation in CCSP by funding important research and key observations and thereby reducing uncertainties in 

climate change science. These increases also support the objective in the Department of Commerce Strategic Plan to ‘‘Advance understanding and predict changes 

in the Earth’s environment to meet America’s economic, social, and environmental 

needs.’’ In addition, these increases will support the research and production of 

CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Products. 

NOAA will continue building and maintaining a global ocean observing system; 

initiate a new five-year effort to better understand how aerosols influence climate 

by their interaction with clouds; expand the Tropical Atmospheric Ocean (TAO) 

buoy array into the Indian Ocean; conduct new studies to better explain the causes 

for observed climate variability and change; and continue expanding and refining 

regional integrated research and outreach. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I look forward to the 

opportunity to respond to any questions you may have. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Doctor, now Mr. Conover. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID W. CONOVER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF POLICY AND 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS; DIRECTOR, U.S. CLIMATE 

CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. CONOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning, and 

good morning, Senator Lautenberg, it’s nice to see you again. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss climate change activities at the Department of Energy. My 

name is Dave Conover, and I’m Principal Deputy Assistant SecVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
15 

retary in the Department’s Office of Policy and International Affairs. I also serve as the Director of the Climate Change Technology Program, known as CCTP. 

The essence of my testimony today is that the Department of Energy has a number of important climate change initiatives underway that support the Administration’s comprehensive and strategic 

approach to climate change. 

First, a little background. In February 2002, President Bush reaffirmed his Administration’s commitment to the U.N. Framework 

Convention on Climate Change, and its central goal—stabilization 

of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, at a level that 

prevents dangerous interference with the climate system. The Bush 

Administration believes that the most effective way to meet this 

challenge is through an agenda that promotes economic growth, 

provides energy security, reduces pollution, and mitigates greenhouse gas emissions. 

Although climate change is a complex and long-term challenge, 

the Bush Administration recognizes that there are cost-effective 

steps we can take now. In 2002, President Bush set an ambitious 

national goal, to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity in the U.S. 

economy by 18 percent by 2012. To meet this goal, the Administration has developed an array of policy measures, including financial 

incentives and voluntary programs. Among these are DOE’s Climate VISION Program, and the Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting System known as the 1605(b) program. Climate VISION is the 

Presidential public/private partnership launched by the Department in February 2003, to contribute to the President’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions intensity. Business associations 

representing 14 energy-intensive industry sectors accounting for 

about 40 percent of U.S. gas emissions, and the business roundtable participate in this program. 

The 1605(b) Program is a voluntary system for companies to 

record their progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We 

will be issuing new guidelines this fall to meet the President’s 2002 

directive that the 1605(b) Program be revised to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and verifiability of the data reported through the 

system. 

Data for 2003 and 2004, suggest we were ahead of schedule in 

meeting the President’s intensity goal, further detail on that is in 

my written statement. The Administration is also laying a strong 

technological foundation to develop realistic and cost-effective mitigation options to meet climate and other objectives. The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, or CCTP, was created to coordinate and prioritize the Federal Government’s nearly $3 billion annual investment in climate-related technology research. 

Later this week, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman will release the 

CCTP Vision and Framework for a Strategic Plan. This document 

lays out the guiding principles for investment and climate-related 

technology and research, development, demonstration, and deployment. This investment includes expanded and realigned activities, 

as well as new initiatives in strategic technology areas, such as the 

President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative; and the FreedomCAR Program; carbon sequestration; FutureGen, the coal-fired, zero emissions power project; next generation nuclear energy and fusion. In 

16 

addition to our domestic R&D work, the Administration believes 

well-designed multilateral collaborations can accelerate development in commercialization of new technologies. 

The International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, the 

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, Generation for International Nuclear Forum—all U.S. initiatives provide vehicles for 

international collaboration to advance these technologies. In addition, the U.S. participates in ITER, a proposed multilateral collaborative project, to design and demonstrate a fusion energy production system. 

Our most recent multilateral initiative led by EPA was launched 

in November 2004. The Methane to Markets Partnership focuses on 

the recovery of methane from landfills, underground coal mines, 

natural gas, and oil systems, for use as a clean energy source. The 

Department also participates in 14 climate partnerships with key 

countries and regional organizations that, together with the United 

States, account for almost 80 percent of global greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

The U.S. launched the Clean Energy Initiative, and joined the 

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency partnership in order to 

assist developing countries to reduce poverty and increase their 

economic growth and environmental quality by modernizing their 

energy production and use, but with cleaner, more efficient technologies, 

As you can see, the Bush Administration has developed a comprehensive strategy on climate change that is informed by science, 

emphasizes innovation and technological solutions, and promotes 

international collaboration to support the U.N. framework convention objective. DOE is proud to be a major contributor to this strategy. 

Thank you for your attention, and I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conover follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID W. CONOVER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, OFFICE OF POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS; DIRECTOR, U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

appear before you today to discuss climate change activities at the Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

As a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC), the United States shares with many countries its ultimate objective: 

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system. In February 2002, President 

Bush reaffirmed his Administration’s commitment to this central goal of the Framework Convention. 

The Bush Administration believes that the most effective way to meet this challenge is to focus not solely on greenhouse gas emissions, but rather on a broader 

agenda that promotes economic growth, provides energy security, reduces pollution, 

and mitigates greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the DOE programs I will discuss 

today advance these goals. 

Addressing global climate change will require a sustained, long-term commitment 

by all nations over many generations. To this end, the President has established a 

robust and flexible climate change policy that harnesses the power of markets and 

technological innovation, uses the best available science, maintains economic 

growth, and encourages global participation. Major elements of this approach include: 

17 

• implementing near-term policies and measures to slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions; 

• advancing climate change science; 

• accelerating technology development; and 

• promoting international collaboration. 

Near-Term Policies and Measures 

Although climate change is a complex and long-term challenge, the Bush Administration recognizes that there are cost-effective steps we can take now. In 2002, 

President Bush set an ambitious national goal to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy—i.e., emissions per unit of economic output—by 18 percent 

by 2012, which represents about a 28 percent increase in the rate of improvement 

projected by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) over this period. 

A hallmark of the intensity approach is flexibility, an especially important consideration when confronted with the many uncertainties surrounding climate change. 

These uncertainties suggest that a measured response is required that concentrates 

first on slowing emissions growth before trying to stop and eventually reverse it. 

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol approach, a greenhouse gas emissions intensity goal can 

encourage reductions without risking economic consequences that could jeopardize 

our ability to invest in long-run scientific and technological solutions. 

In 2002, the Administration estimated that its 18 percent intensity improvement 

goal will reduce cumulative emissions of carbon by more than 1,833 million metric 

tons of carbon dioxide by 2012. Recent EIA projections suggest that achieving the 

18 percent goal will reduce carbon emissions by 366 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide in 2012 alone. 

To this end, the Administration has developed an array of policy measures, including financial incentives and voluntary programs. Among these are DOE’s Climate VISION program and the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program 

authorized under subsection 1605(b) the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and commonly 

known as the ‘‘1605(b)’’ program. 

• Climate VISION: In setting the 18 percent decade goal, President Bush issued 

a challenge to the private sector to do its part. The President’s call resonated 

with business, and in February 2003, the Federal Government and industry organizations representing thousands of companies from 12 energy-intensive economic sectors (since expanded to 14) and The Business Roundtable joined in a 

voluntary partnership known as Climate VISION (Voluntary Innovative Sector 

Initiatives: Opportunities Now). These Climate VISION partners, which include 

some of the largest companies in America, represent a broad range of industry 

sectors—oil and gas, electricity generation, coal and mineral production and 

mining, manufacturing (automobiles, cement, iron and steel, magnesium, aluminum, chemicals, and semiconductors), railroads, and forestry products—accounting for about 40 to 45 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Four 

Federal agencies participate in the program: DOE (lead), Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, and Environmental Protection Agency. 

Climate VISION is unique in that it focuses on economic sectors, not specific 

companies, with each industry association making a commitment on behalf of 

its members to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity. The program works 

with its partners in four areas: (1) measuring and monitoring; (2) finding costeffective solutions to reduce energy use and GHG emissions; (3) helping to direct industry’s energy efficiency R&D investments; and (4) exploring cross-sector 

efficiency gains to reduce emissions. 

The Climate VISION program also is exploring risk-based incentives for early 

commercial uses of advanced energy technologies to tip private investment decisions and speed the market penetration of new technologies and systems. It is 

looking at several areas where this approach could be applied, including residential and commercial buildings, coal gasification, nuclear energy, and biorefining. Climate VISION and DOE’s Building America program, for example, 

have been working with three states—California, Texas, and New York—on 

pilot projects aimed at using a transaction chain approach to transform housing 

markets to increase the penetration of energy efficient homes. The lessons 

learned in these pilots could help inform policies to move the housing market 

toward greater energy efficiency. 

The Climate VISION website—www.climatevision.gov—is an excellent source of 

information about the program and the voluntary activities undertaken by industry to reduce emissions intensity. 

18 

• ‘‘1605(b)’’ Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Registry: The 1605(b) program is a voluntary system administered by EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ 

frntvrgg.html) that provides a vehicle for companies to record progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, about 220 companies file annual reports. In February 2002, President Bush directed that the 1605(b) program be 

revised to enhance the ‘‘accuracy, reliability, and verifiability’’ of the data reported to the system. 

Based on this guidance, DOE’s Policy Office has been working with an interagency group to improve the system. We issued draft revised General Guidelines in November 2003, and subsequently held a public workshop to discuss the 

proposed guidelines and to receive comments. 

Interim Final General Guidelines and a Notice of Availability for the Draft 

Technical Guidelines were published in the Federal Register of March 24, 2005, 

for public comment. The Department of Energy hosted a public workshop April 

26–27, 2005, to discuss the guidelines and to receive public comment. The agenda for this workshop, the presentation slides used during the workshop, a list 

of participants, and a full transcript of the plenary sessions are now available 

on DOE’s website. On May 5, 2005, the Departments of Agriculture and Energy 

held a workshop on the agricultural and forestry elements of the guidelines. On 

June 30, 2005, EIA issued a Federal Register notice soliciting public comment 

on draft reporting forms and instructions based on the Interim Final General 

Guidelines and Draft Technical Guidelines. It is DOE’s intention that final 

guidelines be issued this fall. 

Other key Administration programs, like the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Climate Leaders and SmartWay Transport Partnership, also work in voluntary 

partnership with industry to reduce emissions. Further, the Department of Agriculture is using its conservation programs to provide an incentive for actions that 

increase carbon sequestration. DOE is pursuing many energy supply technologies 

with comparatively low or zero carbon dioxide emissions profiles, such as solar, 

wind, bioenergy, and combined heat and power. And the Bush Administration also 

has increased fuel economy standards for new light trucks and sport utility vehicles 

by 1.5 miles per gallon over the next three model years. A new round of standards 

is being prepared for proposal later this summer. 

These and other initiatives may be contributing to greenhouse gas emission intensity reductions that we have seen already. The President’s 18 percent ten-year goal 

represents an average annual rate of about 2.0 percent (compounded). According to 

Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the 

United States 2003 report, the energy-related greenhouse gas intensity was 2.3 percent lower in 2003 than in 2002, and a recent EIA estimate suggests a further improvement in carbon dioxide emissions intensity of 2.6 percent in 2004. Overall, 

then, the Nation appears to be ahead of schedule in meeting the President’s goal. 

Accelerating Climate Change Technology Development 

While acting to slow the pace of greenhouse gas emissions intensity in the near 

term, the Administration is laying a strong technological foundation to develop realistic mitigation options to meet energy security and climate change objectives. 

The Bush Administration is moving ahead on advanced technology options that 

have the potential to substantially reduce, avoid, or sequester future greenhouse gas 

emissions. Over 80 percent of current anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are 

energy related, and although projections vary considerably, a tripling of global energy demand by 2100 is not unimaginable. Therefore, to provide the energy necessary for continued economic growth while we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we 

may have to develop and deploy cost-effective technologies that alter the way we 

produce and use energy. 

The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), which I direct, was created to 

coordinate and prioritize the Federal Government’s nearly $3 billion annual investment in climate-related technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D). Using various analytical tools, CCTP is assessing different 

technology options and their potential contributions to reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. Given the tremendous capital investment in existing energy systems, the 

desired transformation of our global energy system may take decades or more to implement fully. A robust RDD&D effort can make advanced technologies available 

sooner rather than later and can accelerate modernization of capital stock at lower 

cost and with greater flexibility. 

Later this week, Energy Secretary Bodman, who chairs the President’s Cabinet 

Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration, will release the 

CCTP Vision and Framework for our forthcoming draft Strategic Plan. CCTP’s straVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
19 

tegic vision has six complementary goals: (i) reducing emissions from energy use 

and infrastructure; (ii) reducing emissions from energy supply; (iii) capturing and 

sequestering CO2; (iv) reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases; (v) measuring 

and monitoring emissions; and (vi) bolstering the contributions of basic science. The 

larger Strategic Plan will be published for public comment later this summer. 

The Administration continues strong investment in many strategic technology 

areas. 

• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Energy efficiency is the single largest 

investment area under CCTP and it provides tremendous short-term potential 

to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy includes 

a range of different technologies that can play an important role in reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. The United States invests considerable resources in 

wind, solar photovoltaics, geothermal, and biomass technologies. Many of these 

technologies have made considerable progress in price competitiveness, but 

there remain opportunities to reduce manufacturing, operating, and maintenance costs of many of these technologies. Annually the Administration invests 

about $1.2 billion for these activities. 

• Hydrogen: President Bush launched his Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in his 2003 

State of the Union Address. The goal is to work closely with the private sector 

to accelerate our transition to a hydrogen economy, on both the technology of 

hydrogen fuel cells and a fueling infrastructure. The President’s Hydrogen Fuel 

Initiative and the FreedomCAR Partnership launched in 2002, will provide $1.7 

billion through 2008 to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen production and infrastructure technologies, and advanced automotive technologies, 

with the goal of commercializing fuel-cell vehicles by 2020. 

• Carbon Sequestration: Carbon capture and sequestration is a central element of 

CCTP’s strategy because for the foreseeable future, fossil fuels will continue to 

be the world’s most reliable and lowest-cost form of energy. A realistic approach 

is to find ways to capture and store the carbon dioxide produced when these 

fuels are used. DOE’s core Carbon Sequestration Program emphasizes technologies that capture carbon dioxide from large point sources and store it in 

geologic formations. In 2003, DOE launched a nationwide network of seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, involving State agencies, universities, and the private sector, to determine the best approaches for sequestration 

in each geographic region represented and to examine regulatory and infrastructure needs. On June 9 of this year, Secretary Bodman announced a major 

expansion of the Regional Partnerships program 

• Coal-Fired, Near-Zero-Emissions Power Generation: The United States has vast 

reserves of coal, and about half of its electricity is generated from this fuel. Advanced coal-based power and fuels, therefore, is an area of special interest from 

both an energy security and climate change perspective. The Coal Research Initiative (CRI) consists of research, development, and demonstration of coal-related technologies that will improve coal’s competitiveness in future energy supply markets. The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), within the CRI, is a costshared program between the government and industry to demonstrate emerging 

technologies in coal-based power generation and to accelerate their commercialization. A major initiative under CCPI is the FutureGen project, a 10-year, 

$1 billion government-industry effort to design, build, and operate the world’s 

first near-zero atmospheric emissions coal-fired power plant. This project, which 

cuts across many CCTP strategic areas, will incorporate the latest technologies 

in carbon sequestration, oxygen and hydrogen separation membranes, turbines, 

fuel cells, and coal-to-hydrogen gasification. Through the CRI, clean coal can remain part of a diverse, secure energy portfolio well into the future. 

• Nuclear Fission: Concerns over resource availability, energy security, and air 

quality as well as climate change suggest a larger role for nuclear power as an 

energy supply choice. While current generations of nuclear energy systems are 

adequate in many markets today, new construction of advanced light-water reactors in the near term and of even more advanced systems in the longer term 

can broaden opportunities for nuclear energy, both in industrialized and developing countries. The Nuclear Power 2010 program is working with industry to 

demonstrate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s new licensing process, while 

the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative is investigating the more 

advanced reactor and fuel cycle systems that represent a significant leap in economic performance, safety, and proliferation-resistance. One promising system 

being developed under the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative would pair very-hightemperature reactor technology with advanced hydrogen production capabilities 

20 

1Founding IPHE member governments include the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, 

China, European Commission, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Italy, Japan, Norway, Republic 

of Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom. In January 2005, New Zealand became the 17th 

member. 2 CSLF member governments include the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, European Commission, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. 3GIF member countries include the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, 

Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 

that could produce both electricity and hydrogen on a scale to meet transportation needs. Complementing these programs is the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which is developing advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear fuel technologies that can improve the fuel cycle, reduce costs, and increase the safety 

of handling nuclear wastes. 

• Fusion: Fusion energy is a potential major new source of energy that, if successfully developed, could be used to produce electricity and possibly hydrogen. Fusion has features that make it is an attractive option from both an environmental and safety perspective. However, the technical hurdles of fusion energy 

are very high, and with a commercialization objective of 2050, its impact would 

not be felt until the second half of the century, if at all. Nevertheless, the promise of fusion energy is simply too great to ignore. 

Advances in these and other technology areas in the CCTP portfolio could put us 

on a path to ensuring access to clean, affordable energy supplies while dramatically 

reducing the greenhouse gas profile of our economy over the long term. Moreover, 

the deployment of cleaner energy technologies in developing economies like China 

and India can make a huge difference in altering the future global energy picture. 

Innovative International Partnerships 

The Administration believes that well-designed multilateral collaborations focused 

on achieving practical results can accelerate development and commercialization of 

new technologies. Under President Bush’s leadership, the United States has brought 

together key nations to tackle jointly some tough energy challenges. These multilateral collaborations mirror the main strategic thrusts of our domestic technology research programs, and they address a number of complementary energy concerns, 

such as energy security, climate change, and environmental stewardship. Another 

characteristic of each is that they include as partners Kyoto countries, non-Kyoto 

countries, industrialized countries, developing countries, and countries with economies in transition. 

• International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE): Recognizing the 

common interest in hydrogen research that many countries share, the United 

States called for an international hydrogen partnership in April 2003, and in 

November 2003, representatives from 16 governments gathered in Washington 

to launch IPHE.1 IPHE provides a vehicle to organize, coordinate, and leverage 

multi-national hydrogen research programs that advance the transition to a 

global hydrogen economy. It reviews the progress of collaborative projects, identifies promising directions for research, and provides technical assessments for 

policy decisions. IPHE also will develop common recommendations for internationally-recognized standards and safety protocols to speed market penetration of hydrogen technologies. Through IPHE, the U.S. has assisted Brazil and 

China in developing hydrogen roadmaps. 

• Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF): CSLF is a U.S.-launched initiative that was established formally at a ministerial meeting held in Washington, D.C., in June 2003.2 CSLF is a multilateral initiative that provides a 

framework for international collaboration on sequestration technologies. The Forum’s main focus is assisting the development of technologies to separate, capture, transport, and store carbon dioxide safely over the long term, making carbon sequestration technologies broadly available internationally, and addressing 

wider issues, such as regulation and policy, relating to carbon capture and storage. In addition to these activities, CSLF members and other interested nations 

are invited to participate in the FutureGen clean coal project. 

• Generation IV International Forum (GIF): In 2002, nine countries and Euratom 

joined together with the United States to charter GIF, a multilateral collaboration to fulfill the objective of the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.3 GIF’s goal is to develop the fourth generation of advanced, economical, 

safe, and proliferation-resistant nuclear systems that can be adopted commercially no later than 2030. A technology roadmap developed by the GIF and the 

21 

4 ITER member countries include the United States, China, European Union, Japan, Russia, 

and the Republic of Korea. 5Founding Methane to Markets member governments include the United States, Argentina, 

Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Russian Federation, 

Ukraine, and the United Kingdom 6Partners include Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Central America (Belize, Costa Rica, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama), European Union, India, Italy, Japan, 

Mexico, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and South Africa. 

Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, in 2003, 

identified six technologies as candidates for future designs. Based on the Roadmap, GIF countries are jointly preparing a collaborative research program to 

develop and demonstrate the projects. 

• ITER: In January 2003, President Bush announced that the United States was 

joining the negotiations for the construction and operation of the international 

fusion experiment known as ITER.4 If successful, this multi-billion-dollar research project will advance progress toward producing clean, renewable, commercially-available fusion energy by the middle of the century. It was recently 

agreed that the experimental reactor will be sited in Cadarache, France. 

• Methane to Markets Partnership: In November of last year, the United States 

and representatives from 13 countries 5 launched the Methane to Markets Partnership, which is led on the U.S. side by EPA. This Partnership is an international initiative that focuses on advancing cost-effective, near-term methane 

recovery and use as a clean energy source to enhance economic growth, promote 

energy security, improve the environment, and reduce greenhouse gases. Initially, the Partnership will target three major methane sources: landfills, underground coal mines, and natural gas and oil systems. 

• Regional and Bilateral Activities: Since 2001, the United States has established 

15 climate partnerships with key countries and regional organizations that, together with the United States, account for almost 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.6 These partnerships encompass over 400 individual activities, and successful joint projects have been initiated in areas such as climate 

change research and science, climate observation systems, clean and advanced 

energy technologies, carbon capture, storage and sequestration, and policy approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Market Development for Commercialization of New Technologies 

Adoption and transfer of modern energy technologies is capital and information 

intensive, and can only be accomplished as part of a broader effort to improve governance, regulation, and management of service providers in developing countries. 

Nations that develop strong, market-based institutions and the rule of law will be 

in the best position to make the sustained investments necessary to provide clean 

energy and address climate change over the long term. One of the biggest barriers 

to economic progress in developing countries is lack of access to affordable, modern 

energy services, such as electricity. Such services are instrumental to economic 

growth, social development, and alleviation of poverty, and their availability can 

amplify the impact of investments in public health, education, sanitation, clean 

water, agriculture, and others. 

Therefore, an important objective of U.S. participation in many of its international 

collaborations is to mobilize private sector investment by promoting innovative financing that reduces risks and transaction costs. These efforts are aimed at developing new policies and business models to create self-sustaining markets for financing energy efficiency, renewable, and infrastructure projects. 

• Clean Energy Initiative: At the World Summit on Sustainable Development 

(WSSD), the United States launched a ‘‘Clean Energy Initiative’’ consisting of 

four market-oriented, performance-based partnerships: Global Village Energy 

Partnership, led by the U.S. Agency for International Development; Partnership 

for Clean Indoor Air, and Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, both led 

by EPA; and Efficient Energy for Sustainable Development (EESD), led by 

DOE. The mission of this initiative is to bring together governments, international organizations, industry, and civil society in partnerships to alleviate 

poverty and spur economic growth in the developing world by modernizing energy services. 

DOE’s EESD aims to improve the productivity and efficiency of energy systems, 

while reducing pollution and waste, saving money, and improving reliability 

through less energy intensive products, more energy efficient processes and production modernization. In furtherance of the U.S. Clean Energy Initiative, DOE 

22 

submitted and obtained approval from Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum 

Energy Ministers a plan to implement an agenda for financing energy efficiency 

and renewable energy projects within the region. 

• Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership: Formed at the World 

Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August 

2002, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) seeks 

to accelerate and expand the global market for renewable energy and energyefficiency technologies. As the world’s largest producer and consumer of renewable energy, and with more renewable energy generation capacity than Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom combined, the 

United States is one of 17 countries who are partners in REEEP. The United 

States also actively participated in the Renewables 2004 conference sponsored 

by the German Government in June 2004, and submitted five action items intended to provide specific technology plans and cost targets for renewable energy technologies using solar, biomass, wind, and geothermal resources. 

Closing Remarks 

The Bush Administration has developed a comprehensive strategy on climate 

change that is informed by science, emphasizes innovation and technological solutions, and promotes international collaboration to support the UNFCCC objective. 

Further, the Administration remains committed to the UNFCCC and to the mutual goals of economic growth and energy security. The President has an ambitious 

near-term goal to reduce the greenhouse gas emission intensity of the U.S. economy, 

and is taking many actions to help meet that goal. We are also investing billions 

of dollars on advancing climate science and accelerating the development of advanced technologies—such as hydrogen, carbon sequestration, advanced nuclear 

power, and fusion energy—that have the potential to transform energy systems. And 

we are fully engaged internationally and lead major multilateral and bilateral climate change science and technology initiatives, and will continue to cooperate with 

all nations. 

Although the scientific and technology challenges are considerable, the President 

remains committed to leading the way on climate change at home and around the 

world. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Conover, we want to welcome 

Chairman Stevens, Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here. Now 

we’ll go to Mr. Reifsnyder. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. REIFSNYDER, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF GLOBAL CHANGE, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND 

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. REIFSNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I’m pleased to 

have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the outcome with respect to climate change of the recent G8 Summit in 

Scotland, international meetings occurring later this year, and a 

brief overview of our bilateral and multilateral climate change 

agreements. 

With your permission, I have a longer statement I would like to 

submit for the record regarding the G8 Summit outcomes. Two key 

documents, the Leader’s Statement on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, and the Gleneagles Plan of Action supporting the strategies set forth by the President were produced. The G8 leaders affirmed that, and I quote, ‘‘We face serious 

and linked challenges in tackling climate change, promoting clean 

energy and achieving sustainable development globally.’’ 

The G8 leaders agreed that the Gleneagles Program of Action, a 

broad-based practical program of over 50 activities to address climate change, to secure clean and affordable sources of energy, and 

to promote sustainable development over the coming decades. The 

23 

Gleneagles Program of Action calls for taking forward actions in six 

areas, including transforming the way we use energy, powering a 

cleaner future, promoting research and development, financing the 

transition to cleaner energy, managing the impact of climate 

change, and tackling illegal logging. 

Turning to future international meetings as part of the implementation of Gleneagles—G8 leaders agreed to take forward a dialogue on climate change, clean energy, and sustainable development, inviting other interested countries with significant energy 

needs to join them. We understand that the United Kingdom plans 

to host a meeting in London on November 1 to this end, I have no 

additional details on this meeting at the moment, but we anticipate 

that it will focus on the specific elements of the Gleneagles Plan of 

Action, and seek to build on them. 

The conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change will hold its 11th session in Montreal from November 28 to December 9, 2005. As the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16 of this year, the Montreal 

meeting will also be the first meeting of the parties under that instrument. We intend to carry forward our message, as we have in 

the last two COPs, and anticipate that it will have increased resonance as a result of the positive G8 outcomes. At those previous 

COPs, we have highlighted all that the United States is doing with 

respect to science and technology, and with respect to our domestic 

actions and international partnerships related to climate change. 

Turning to our multilateral and bilateral initiatives, since June 

of 2001, the United States has launched 14 bilateral or regional 

partnerships to address climate change, and encompassing over 

400 collaborative activities with developing and developed countries. These partnerships have, at their core, the principle that successful climate change policy must serve a larger purpose of fostering prosperity and well-being for citizens around the globe. 

In recent years, the United States has launched a number of 

multilateral initiatives that address both near-term and longerterm issues related to climate change, science and technology, as 

well as near-term efforts to increase energy supplies, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as Mr. Conover mentioned, some of 

these specific initiatives, the only one I would like also to mention 

here is the Earth Observation Summit that was held in Washington, D.C., in July 2003, to develop a comprehensive, coordinated 

and sustained Earth Observation System of Systems. That effort is 

well underway, as the newly formed group on observations seeks 

to meet the multiple targets in its 10-year implementation plan. 

But over 60 countries and 30 international organizations are now 

participating in this effort, and an International Secretariat has 

been established in Geneva, at the invitation of the World Meteorological Organization. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my testimony this morning conveys 

the sense of the vast extent to which the United States is working 

internationally with multiple partners to reduce greenhouse gas intensity and promote energy-efficient technologies, while also placing primary importance on supporting economic growth and prosperity. We see economic growth and addressing the climate change 

24 

problem and energy security as integrally related. Thank you for 

this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on behalf of the 

Department of State. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reifsnyder follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. REIFSNYDER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GLOBAL

CHANGE, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND

SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dan Reifsnyder, Director 

of the Office of Global Change in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the Department of State. I am very pleased to have 

this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the outcome of the recent G8 

Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, and upcoming international climate forums in London and Montreal. I will also provide an overview of our bilateral climate agreements and our multilateral initiatives, as requested by Chairman Vitter. 

G8 Outcomes 

The G8 Meeting produced two key documents: (1) the Leaders’ Statement on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, and (2) the Gleneagles 

Plan of Action. Both proved highly successful for the United States in that they support the strategy set forth by the President. Specifically, the Leaders noted that: 

‘‘We face serious and linked challenges in tackling climate change, promoting 

clean energy and achieving sustainable development globally.’’ 

In other words, addressing the climate challenge is inextricably linked to our efforts to promote clean energy and to achieve sustainable development. As President 

Bush said in his speech at the Freer Gallery on June 30, 2005: 

‘‘. . . Overcoming extreme poverty goes hand-in-hand with improving the environment. Stagnant economies are one of the greatest environmental threats in 

our world. People who lack food and shelter, and sanitation cannot be expected 

to preserve the environment at the expense of their own survival. Poor societies 

cannot afford to invest in cleaner, more efficient technologies. Indira Gandhi 

spoke of poverty and need as the greatest polluters. The long-term answer to 

environmental challenges is the rapid, sustained economic progress of poor nations.’’ 

The G8 Leaders also affirmed that: 

‘‘While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know 

enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.’’ 

They said that: 

‘‘Tackling climate change and promoting clean technologies, while pursuing energy security and sustainable development, will require a global concerted effort 

over a sustained period.’’ 

Therefore, G8 Leaders agreed to the Gleneagles Program of Action, a broad-based, 

practical program of over fifty activities that will promote efforts to address climate 

change, to secure clean and affordable sources of energy, and to promote sustainable 

development over the coming decades. 

The Gleneagles Program of Action calls for taking forward over fifty specific actions in six key areas: 

‘‘(1) Transforming the way we use energy,’’ including in buildings, appliances, 

surface transport, aviation and industry; 

‘‘(2) Powering a cleaner future,’’ with specific reference to cleaner fossil fuels, 

renewable energy and electricity grids; 

‘‘(3) Promoting research and development’’; 

‘‘(4) Financing the transition to cleaner energy’’; 

‘‘(5) Managing the impact of climate change,’’ including with respect to monitoring and data interpretation and risk management; and 

‘‘(6) Tackling illegal logging.’’ 

The Gleneagles Program of Action puts forward one of the most practical work 

programs in this area agreed to date by international partners. By focusing on areas 

that can achieve both near—and long—term benefits in multiple areas, it represents 

a promising effort that can engage developing countries, which have long indicated 

25 

they are not prepared to accept negotiated international targets on greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

We are also pleased that four of the multilateral initiatives launched by the 

United States are specifically endorsed in these G8 documents, including the: 

(1) Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) 

(2) International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE) 

(3) Methane to Markets Partnership (M2M) and 

(4) Group on Earth Observations (GEO) 

I will describe each of these with more specificity a bit later. 

G8 London Meeting 

As part of the implementation of Gleneagles, G8 leaders agreed to take forward 

a Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, inviting other interested countries with significant energy needs to join them. They specifically committed to: 

‘‘(a) address the strategic challenge of transforming our energy systems to create a more secure and sustainable future; 

(b) monitor implementation of the commitments made in the Gleneagles Plan 

of Action and explore how to build on this progress; and 

(c) share best practice between participating governments. 

We understand that the United Kingdom plans to host a meeting in London on 

November 1 to take forward the Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and 

Sustainable Development. I have no additional details on this meeting at the moment, but we anticipate that it will focus on the specific elements of the Gleneagles 

Plan of Action and seek to build on them. 

Montreal Meeting of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) 

The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will hold its 11th Session in Montreal from November 28 

to December 9, 2005. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula J. 

Dobriansky will head the U.S. delegation to this meeting. As the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16 of this year, the Montreal meeting will also be the 

first ‘‘meeting of the Parties (MOP)’’ under that instrument. 

While the COP and the MOP will take separate decisions, reflecting the different 

legal instruments involved and the different membership in these two bodies, there 

will be a joint ‘‘High Level Segment’’ from December 7–9. It is likely that statements 

of ministers and other heads of delegation will take up a good portion of the time, 

rather than the more interactive and successful roundtables that characterized the 

High Level Segments of COP–9 in Milan and COP–10 in Buenos Aires. In addition, 

there will be a heavy workload under the MOP as the Parties to that instrument 

seek to adopt the ‘‘Marrakech Accords’’ and other decisions to begin implementing 

the Kyoto Protocol. 

We intend to carry forward our message, as we have in the last two COPs, and 

anticipate that it will have increased resonance as a result of the positive G8 outcomes. At those previous COPs, we have highlighted all that the United States is 

doing with respect to science and technology, and with respect to our domestic actions and international partnerships related to climate change. 

Bilateral Climate Partnerships 

Since June 2001, the United States has launched 14 bilateral or regional partnerships to address climate change, encompassing over 400 collaborative activities with 

developing countries, such as Brazil, Central American countries as a group (including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama), 

China, India, South Korea, Mexico, and South Africa. Bilateral initiatives with partners in the developed world include those with Australia, Canada, the European 

Commission, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, and the Russian Federation. These partnerships have at their core the principle that successful climate change policy must 

serve a larger purpose of fostering prosperity and well-being for citizens around the 

globe. These partnerships have resulted in joint projects on climate change science, 

clean and advanced energy technologies, carbon capture, storage and sequestration, 

and policy approaches to greenhouse gas emissions. 

Global Environment Facility 

Another example of international cooperation is the Global Environment Facility 

(GEF), the financial mechanism under the UNFCCC. The United States is one of 

26 

the largest contributors to the GEF. President Bush’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget includes a $107.5 million request for the GEF. The GEF focuses on innovative and 

generally small scale projects and funds only the incremental costs involved in producing global environmental benefits. Our commitment will fund technology transfer 

and capacity building in developing countries. The GEF has committed about $5.4 

billion to date, leveraging over $17 billion from other sources, including the private 

sector, international development banks and organizations, governments, NGO’s, 

and bilateral agencies. The GEF has designed and initiated nearly 1,600 investment 

and capacity building projects that are now being implemented by developing countries with the help of ten agencies, including the U.N. Development Program and 

the International Fund for Agricultural Development. It has also provided nearly 

5,000 small grants directly to NGO’s and community groups in over 70 countries. 

Multilateral Initiatives 

In recent years, the United States has launched a number of multilateral initiatives that address both near-term and longer-term issues related to climate change 

science and technology as well as near term efforts to increase energy supplies while 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum 

The Department of State worked with the Department of Energy to launch the 

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) in June 2003. The CSLF, which 

now includes 17 countries and the European Commission, focuses on the development of improved, cost-effective technologies for the separation, capture, transport, 

and long-term storage of carbon dioxide in geological formations. Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Mexico, and South Africa participate in this cooperative framework 

along with numerous partners in the developed world. 

International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy 

The Department of State also worked closely with the Department of Energy to 

launch the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy in November 2003 

at a ministerial meeting in Washington, D.C. With 17 members, the IPHE provides 

a forum in which to organize and coordinate multinational research, development, 

and deployment of programs to advance the transition to a global hydrogen economy. Among developing countries, partners include Brazil, China, and India. IPHE 

partners are working together in such areas as hydrogen production and infrastructure, hydrogen storage, and codes and standards. The partnership addresses interests in both stationary and mobile sources of hydrogen as well as fuel cells and 

seeks to foster implementation of large-scale, long term public-private cooperation 

to advance research, development, demonstration, and commercial use of these technologies. Our goal is to make fuel cell vehicles commercially available by 2020, in 

line with the President’s commitments with respect to both Freedom Fuels and 

FreedomCAR. 

Methane to Markets Partnership 

The Department of State worked closely with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Agency for International Development 

to launch the Methane to Markets partnership at a ministerial meeting in Washington, D.C., in November 2004. The Partnership is designed to help promote energy 

security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through cost-effective, near-term recovery and use of methane. Through this partnership, the United States and 15 

other countries, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, 

India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, South Korea, Ukraine, and the United 

Kingdom, target methane from oil and gas activities, in coal beds and from landfills. 

By facilitating international cooperation, the Partnership has the potential to recover up to 500 billion cubic feet of methane annually by 2015, leading to the development of new and cleaner energy sources that stimulate economic growth and improve the environment. President Bush has pledged to commit up to $53 million to 

the Partnership over the next 5 years. 

Group on Earth Observations 

The United States held an Earth Observations Summit in Washington, D.C. in 

July 2003 to launch a multilateral effort to establish an intergovernmental, comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained Earth observation system. Continuous monitoring of the state of the Earth will improve our understanding of and ability to predict dynamic Earth processes and will provide timely, high-quality, long-term, global 

information as a basis for sound decisionmaking about climate change as well as 

for several other areas of societal benefit. 

27 

Through two succeeding ministerial meetings (in Tokyo in April 2004 and in Brussels in February 2005) a 10-year Implementation Plan for the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) was adopted, and the intergovernmental Group 

on Earth Observations was established to begin implementation of the 2-, 6-, and 

10-year targets identified in the plan. Over 60 countries and 30 international organizations are now participating in this effort, and an international secretariat has 

been established in Geneva at the invitation of the World Meteorological Organization. 

The United States Group on Earth Observations (USGEO), a subcommittee of the 

National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural 

Resources coordinates the development of the Integrated Earth Observation System 

(IEOS) which is the U.S. contribution to GEOSS. GEOSS and IEOS will facilitate 

the sharing and applied usage of global, regional, and local data from satellites, 

ocean buoys, weather stations and other surface and airborne Earth observing instruments. 

GEN–IV International Forum 

We are improving the reliability of nuclear power, which is already an important 

greenhouse gas emissions-free energy source in many parts of the world. In 2001, 

the Department of Energy launched the Generation IV International Forum (GEN– 

IV), in which ten nations and Euratom are working together on the next generation 

of nuclear power that will be safer, more affordable, and more proliferation-resistant. These advanced nuclear technologies will help provide a clean, stable, and 

abundant source of energy while reducing the global demand for fossil fuels. We are 

working closely with the Department of Energy on this initiative. 

ITER 

The United States has rejoined an effort to build an experimental fusion energy 

reactor. ITER’s members include China, the European Union, Japan, the Russian 

Federation, and South Korea. Fusion holds enormous promise as a potential source 

of clean, unlimited energy and is another component in the suite of technologies 

that comprise our long-term vision of developing and deploying transformational energy technologies as the key to energy security and reduction of GHG emissions. 

With the recent agreement to site the $5 billion experimental reactor in Cadarache, 

France, we look forward to continued progress in this endeavor. 

Tropical Forest Conservation 

Many of our international activities also help to promote the biological sequestration of carbon dioxide, an important tool for addressing climate change that can 

have benefits both for conservation and climate change. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) offers eligible developing countries opportunities to reduce 

concessional debt owed to the United States while generating local currency funds 

to support programs to conserve tropical forests. Since 1998, the United States has 

concluded nine TFCA agreements with eight countries that will generate more than 

$95 million for tropical forest conservation over the next 10–25 years. Three U.S.- 

based international NGO’s (The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, and 

Conservation International) contributed approximately $7.5 million to six of the 

nine agreements, thereby increasing the amount of debt we were able to treat. 

TFCA agreements have been concluded with Bangladesh, Belize, Colombia, El Salvador, Jamaica, Panama (two agreements), Peru, and the Philippines. In Fiscal 

Year 2006, the Administration has requested a total of approximately $100 million 

for certain debt restructuring programs. These programs include bilateral Heavily 

Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and poorest country debt reduction, contributions 

to the HIPC Trust Fund and TFCA debt reduction. 

Illegal Logging 

In 2003, the Department of State launched the President’s Initiative Against Illegal Logging (PIAIL) to assist developing countries to combat illegal logging and the 

sale and export of illegally harvested timber products. This initiative represents the 

most comprehensive strategy undertaken by any nation to address this critical sustainable development challenge and reinforces U.S. leadership in taking action to 

counter the problem and conserve forest resources that store carbon. 

Concluding Remarks 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my testimony this morning conveys a sense of the vast 

extent to which the United States is working to reduce greenhouse gas intensity and 

promote energy efficient technologies, while also placing primary importance on supporting economic growth and prosperity. We see economic growth, addressing the 

climate change problem, and energy security as integrally related. Meeting the chalVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
28 

lenge of the expected future growth in global energy demand, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, will require a transformation in the way the world produces 

and consumes energy over the next generation and beyond. This is why we are leading global efforts to develop and deploy breakthrough technologies for both the developed and developing world. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on behalf of 

the Department of State. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Reifsnyder, Dr. Cicerone? 

STATEMENT OF RALPH J. CICERONE, PH.D., PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 

Dr. CICERONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, 

for the opportunity. I just moved here recently from California 

where I was Chancellor of one of the U.C. campuses and Professor 

of Chemistry and Professor of Earth Systems Science. I should 

have known about the humidity in Washington, but I didn’t, so I’m 

learning firsthand. 

This morning I’ll be—— 

Senator VITTER. Being from Louisiana, I would just note, this is 

spring-like weather. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. CICERONE. Thank you. With your permission, I’d like to submit some written testimony as well, and so I’ll summarize briefly. 

The current state of scientific understanding of climate change, 

basing largely on findings and recommendations that Academies 

reports have come up with over the last 15 years or so, these reports are almost always the products of a study process that brings 

together scientists, engineers, public health officials, and other experts to provide a consensus reading and advice to the Nation on 

specific scientific and technical questions. 

First of all, the Earth is warming, as Senator Lautenberg and 

Senator Vitter said earlier. Our record is based on hundreds of millions of temperature measurements over the last 140 years or so 

from weather stations and ship-based observations. One common 

measure is the Planetary Average Surface Temperature, it’s increased about seven-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit just since the 

mid-1970s, and in my written testimony I have a figure of such 

data from one of the data sources, there are several. And although 

the magnitude of this warming varies locally, the warming trend 

is very widespread. It is consistent with an array of other evidence, 

such as melting glaciers and ice caps, sea level rise, extended growing seasons that have been observed, and changes in the geographical distributions of plant and animal species. 

The ocean, which represents the largest single reservoir of heat 

in the climate system because of the heat capacity of water, has 

itself warmed by a little bit more than a tenth of a degree, just in 

the last 12 years or so, in the surface layer that extends down to 

about 750 foot depth. Going back further, laboratory measurements 

of gases which have been extracted from dated ice cores around the 

world’s glaciers have shown that for hundreds of thousands of 

years, the changes in temperature, that themselves can be deduced 

from isotopic contents of the ice, have closely tracked atmospheric 

carbon dioxide concentrations. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 

now at the highest level in the last 400,000 years, and it continues 

29 

to rise, and it’s due mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for our 

energy needs. 

Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s 

current warming has been caused by the increases in these greenhouse gases in the air. One of the other ideas is that changes in 

the sun’s total brightness could be causing the recently observed 

warming, say over the past century, have become much more difficult to accept, due to the fact that humans have been measuring 

the sun carefully enough over the last 25 years to show that there 

is no detectable trend in the sun’s brightness. 

Computations of future climate change project that in this current century, global surface temperatures are going to continue to 

rise. The range of such temperature increases from, say, two and 

a half to 10 degrees Fahrenheit, above the levels of 15 years ago, 

difficult to pin down the range any more than that, for example, 

because we don’t know society’s own future actions—we don’t know 

what human numbers will be, we don’t know economic growth 

rates and energy use practices underlying that. On the other hand, 

we can say the warming will continue, for example, because some 

latent warming is built into the system already, due to a lack of 

equilibrium in the energy balance on the planetary energy balance. 

However, while future climate change details and regional impacts are inherently uncertain, they’re far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean 

warming alone will likely cause the global average sea level to rise 

by, oh, say a half a meter, plus or minus four tenths of a meter 

in this coming century, and in colder climates, such warming could 

bring longer growing seasons and less severe winters. However, 

those in coastal communities—especially developing nations—will 

be vulnerable to increased flooding due to sea level rise and storm 

surges on top of the mean sea level, and it’s also likely that we will 

experience more severe storms and surges. 

In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen much more 

than the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being 

altered rapidly, however, in my own opinion, we’re not exactly sure 

why. The National Academies have tried very hard, when requested, to provide advice to Federal agencies that conduct climate 

change research, now for well over two decades, and recently—as 

Dr. Mahoney said—the Academy has assisted the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program, by reviewing its 10 year strategic plan. 

And in the 2004 review, the Academy recommended that the plan 

be implemented as soon as possible, recognized hurdles, complimented the strategic planning involved, the scope of it, and did 

make comments on the budget perhaps not being—as it’s currently 

arranged, at least—capable of supporting all of the activities in the 

strategic plan. 

We do have working arrangements with Dr. Mahoney’s office and 

several other Federal agencies to continue to provide critical review, using experts from inside the government and outside the 

government on program priorities implementation, strategy and 

progress. The Academy is, I hope, fully engaged, and we’ll do the 

best we can to provide independent assessments and advice at 

every stage. 

30 

I’ll just conclude by saying that the overall task of mitigating and 

preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide 

collaborative efforts and inputs from a wide range of experts, including government leaders, and government at all levels—business leaders, natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical 

people, and economists. And although the scientific understanding 

of climate change has advanced significantly in the last several 

decades, there are still many unanswered questions. We all have 

increased pressure and incentive to decide how best to respond, 

and I hope that we can continue to work together to do that, thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cicerone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH J. CICERONE, PH.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Ralph 

Cicerone, and I am President of the National Academy of Sciences. Prior to this position, I served as Chancellor of the University of California at Irvine, where I also 

held the Daniel G. Aldrich Chair in Earth System Science. In addition, in 2001, I 

chaired the National Academies committee that wrote the report, Climate Change 

Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, at the request of the White House. 

This morning I will summarize briefly the current state of scientific understanding on climate change, based largely on the findings and recommendations in 

recent National Academies’ reports, focusing especially on the 2001 report that I 

chaired and the 2003 report Implementing Climate and Global Change Research, in 

which the U.S. Climate Change Science Program strategic plan was reviewed. These 

reports are the products of a study process that brings together leading scientists, 

engineers, public health officials, and other experts to provide consensus advice to 

the Nation on specific scientific and technical questions. The recent statement on 

climate change issued by the G8 countries, China, India, and Brazil is also based 

on findings in these and other reports of the National Academies. 

Science of Climate Change 

The Earth is warming. Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global mean surface air temperature increased about 0.7 °F (0.4 °C) since 

the early 1970s (See Figure). Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the 

warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence (e.g., melting glaciers and ice caps, sea level rise, extended growing seasons, 

and changes in the geographical distributions of plant and animal species). The 

ocean, which represents the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, has 

warmed by about 0.12 °F (0.06 °C) averaged over the layer extending from the surface down to 750 feet, since 1993. 

Laboratory measurements of gases trapped in dated ice cores have shown that for 

hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Burning fossil fuel for energy, industrial processes, and transportation releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide 

in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues to rise. 

Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming 

has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, 

mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, recent analyses of measurements of 

the Sun’s total brightness argue against any detectable long-term trend in the energy Earth receives from the Sun, making it difficult to conclude that the Sun has 

been responsible for the warming observed over the past 25 years. 

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades, and major parts 

of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. 

The slow response of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gases also means 

that changes and impacts will continue during the twenty-first century and beyond, 

even if emissions were to be stabilized or reduced in the near future. 

Simulations of future climate change project that, by 2100, global surface temperatures will be from 2.5 to 10.4 °F (1.4 to 5.8 °C) above 1990 levels. Pinpointing 

the magnitude of future warming is hindered both by remaining gaps in understanding the science, and by the fact that it is difficult to predict society’s future 

actions, particularly in the areas of population growth, economic growth, and energy 

use practices. Other scientific uncertainties about future climate change relate to 

31 

the regional effects of climate change, and how climate change will affect the frequency and severity of weather events. 

It is important to recognize however, that while future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of 

ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global 

average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In 

colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe 

winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience 

increased flooding due to sea level rise, and are likely to experience more severe 

storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen more than 

the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly. 

National Academies Advice on U.S. Climate Change Research 

The National Academies have provided advice to the Federal agencies that conduct climate change research for over two decades. Recently, the National Academies assisted the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) by reviewing its 

10-year strategic plan. The 2004 review of the final strategic plan, recommended 

that it be implemented as soon as possible, although significant hurdles face the 

CCSP and participating agencies in doing so. For example, meeting all program 

goals will require advances in previously under-emphasized, but societally relevant 

elements of the program, including ecosystems, the water cycle, human dimensions, 

economics, impacts, adaptation, and mitigation, as well as further development of 

the program’s decision support activities. The strategic plan identifies a much 

broader scope of activities than has historically been supported. However, the CCSP 

budget at the time did not appear to be capable of supporting all of the activities 

in the strategic plan. The National Academies’ report also concluded that, given the 

political sensitivities associated with climate change, special measures may be needed to ensure the scientific independence and credibility of the program and its products. 

One of the recommendations from the 2004 National Academies’ review to address 

these hurdles, was for the CCSP to establish a mechanism for independent oversight 

of the program as a whole. In June 2005, CCSP requested support from the National Academies in two new areas: 

1. A new CCSP Committee will provide ongoing, independent advice on on program priorities and implementation strategy and will evaluate progress toward 

meeting the program’s goals. The Committee also will facilitate, when requested 

by the sponsor or participating agencies, (1) National Academies’ reviews of 

draft CCSP synthesis and assessment products, (2) National Academies’ reviews 

of draft prospectuses for CCSP synthesis and assessment products, and (3) related analyses to bound the uncertainty associated with the interpretation of 

scientific findings. 

2. A committee is now being formed to undertake a comparative study of relevant previous global change assessments conducted around the world, in order 

to provide background information for the assessments being prepared by 

CCSP. The committee will evaluate several cases chosen to span the range of 

assessment approaches in terms of geographic scale, subject matter scope, entity 

responsible for conducting the assessment, and timing. 

Concluding Remarks 

The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural 

scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all 

levels, business leaders, and economists. Although the scientific understanding of 

climate change has advanced significantly in the last several decades, there are still 

many unanswered questions. Society faces increasing pressure to decide how best 

to respond to climate change and associated global changes, and applied research 

in direct support of decisionmaking is needed. 

The written testimony that follows describes in more detail important findings 

and recommendations from a number of recent National Academies’ reports on climate change. 

U.S. Climate Change Research 

The Earth Is Warming 

The most striking evidence of a global warming trend are closely scrutinized data 

that show a relatively rapid increase in temperature, particularly over the past 30 

years. Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global 

mean surface air temperature increased about 0.7 °F (0.4 °C) since the early 1970s 

32 

(See Figure). Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend 

is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence (e.g., melting glaciers and ice caps, sea level rise, extended growing seasons, and changes in 

the geographical distributions of plant and animal species). 

The ocean, which represents the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, 

has warmed by about 0.12 °F (0.06 °C) averaged over the layer extending from the 

surface down to 750 feet, since 1993. Recent studies have shown that the observed 

heat storage in the oceans is what would be expected by a human-enhanced greenhouse effect. Indeed, increased ocean heat content accounts for most of the planetary 

energy imbalance (i.e., when the Earth absorbs more energy from the Sun than it 

emits back to space) simulated by climate models with mid-range climate sensitivity. 

The observed warming has not proceeded at a uniform rate. Virtually all the 20th 

century warming in global surface air temperature occurred between the early 

1900s and the 1940s, and since the 1970s, with a slight cooling of the Northern 

Hemisphere during the interim decades. The troposphere warmed much more during the 1970s than during the two subsequent decades, whereas Earth’s surface 

warmed more during the past two decades than during the 1970s. The causes of 

these irregularities, and the disparities in the timing, are not completely understood. 

A National Academies’ report released in 2000, Reconciling Observations of Global 

Temperature Change, examined different types of temperature measurements collected from 1979 to 1999 and concluded that the warming trend in global-average 

surface temperature observations during the previous 20 years is undoubtedly real, 

and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth 

century. The report concludes that the lower atmosphere actually may have warmed 

much less rapidly than the surface from 1979 into the late 1990s, due both to natural causes (e.g., the sequence of volcanic eruptions that occurred within this particular 20-year period) and human activities (e.g., the cooling of the upper part of 

the troposphere resulting from ozone depletion in the stratosphere). The report 

spurred many research groups to do similar analyses. Satellite observations of middle troposphere temperatures, after several revisions of the data, now compare reasonably with observations from surface stations and radiosondes, although some uncertainties remain. 


cice1.eps
33 

Humans Have Had an Impact on Climate 

Laboratory measurements of gases trapped in dated ice cores have shown that for 

hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked with 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Burning fossil fuel for energy, industrial 

processes, and transportation releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues 

to rise. Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current 

warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere. The degree of confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was 

10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain. As stated in the Academies 2001 

report, ‘‘the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to 

human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes 

is also a reflection of natural variability.’’ 

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades and major parts 

of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. 

The slow response of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gases also means 

that changes and impacts will continue during the twenty-first century and beyond, 

even if emissions were to be stabilized or reduced in the near future. 

In order to compare the contributions of the various agents that affect surface 

temperature, scientists have devised the concept of ‘‘radiative forcing.’’ Radiative 

forcing is the change in the balance between radiation (i.e., heat and energy) entering the atmosphere and radiation going back out. Positive radiative forcings (e.g., 

due to excess greenhouse gases) tend on average to warm the Earth, and negative 

radiative forcings (e.g., due to volcanic eruptions and many human-produced 

aerosols) on average tend to cool the Earth. The Academies recent report, Radiative 

Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties 

(2005), takes a close look at how climate has been changed by a range of forcings. 

A key message from the report is that it is important to quantify how human and 

natural processes cause changes in climate variables other than temperature. For 

example, climate-driven changes in precipitation in certain regions could have significant impacts on water availability for agriculture, residential and industrial use, 

and recreation. Such regional impacts will be much more noticeable than projected 

changes in global average temperature of a degree or more. 

One area of debate has been the extent to which variations in the Sun might contribute to recent observed warming trends. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: 

Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005) also summarizes current understanding about this issue. The Sun’s brightness—its total irradiance—has 

been measured continuously by a series of satellite-based instruments for more than 

two complete 11-year solar cycles. These multiple solar irradiance datasets have 

been combined into a composite time series of daily total solar irradiance from 1979 

to the present. Different assumptions about radiometer performance lead to different reconstructions for the past two decades. Recent analyses of these measurements, taking into account instrument calibration offsets and drifts, argue against 

any detectable long-term trend in the observed irradiance to date. Likewise, models 

of total solar irradiance variability that account for the influences of solar activity 

features—dark sunspots and bright faculae—do not predict a secular change in the 

past two decades. Thus, it is difficult to conclude from either measurements or models that the Sun has been responsible for the warming observed over the past 25 

years. 

Knowledge of solar irradiance variations is rudimentary prior to the commencement of continuous space-based irradiance observations in 1979. Models of sunspot 

and facular influences developed from the contemporary data base have been used 

to extrapolate daily variations during the 11-year cycle back to about 1950 using 

contemporary sunspot and facular proxies, and with less certainty annually to 1610. 

Circumstantial evidence from cosmogenic isotope proxies of solar activity (14C and 10Be) and plausible variations in Sun-like stars motivated an assumption of longterm secular irradiance trends, but recent work questions the evidence from both. 

Very recent studies of the long term evolution and transport of activity features 

using solar models suggest that secular solar irradiance variations may be limited 

in amplitude to about half the amplitude of the 11-year cycle. 

Warming will continue, but its impacts are difficult to project 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which involves hundreds of scientists in assessing the state of climate change science, has estimated 

that, by 2100, global surface temperatures will be from 2.5 to 10.4°F (1.4 to 5.8°C) 

above 1990 levels. Similar projections of temperature increases, based on rough calculations and nascent theory, were made in the Academies first report on climate 

change published in the late 1970s. Since then, significant advances in our knowlVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
34 

edge of the climate system and our ability to model and observe it have yielded consistent estimates. Pinpointing the magnitude of future warming is hindered both by 

remaining gaps in understanding the science and by the fact that it is difficult to 

predict society’s future actions, particularly in the areas of population growth, economic growth, and energy use practices. 

One of the major scientific uncertainties is how climate could be affected by what 

are known as ‘‘climate feedbacks.’’ Feedbacks can either amplify or dampen the climate response to an initial radiative forcing. During a feedback process, a change 

in one variable, such as carbon dioxide concentration, causes a change in temperature, which then causes a change in a third variable, such as water vapor, which 

in turn causes a further change in temperature. Understanding Climate Change 

Feedbacks (2003) looks at what is known and not known about climate change 

feedbacks and identifies important research avenues for improving our understanding. 

Other scientific uncertainties relate to the regional effects of climate change and 

how climate change will affect the frequency and severity of weather events. Although scientists are starting to forecast regional weather impacts, the level of confidence is less than it is for global climate projections. In general, temperature is 

easier to predict than changes such as rainfall, storm patterns, and ecosystem impacts. It is very likely that increasing global temperatures will lead to higher maximum temperatures and fewer cold days over most land areas. Some scientists believe that heat waves such as those experienced in Chicago and central Europe in 

recent years will continue and possibly worsen. The larger and faster the changes 

in climate, the more difficult it will be for human and natural systems to adapt 

without adverse effects. 

There is evidence that the climate has sometimes changed abruptly in the past— 

within a decade—and could do so again. Abrupt changes, for example the Dust Bowl 

drought of the 1930s displaced hundreds of thousands of people in the American 

Great Plains, take place so rapidly that humans and ecosystems have difficulty 

adapting to it. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002) outlines some of 

the evidence for and theories of abrupt change. One theory is that melting ice caps 

could ‘‘freshen’’ the water in the North Atlantic, shutting down the natural ocean 

circulation that brings warmer Gulf Stream waters to the north and cooler waters 

south again. This shutdown could make it much cooler in Northern Europe and 

warmer near the equator. 

It is important to recognize that while future climate change and its impacts are 

inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe 

storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen almost 

twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly. 

Observations and Data Are the Foundation of Climate Change Science 

There is nothing more valuable to scientists than the measurements and observations required to confirm or contradict hypotheses. In climate sciences, there is a 

peculiar relation between the scientist and the data. Whereas other scientific disciplines can run multiple, controlled experiments, climate scientists must rely on the 

one realization that nature provides. Climate change research requires observations 

of numerous characteristics of the Earth system over long periods of time on a global basis. Climate scientists must rely on data collected by a whole suite of observing 

systems—from satellites to surface stations to ocean buoys—operated by various 

government agencies and countries as well as climate records from ice cores, tree 

rings, corals, and sediments that help reconstruct past change. 

Collecting and Archiving Data To Meet the Unique Needs of Climate Change Science 

Most of the instrumentation and observing systems used to monitor climate today 

were established to provide data for other purposes, such as predicting daily weather; advising farmers; warning of hurricanes, tornadoes and floods; managing water 

resources; aiding ocean and air transportation; and understanding the ocean. However, collecting climate data is unique because higher precision is often needed in 

order to detect climate trends, the observing programs need to be sustained indefinitely and accommodate changes in observing technology, and observations are 

needed at both global scales and at local scales to serve a range of climate information users. 

35 

Every report on climate change produced by the National Academies in recent 

years has recommended improvements to climate observing capabilities. A central 

theme of the report Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999) is the need to 

dramatically upgrade our climate observing capabilities. The report presents ten climate monitoring principles that continue to be the basis for designing climate observing systems, including management of network change, careful calibration, continuity of data collection, and documentation to ensure that meaningful trends can 

be derived. 

Another key concept for climate change science is the ability to generate, analyze, 

and archive long-term climate data records (CDRs) for assessing the state of the environment in perpetuity. In Climate Data Records from Environmental Satellites 

(2004), a climate data record is defined as a time series of measurements of sufficient length, consistency, and continuity to determine climate variability and 

change. The report identifies several elements of successful climate data record generation programs, ranging from effective, expert leadership to long-term commitment to sustaining the observations and archives. 

Integrating Knowledge and Data on Climate Change Through Models 

An important concept that emerged from early climate science in the 1980s was 

that Earth’s climate is not just a collection of long-term weather statistics, but rather the complex interactions or ‘‘couplings’’ of the atmosphere, the ocean, the land, 

and plant and animal life. Climate models are built using our best scientific knowledge, first modeling each process component separately and then linking them together to simulate these couplings. 

Climate models are important tools for understanding how the climate operates 

today, how it may have functioned differently in the past, and how it may evolve 

in the future in response to forcings from both natural processes and human activities. Climate scientists can deal with uncertainty about future climate by running 

models with different assumptions of future population growth, economic development, energy use, and policy choices, such as those that affect air quality or influence how nations share technology. Models then offer a range of outcomes based on 

these different assumptions. 

Modeling Capability and Accuracy 

Since the first climate models were pioneered in the 1970s, the accuracy of models 

has improved as the number and quality of observations and data have increased, 

as computational abilities have multiplied, and as our theoretical understanding of 

the climate system has improved. Whereas early attempts at modeling used relatively crude representations of the climate, today’s models have very sophisticated 

and carefully tested treatment of hundreds of climate processes. 

The National Academies’ report Improving Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling 

(2001) offers several recommendations for strengthening climate modeling capabilities, some of which have already been adopted in the United States. At the time 

the report was published, U.S. modeling capabilities were lagging behind some other 

countries. The report identified a shortfall in computing facilities and highly skilled 

technical workers devoted to climate modeling. Federal agencies have begun to centralize their support for climate modeling efforts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. However, the U.S. 

could still improve the amount of resources it puts toward climate modeling as recommended in Planning Climate and Global Change Research (2003). 

Climate Change Impacts Will Be Uneven 

There will be winners and losers from the impacts of climate change, even within 

a single region, but globally the losses are expected to outweigh the benefits. The 

regions that will be most severely affected are often the regions that are the least 

able to adapt. For example, Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations in the world, is 

projected to lose 17.5 percent of its land if sea level rises about 40 inches (1 m), 

displacing tens of thousands of people. Several islands throughout the South Pacific 

and Indian Oceans will be at similar risk of increased flooding and vulnerability to 

storm surges. Coastal flooding likely will threaten animals, plants, and fresh water 

supplies. Tourism and local agriculture could be severely challenged. 

Wetland and coastal areas of many developed nations including the United States 

are also threatened. For example, parts of New Orleans are as much as eight feet 

below sea level today. However, wealthy countries are much more able to adapt to 

sea level rise and threats to agriculture. Solutions could include building, limiting 

or changing construction codes in coastal zones, and developing new agricultural 

technologies. 

The Arctic has warmed at a faster rate than the Northern Hemisphere over the 

past century. A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007–2008 (2004) reports 

36 

that this warming is associated with a number of impacts including: melting of sea 

ice, which has important impacts on biological systems such as polar bears, ice-dependent seals and local people for whom these animals are a source of food; increased rain and snow, leading to changes in river discharge and tundra vegetation; 

and degradation of the permafrost. 

Preparing for Climate Change 

One way to begin preparing for climate change is to make the wealth of climate 

data and information already collected more accessible to a range of users who could 

apply it to inform their decisions. Such efforts, often called ‘‘climate services,’’ are 

analogous to the efforts of the National Weather Service to provide useful weather 

information. Climate is becoming increasingly important to public and private decisionmaking in various fields such as emergency management planning, water quality, insurance premiums, irrigation and power production decisions, and construction schedules. A Climate Services Vision (2001) outlines principles for improving 

climate services that include making climate data as user-friendly as weather services are today, and active and well-defined connections among the government agencies, businesses, and universities involved in climate change data collection and research. 

Another avenue would be to develop practical strategies that could be used to reduce economic and ecological systems’ vulnerabilities to change. Such ‘‘no-regrets’’ 

strategies, recommended in Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002), 

provide benefits whether a significant climate change ultimately occurs or not, potentially reducing vulnerability at little or no net cost. No-regrets measures could 

include low-cost steps to: improve climate forecasting; slow biodiversity loss; improve water, land, and air quality; and make institutions—such as the health care 

enterprise, financial markets, and transportation systems—more resilient to major 

disruptions. 

Reducing the Causes of Climate Change 

The climate change statement issued in June 2005 by 11 science academies, including the National Academy of Sciences, stated that despite remaining unanswered questions, the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently 

clear to justify nations taking cost-effective steps that will contribute to substantial 

and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Because carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for many decades and major parts of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse 

gas concentrations, climate change impacts will likely continue throughout the 21st 

century and beyond. Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse 

gas emissions now will make the job much harder in the future—both in terms of 

stabilizing their atmospheric abundances and in terms of experiencing more significant impacts. 

At the present time there is no single solution that can eliminate future warming. 

As early as 1992, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming found that there are 

many potentially cost-effective technological options that could contribute to stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. These options range from personal choices 

such as driving less, to national choices such as regulating emissions, to international choices such as sharing energy technologies. 

Meeting Energy Needs Is a Major Challenge to Slowing Climate Change 

Energy—either in the form of fuels used directly (i.e., gasoline) or as electricity 

produced using various fuels (fossil fuels as well as nuclear, solar, wind, and others)—is essential for all sectors of the economy, including industry, commerce, 

homes, and transportation. Energy use worldwide continues to grow with economic 

and population growth. Developing countries, China and India in particular, are 

rapidly increasing their use of energy, primarily from fossil fuels, and consequently 

their emissions of CO2. Carbon emissions from energy can be reduced by using it 

more efficiently or by switching to alternative fuels. It also may be possible to capture carbon emissions from electric generating plants and then sequester them. 

Energy efficiency in all sectors of the U.S. economy could be improved. The 2002 

National Academies’ report, Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy (CAFE) Standards, evaluates car and light truck fuel use and analyzes 

how fuel economy could be improved. Steps range from improved engine lubrication 

to hybrid vehicles. The 2001 Academies report, Energy Research at DOE, Was It 

Worth It? addresses the benefits of increasing the energy efficiency of lighting, refrigerators, and other appliances. Many of these improvements (e.g., high-efficiency 

refrigerators) are cost-effective means to significantly reducing energy use, but are 

being held back by market constraints such as consumer awareness, higher initial 

costs, or by the lack of effective policy. 

37 

Electricity can be produced without significant carbon emissions using nuclear 

power and renewable energy technologies (e.g., solar, wind, and biomass). In the 

United States, these technologies are too expensive or have environmental or other 

concerns that limit broad application, but that could change with technology development, or if the costs of fossil fuels increase. Replacing coal-fired electric power 

plants with more efficient, modern natural gas-fired turbines would reduce carbon 

emissions per unit of electricity produced. 

Several technologies are being explored that would collect CO2 that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere from fossil fuel-fired power plants, and then sequester it in the ground or the ocean. Successful, cost-effective sequestration technologies would weaken the link between fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. 

The 2003 National Academies’ report, Novel Approaches to Carbon Management: 

Separation, Capture, Sequestration, and Conversion to Useful Products, discusses 

the development of this technology. 

Capturing CO2 emissions from the tailpipes of vehicles is essentially impossible, 

which is one factor that has led to considerable interest in hydrogen as a fuel. As 

with electricity, hydrogen must be manufactured from primary energy sources. Significantly reducing carbon emissions when producing hydrogen from fossil fuels (currently the least expensive method) would require carbon capture and sequestration. 

Substantial technological and economic barriers in all phases of the hydrogen fuel 

cycle must first be addressed through research and development. The 2004 National 

Academies’ report, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R&D 

Needs, presents a strategy that could lead eventually to production of hydrogen from 

a variety of domestic sources—such as coal (with carbon sequestration), nuclear 

power, wind, or photo-biological processes—and efficient use in fuel cell vehicles. 

National Academies Advice on U.S. Climate Change Research 

Review of the 2003 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan 

Implementing Climate and Global Change Research (2004) reviewed the Strategic 

Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, released in July 2003. The report finds that the strategic plan articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope. It encompasses activities related to areas of long-standing importance, together with new or enhanced cross-disciplinary efforts. It appropriately plans for close integration with the complementary Climate Change Technology Program. The CCSP responded constructively to the National Academies’ review and other community input in revising the strategic plan. In fact, the approaches taken by the CCSP to receive and respond to comments from a large and 

broad group of scientists and stakeholders, including a two-stage independent review of the plan, set a high standard for government research programs. As a result, 

the revised strategic plan includes the elements of a strategic management framework that could permit it to effectively guide research on climate and associated 

global changes over the next decades. Advancing science on all fronts identified by 

the program will be of vital importance to the Nation. The report recommends that 

the CCSP implement the activities described in the strategic plan with urgency. 

The revised strategic plan identifies a much broader scope of activities than has 

historically been supported under the auspices of the Global Change Research Program. To succeed, such an expansion in scope will require a concomitant expansion 

in funding. A fully informed assessment of whether adequate funding is available 

for the proposed program was not possible because the CCSP did not provide the 

committee with prospective budget information and because many of the objectives 

in the plan are too vaguely worded to determine what will constitute success. However, the CCSP budget at the time did not appear to be capable of supporting all 

of the activities in the strategic plan. While well-established program elements have 

a track record of funding, the newer or expanded areas in the strategic plan lack 

clear budget lines and agency homes, and are therefore likely to be under supported. 

The major expansion in climate modeling and the observing system that the plan 

calls for will also require an increase in funding above current levels. There is no 

evidence in the plan or elsewhere of a commitment to provide the necessary funds 

for these newer or expanded program elements. The report recommends that whatever the budget allocations, the CCSP and its parent committees: (1) develop a clear 

budgetary process linking tasks to agency and program budgets; (2) secure the financial resources, for the present and the future, that will ensure the overall success of the plan; and (3) consider new approaches to funding that will enable new 

initiatives and the shifting of resources to respond to the Nation’s evolving needs. 

Significant hurdles face the CCSP and participating agencies as they implement 

the strategic plan. First, meeting all program goals will require advances in previously underemphasized but societally relevant elements of the program, including 

ecosystems, the water cycle, human dimensions, economics, impacts, adaptation, 

38 

and mitigation, as well as further development of the program’s decision support activities. Second, a clearer strategic approach is needed to achieve the necessary expansion of observation systems and modeling capabilities. Third, the management 

structure proposed by the CCSP is very complex, will require significant interagency 

cooperation, and is essentially untested. Fourth, given the political sensitivities associated with climate and associated global change, special measures may be needed 

to ensure the scientific independence and credibility of the program and its products. The report recommends that the CCSP establish a mechanism for independent 

oversight of the program as a whole in order to maintain its long-term scientific 

credibility. Likewise, the CCSP should ensure the credibility of synthesis and assessment products by producing them with independent oversight and review from 

the wider scientific and stakeholder communities throughout the process. Finally, 

the CCSP needs to evaluate the available capacity within the community to implement the plan, and address any capacity gaps that are revealed. 

The Nation and the global community will be better prepared to address the challenges of climate and associated global changes if the CCSP’s vision and overarching 

goals are achieved. In this effort, the CCSP represents a transition from the sciencebased Global Change Research Program of the past decade to a program that employs science in the service of societal objectives. While many opportunities exist to 

improve the plan, as discussed in Implementing Climate and Global Change Research, the major challenge ahead is for vigorous implementation. 

New National Academies Committee: Strategic Advice on the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program 

One of the recommendations of Implementing Climate and Global Change Research was for the CCSP to establish a mechanism for independent oversight of the 

program as a whole. In June 2005, CCSP asked the National Academies to establish 

a committee to provide independent advice on the strategy and evolution of the 

CCSP. This CCSP Committee will produce annual reports on specific topics mutually agreed upon by the program and the National Academies. Topics to be addressed during the first 3 years likely will include the following: 

(1) Strategic advice on program priorities and implementation strategy in the 

context of scientific and societal objectives, including the identification of high 

priority program areas not supported in the past; 

(2) An evaluation of progress toward meeting the program’s goals; and 

(3) A high-level review of the program’s decision support activities in the context of the program’s strategic goals. 

The committee also will facilitate, when requested by the sponsor or participating 

agencies, (1) National Academies’ reviews of draft CCSP synthesis and assessment 

products, (2) National Academies’ reviews of draft prospectuses for CCSP synthesis 

and assessment products, and (3) related analyses to bound the uncertainty associated with the interpretation of scientific findings. 

New National Academies Study: Analysis of Global Change Assessments 

Assessments of global environmental changes and their effects on humans and 

ecosystems are increasingly being conducted to synthesize the state of knowledge, 

inform dialogue about policy and resource management decisions, and guide plans 

for future research. The scientific community invests significant time into conducting assessments. A better understanding is needed of the strengths and weaknesses of assessment processes and the value of the end products for achieving their 

overall purposes. This new study, requested by the CCSP in June 2005, will seek 

to identify lessons learned from a wide range of past assessments to guide future 

assessment activities of the CCSP. An ad hoc committee will conduct a comparative 

analysis of past assessments that have stated objectives broadly similar to those of 

the CCSP. The committee will evaluate several cases chosen to span the range of 

assessment approaches in terms of geographic scale, subject-matter scope, entity responsible for conducting the assessment, and timing. The committee will provide 

specific advice about which purposes, approaches, and products are most effective 

for meeting the CCSP’s stated objectives for assessments. 

Concluding Remarks 

The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural 

scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all 

levels, business leaders, and economists. Although the scientific understanding of 

climate change has advanced significantly in the last several decades, there are still 

many unanswered questions. Society faces increasing pressure to decide how best 

39 

to respond to climate change and associated global changes, and applied research 

in direct support of decisionmaking is needed. 

National Academies Reports Cited in the Testimony 

Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005) 

Climate Data Records from Environmental Satellites (2004) 

Implementing Climate and Global Change Research (2004) 

A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007–2008 (2004) 

The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs (2004) 

Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks (2003) 

Planning Climate and Global Change Research (2003) 

Novel Approaches to Carbon Management: Separation, Capture, Sequestration, 

and Conversion to Useful Products (2003) 

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002) 

Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards 

(2002) 

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001) 

Improving the Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling (2001) 

A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward the Future (2001) 

Energy Research at DOE, Was It Worth It? (2001) 

Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000) 

Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999) 

Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1992) 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Doctor, now we’ll move 

on to questions from the Subcommittee, I’ll kick it off with Dr. 

Mahoney. 

Doctor, I wanted to focus and ask you a few things about climate 

models. Tell me what climate models you fund through your offices 

and activities, and something about how we develop those models 

and validate them—is there an independent validation process? 

What sort of data is used, and should we use taxpayer funds, generally speaking, for multiple models? What is your general philosophy on that? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Thank you, Senator. The Climate Change Science 

Program, through its agencies, funds model development, evaluation and validation activities, principally through four agencies— 

that is, through ourselves in NOAA, where the climate models 

have, in part, grown out of our weather forecasting models, although I stress that the climate model development stands on its 

own right, and actually is largely conducted in another center, 

where we work a great deal to make sure that we take advantage 

of all the lessons learned from the shorter-term weather forecasting, and apply them into the longer-term modeling. 

Second, the National Science Foundation has had, for many 

years, a very significant climate model development activity, largely through its core support for the National Center for Atmospheric 

Research in Boulder, but that NCAR support, in turn, has emanated out to a very broad-based, what is called, Community Climate Model Development Activity that involves hundreds of climate scientists dealing not only with the computational models, 

but with the underlying processes that are necessary to capture in 

the models. 

Third, the Department of Energy has a long record of working 

on climate model development, and continues to do that, and 

40 

fourth, NASA also has played a role in significant climate model 

development, also dating back to the 1980s. 

One fair question would be, why have these different groups 

doing this? I think that is a fair question, but the fair answer I 

would give is this is such an important area that I view it as an 

element of sort of the free market development of ideas, it’s so important that we get exposed to the best possible modeling capability, that we would not want to put all of our bets on one particular group in an area which is core to the development of national skills here. 

Moving on to your question about validation and evaluation. 

When the prior international assessments, the work of the IPCC, 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which produced 

its third assessment in the year 2000, and is scheduled to produce 

its fourth assessment in the year 2007, and similarly when the national assessment conducted in the United States in the late 1990s 

were conducted, the models used for those exercises, state-of-theart at the time, did not include the U.S. models because they were 

not considered to be as advanced as models available from the 

U.K., from other European sources, and from the Canadians. 

That situation, all modeling, has advanced substantially. I think 

we certainly believe that the advances in the U.S. modeling capability has really put our modeling efforts really at the forefront of 

this these days, and we see substantially more skill, and everything we’re doing now in the U.S. is based on our models, in close 

collaboration with our international partners, and even in the 

IPCC international activity, the U.S. models will be a major contributor, and indeed the U.S. model runs were the first ones completed for use in IPCC assessments underway now. 

Just a final word on the validation—the broad issue, of course, 

is that related to looking back over the past 25 years, or sometimes 

the past century, to see how well the models work in so-called 

hindcasting, so we can better understand their ability to forecast 

going forward, and that activity has proceeded a great deal. At the 

core, though, is the question of, well, when we fit our parameters, 

since they’re literally hundreds of parameters in the models, are we 

at risk that we’ve just parameter-ized, based on past data, so that 

we don’t really have a good forecast going forward? 

With that in mind, the modeling community has done a great 

deal to deal with other methods of validation—looking at regional 

patterns, looking at shorter-term influences and the like, and in all 

of this, we’ve seen major improvement in these models. We have 

a large model validation effort which runs on a long-term basis, 

sponsored by DOE at Lawrence Livermore laboratory, and a program on climate model validation and interpretation. That activity 

is the core U.S. resource in this area that has logged very substantial improvements in recent years. Thank you. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Conover, briefly, what are some 

of the most promising technologies identified by the technology program, and could you briefly describe the technology transfer process, and how it could be improved, if you have any thoughts on 

that? 

Mr. CONOVER. Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The intent of our 

program is to ensure that we maintain a diversified portfolio of reVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
41 

search and development investments, the Federal Government 

doesn’t have a particularly good track record on picking winners in 

the technology area, and so the idea is to ensure that we are funding a variety of promising technologies that can be brought to the 

marketplace, and where they will compete against one another in 

the marketplace, ultimately, then, determining which ones succeed 

and which ones fail. 

The President is committed to the hydrogen fuel initiative, that 

a child born today has an opportunity to drive a vehicle powered 

by hydrogen with zero emissions. We’ve been very successful—the 

Department through its Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

program in advancing that goal—very promising area is in carbon 

sequestration, where we have established a network of seven regional consortia, with the University, state and local governments, 

industry all grappling with a variety of issues associated with carbon sequestration—what the technology needs to be, what the regulatory framework needs to be, how are we going to make sure that 

it is acceptable to local communities, et cetera. We’re very excited 

about the prospects for the Future Gen Program, which is based on 

today’s technology—integrated gasification and combined cycles for 

cleaner coal technology, but with an ability to separate out carbon 

dioxide, and then sequester the carbon dioxide, producing both electric power and a hydrogen stream that can be used for our transportation sector with zero emissions from the power generation 

itself. 

All of these projects are conducted in partnership with the private sector, the contribution of the private sector ranges from about 

20 percent to 50 percent in any individual project, and what we 

have found is that as these technologies become more mature, the 

fact that the private sector actually has a stake in an individual 

research and development or demonstration project helps to ensure 

that the transfer ultimately, of the technology to the marketplace, 

will be smooth. 

We have an ongoing effort on an annual basis to evaluate and 

monitor our technology transfer activities, both within the Department and through our network of national laboratories, and I think 

most people are perhaps surprised to learn that the first largest investment in our portfolio is energy efficiency R&D, but the second 

is deployment. So with respect, I believe, that we have a very good 

track record on deploying these technologies, obviously things like 

hydrogen and sequestration are some years down the road, but 

there is a robust public/private partnership that bodes well for the 

future and transferring these technologies into the marketplace. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Conover, I’ll come back to the 

other witnesses, but let me move on to Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, obviously the subject is a fairly complicated one, global warming, and 

it needs a fair amount of explanation, but I would ask whenever 

possible to crystallize, or reduce the answering time so that we can 

get through the questions, but understand exactly what it is that 

you’re saying. The scientific influences in this are critical, but I 

come from the world of business, and we always try to get to the 

bottom line if we can, and that, I think, is the mission here. I notice that there are a substantial number of young people that 

42 

cleared the room, and I don’t know whether it was something that 

was said or wasn’t said, but the fact is that if we can get it quickly 

into comprehensible language, it would help. 

I would like, Dr. Cicerone, have you seen the Pentagon report 

that came out in 2003, that presented, or projected, a worse-case 

scenario in the event of an abrupt climate change, have you seen 

that report? 

Dr. CICERONE. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What do you think about the veracity, or 

the value of the conclusions that they make? Do you think this is 

reliably, scientifically-based? 

Dr. CICERONE. I assume we’re speaking about the same report. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. This is the one that projects significant 

disaster in the latter part of this century as a result of flooded nations, and people looking for higher ground, and the military responsibility for keeping them off of it. 

Dr. CICERONE. At first I saw only press reports about that, perhaps a year and a half ago, and some people in the business community in California asked my opinion of it, so I found a website, 

dug up part of the report and read it, and I thought that the writers made it pretty clear that they were speaking about 

plausibilities that were within the realm of possibility, and it was 

well done. I didn’t think that it was fictional, on the other hand, 

I thought the writers made it clear that they were speaking from 

a range of possibilities that have been identified, and weren’t necessarily saying, ‘‘This is exactly what’s going to happen,’’ but they 

did put their finger on some vulnerabilities. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Forecast about flooded nations, I mean, 

you know, if we look at recent history and October 2003, the Ward 

Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest ice shelf in the Antarctic broke up. I 

mean, is this true, or isn’t it true? If it’s true, what’s the significance of something like that? 

Dr. CICERONE. Well, the amounts of sea ice and continental ice 

around the world are enormous. The ones that we would be most 

concerned about are the ice formations which are now on land, so 

that if they were to melt, they would increase sea level, the ones 

that are already floating in the ocean, melting them might have 

some biological effects, and would, but wouldn’t raise sea level. So, 

there has been a massive effort underway, not as big as it should 

be, to learn more about the sea ice mechanics, what it’s vulnerable 

to, and studying the climate feedbacks, much in the way that Dr. 

Mahoney just mentioned about the climate modeling business. 

There are different ways to describe and predict the way that 

these land-held ice amounts will respond in the early days of climate change, and in the later days. And the predictions are not yet 

very clear—generally speaking, people think that changes will be 

slow, and inexorable, on the other hand, I’m not convinced that we 

know enough about the mechanics of this ice to make that prediction. Therefore, the Pentagon report was plausible. We cannot 

rule it out, we cannot rule out those scenarios. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. They talk about things like, in 20 years— 

and this goes back to February 2004—warned that in the next 20 

years, major European coastal cities could sink, beneath the sea, 

and the military defines a likelihood of its responsibilities in the 

43 

second half of this century as in preparing the kind of equipment 

they need to fight off waves of refugees looking for higher land 

coming here, and people whose lives are threatened to begin with 

are going to take any chance they can to climb aboard. Well, I 

mean, that scene of chaos sounds like something that we see in 

these movies, Star Wars and so forth, and that is an ominous kind 

of projection. 

Dr. Mahoney, it’s been 5 years since the last national assessment 

of climate impacts report. Can you explain why the Climate 

Change Science Program failed to produce a report that was due 

in 2004? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Senator, first of all we put our effort—when I 

came on board at the beginning of 2002, we put our effort into addressing what we believed to be a real core question, which was to 

assure that we were advancing the science, understanding better 

issues that were left very uncertain from the time of the prior assessment activity, so that strategic plan is the document I mentioned awhile ago, that was published just 2 years ago, just now, 

in fact it was released that day, I conducted a large briefing for 

staff here in the Senate, and a similar briefing the same day for 

House staff to try to get the word out very quickly. So, we’ve been 

on record very clearly with a plan and schedule for the work that 

we propose to do for 2 years. And we’ve taken a view in that that 

we would produce a series of 21 synthesis and assessment reports. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Are these far off the time target that we 

expected to meet? 

Dr. MAHONEY. When we produced the plan, we expected that 

they would be all prepared within a 4-year period. We still plan to 

finish within the 4-year period. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Four-year period starting when, Dr. 

Mahoney? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Starting from the time the plan was produced in 

the middle of 2002, we’re now projecting producing all of these, at 

least, we’ll have to make one exception, we’re planning to produce 

most of them by the end of the year 2007, and in correspondence 

we’ve sent just recently, because we’ve been asked for some 

changes in the coverage on the reports, we have undertaken to 

agree to include those changes. The result of that is some that were 

considered to be not directly responsive to the requirements of the 

law, we have proposed to delay submitting those until the beginning of 2008, because there’s only so much work the community 

can do at one time. But we were originally on a program of producing this through 2007, we’re still largely on that program, what 

slipped was that in the first year of our activity, we fell behind in 

the expected early production of this, and we’re in a catch-up mode 

for that now. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Because all of these things are fairly longrange, but I think they’re imminent because of the prospective 

problems that we face, and we don’t want to continue to put things 

off, we’re spending a lot of money, but the question is whether 

we’re spending it as wisely and as efficiently as we might. 

Mr. Chairman, we’re going to continue the questioning process. 

Senator VITTER. Sure. Thank you, Chairman Stevens? 

44 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Dr. Mahoney, I was saddened to get the call yesterday concerning your possible departure. 

I want to thank you very much for what you’ve done, I hope that 

your departure is not too quick, but I understand that it will come. 

I want to thank all of you for responding to my request for additional funds to be released to carry out the continued observation 

of the temperature changes in the Arctic Ocean. There are three 

to four icebreakers out there this summer around the circumference of the Arctic Ocean on an international basis. I think the 

continued use of those to find out what’s really happening in the 

Arctic will be very important in this overall question. 

Some years ago, as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 

I took the Committee down to Antarctica, because at the time I noticed the disparity between funding for the Antarctic and the Arctic, and after I visited there, I came back and told you all that the 

work going on down there should not be disturbed, but we had to 

find some additional money for the Arctic. I’m still trying to find 

that money. I have here, I think, they’re your documents, the October 19, 2004 Nome storm, which was classified as a 949 milibar cyclone, totally unpredicted, as was the Barrow storm that took place 

on September 9th of 2003. I do hope we’ll find some way to deal 

with prediction of storms in the Arctic, we have very little capability of doing that right now, and I think the basic global climate 

changes are more evident in the Arctic, and I would hope we would 

find some way to implement general forecasting of the weather in 

the Arctic. If that cyclone happened in California, Dr. Cicerone, we 

would have known about it by the minute, with this one, we knew 

it about 2 hours after it happened. I really think we need better 

prediction and better information for our people with regard to 

those storms. 

Now, one of my basic problems, however, is the question of what 

to do about the situation in our state. I think as far as the United 

States is concerned, the evidence of global climate change is more 

apparent in Alaska than anywhere else. I will request a National 

Guard aircraft to fly me up the West Coast of Alaska to take a look 

at that damage that occurred from the storms last year. Very clearly we have to address those issues as the Senator has said, to help 

protect the people that were involved in the past storms. We need 

some predictions as to what we should do for the future of the nine 

villages that suffered the most. 

I’m sure you’ve seen the GAO report, at my request, that indicates at least three of them are in eminent need of some attention. 

One of the small villages, costs an estimated $200 million to move. 

I think we’ve got to figure out a way to relocate some of these villages before they’re destroyed—it’s easier to move them piece by 

piece than it is to move them after the disasters occur. One of the 

basic problems still facing us is whether we have a way to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of global climate 

change, or warming. How far are we from being able to do that? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Well, Senator, I’ll take that on for a minute, and 

I’ll try to give a brief, direct answer as Senator Lautenberg advised. I will comment, too, it is my plan to stay on board until my 

45 

successor is confirmed, so I hope to be at it for many months, still 

working with you. While my health has deteriorated some, and I 

can’t go on over years, I don’t want to leave any of this open, so 

I look forward to working with you for quite some time. 

On your question about this difference between natural variability and human-caused—first of all, it’s important to sort out 

sometimes there are, what I will call, political arguments that want 

to go to one extreme or the other, the scientific argument is much 

more complicated in the middle. There is no question there’s natural variability, and I will say very directly, there’s also no question that there is an important element of human-caused effects, so 

the science challenge is to tease out those differences. And it’s not 

especially easy to do at the outset because when you look at the 

record, it’s just a noisy record, and it’s a question of how you pull 

it apart. Even so, the last few years, and even the last two or 3 

years have seen substantial progress in being able to better identify the human cause, elements, and some of the work on this deals 

with regional patterns of temperature change, and salinity change 

in the ocean that tends to relate to regional factors associated with 

the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, we’re beginning to see 

from the oceanic record more help in what we call ‘‘fingerprinting’’ 

of these changes that can be related to human effects. 

The same way we see this generally, and when we look at the 

atmosphere overall, there is now enough information again on 

doing regional correlations as well as long-term studies to give us 

a better picture that indicates that in the end, both natural variability and human causes are playing a role, so there is no one can 

make a statement that it’s exactly 50/50 or 40/60 or something, but 

we have enough information to say human effects are significant, 

and I would say that’s where we are, and without taking the time 

with long, complicated questions or answers, there is substantially 

better information to help make this difference, but we will need 

to continue to sharpen that because it’s such an important point, 

I expect we’ll need to sharpen that distinction through these field 

measurements and model studies in the years immediately ahead. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Cicerone, if you look at the information that’s 

available to us, we have a lot more information available from the 

area you just left in California than we do for the Arctic, but we 

do have some information coming in about the so-called Atlantic 

and Pacific Oscillation, and what it may mean in terms of dumping 

more heat into the Arctic Ocean, how far along is that before people start talking about it? I haven’t really heard about it, except 

from the scientists associated with the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, but are you all looking into this? 

Dr. CICERONE. Yes, and I know some individual scientists who 

are, I wish I could tell you when people will be able to say whether 

they think the rapid and large warming in the Arctic is more attributable to humans or natural variation. I started out thinking 

that whatever is going on in the Arctic must be some unknown natural variation, but others in the last few years are telling me no, 

they think, they’re working on ideas that link it more to global 

warming, I don’t see the answer, I don’t know if anybody has a definitive answer yet, but because of the dramatic warming, the loss 

of permafrost, the loss of sea ice, the raised temperatures, the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
46 

creased growing season length—in the Arctic a lot more people are 

working on it. 

I’m reminded, though, of the ozone layer business that we went 

through 20 some years ago, where the appearance of the Antarctic 

ozone hole was totally unexpected, unpredicted, and perhaps a little bit fortunate that the first large damage to the ozone layer occurred over Antarctica rather than over more populated regions. 

People in New Zealand, Australia, and Southern Chile might disagree because they’re dealing with the increased ultraviolet light 

now, but the reason we didn’t predict it—and I remember taking 

a lot of heat in public lectures—people came up to me and said, 

‘‘Why didn’t you predict this? You never said that it was going to 

be this bad,’’ is that there were mechanisms, the chemistry of the 

atmosphere that we didn’t understand. All we can do is do the best 

we can with the available science, and it gets to the question of 

Senator Vitter about these different models that are being used to 

do these computations, I think they’re absolutely essential to have 

different sources of funding, different competing scientists, and different approaches to these questions. The seriousness of the Arctic 

situation is a great example, where the approximations that some 

scientists are making in the way they solve these equations will be 

more accurate in the Arctic, or less accurate in the tropics. And the 

only way to find out is to try different techniques. 

In the meantime, the Arctic situation is much more widespread 

than people realized, the temperature records are showing a warming over the Arctic, a bigger east/west extent, and a longer period 

of time than any of us knew, it just got more rapid recently. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, how much of it is related to this ocean oscillation, has anyone really measured that? 

Dr. CICERONE. That was the biggest initial invest hypothesis, 

that the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation might have a mode 

that would lead to some kind of rapid warming every 40 years or 

so, but I don’t think that is turning out to provide all of the answers either. It’s still one of the major hypotheses, that we should 

better map out natural variation, but it doesn’t seem to be yielding, 

it doesn’t seem to be explaining what we’re seeing completely, at 

least. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, am I wrong to say that the world seems to 

be looking to us to examine this because of our scientific community and the way it’s funded, as opposed to other areas? For instance, those ships in the Arctic. We’re financing those and I thank 

you for that, someone has to do it. We don’t have very much observation in the Arctic, I don’t think Canada has a lot, and we’re not 

increasing the emphasis of research or observation there, which I 

think should be taken into account. I don’t want to see us taking 

anything away from Antarctica, I think that’s very important to 

mankind in the long run. The short run of trying to find out what’s 

going on for us is in the Arctic, everyone says, ‘‘Stevens, you’re getting another pork barrel.’’—it has nothing to do with that, it has 

to do with getting the information we need about what has happened, and get some predictions of what might happen in the Arctic because of the location of our state. Where do we have the ability to act? I don’t think many nations do. 

47 

Dr. CICERONE. At one time, the former Soviet Union had a very 

active presence there, I don’t think it was as large, so I think your 

statement is very fair, however, because of the dramatic changes 

in Alaska and the rest of the Arctic, the Norwegians and English 

are paying attention and trying to do their part of it, but I think 

your statement is fair, they’re looking to us to do more. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, I will see if Congress will 

try, thank you. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I hope you’ve noticed, we’ve organized three Subcommittees of this Committee to get into this basic area, and I do 

want you to know we’re going to continue that emphasis as long 

as I’m Chairman, thank you. 

Senator VITTER. Let me go back to Mr. Reifsnyder. You mentioned upcoming climate forums in Montreal and another recently 

announced in London. What will be the U.S. goals at those meetings? 

Mr. REIFSNYDER. Thank you, Chairman. The London meeting, as 

we understand it, will seek to look at the specific items in the 

Gleneagles Program of Action, and to try to devise ways and means 

of taking those forward, so our goal there will be to try to put some 

flesh on the bones of what was contained in the Gleneagles Program of Action, specifically. As I say, we don’t have a great deal 

more information at the moment, we know that the United Kingdom plans to convene a meeting on the first of November, with respect to the 11th conference of the parties under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, we have sought in the past 

two or 3 years to highlight what we’re doing with respect to science 

and technology, we did that at the COP–9 in Milan last year, we 

sought to highlight what we’re doing with respect to our domestic 

programs, as well as our international programs. We’ve taken an 

active approach to these COPs, not just dealing with the issues 

that come up there, but using them as an opportunity to showcase 

all that the United States is doing, and I think we will try to take 

the same approach in Montreal this year. 

Now, much of the discussion in Montreal will focus on the entry 

and into force of the Kyoto Protocol among the parties that have 

ratified Kyoto. And there were a number of decisions, Kyoto was, 

in effect, a kind of framework, there was much work that took 

place under the Framework Convention on Climate Change to prepare for entry into force of Kyoto that has happened, and now 

those decisions have to be taken up by the meeting of the parties 

under the Kyoto Protocol, so that will be a large part of the focus 

in Montreal. 

Senator VITTER. OK, thank you. Dr. Cicerone, Chairman Barton 

over on the House side, recently had some inquiries into the 

backup data and work behind some of the climate science, and in 

response to that, you’ve sent in a letter, and there has been some 

uncertainty about exactly where you’re coming from in the letter in 

terms of whether you were just offering help to folks involved in 

Congressional oversight, or whether you were suggesting that oversight belongs somewhere else outside of Congress—could you sort 

of speak to that, and clarify your letter? 

48 

Dr. CICERONE. Yes, I drove across country at the end of June, 

and all of this was happening while I was driving. When I got here, 

I received a large number of contacts from scientists around the 

country, and people who represent them, scientific society, saying 

they were very concerned with that kind of request, that they 

hadn’t seen anything like it before, and that it’s difficult for scientists to go back and get everything that was asked for, and they 

said, ‘‘Is this a new way of doing business?’’ And I tried to put myself in Congressman Barton’s position of trying to get at the bottom 

of that particular climate record, so I wrote a letter that expressed 

the concern that had been conveyed to me, that some scientists find 

it to be intimidating to receive that kind of a letter—by the way, 

I don’t know the three scientists to whom it was addressed, I’ve 

never met any one of them, and so I’m not dealing with anything 

personal here—so the letter basically said, to express concern over 

the way the letter was being received, and offer any help that we 

could provide in helping Congressman Barton and his colleagues to 

get to the heart of this very specialized matter, how you read the 

climate record of the last thousand years, during most of which 

time people were not measuring temperatures. And so I offered 

that we could convene a study to help, if necessary, or to find others to do it for them if they would rather work with somebody else, 

and we had the letter personally delivered to Congressman Barton 

last Friday morning. 

Senator VITTER. Following up on that, how would you describe a 

valid oversight role of relevant Committees in the Congress? 

Dr. CICERONE. I think that’s up to you, Senator Vitter. I suspect 

that everything the Congressman asked for, he’s entitled to ask for, 

we certainly don’t challenge that. What I would really like to get 

across is science—one of the reasons I’ve been attracted to it over 

my lifetime is it’s perhaps the only, but one of few human endeavors that is self-correcting. And that we can rely on the method to 

get at the truth of the matter eventually—we just keep going over 

things, find independent ways to ask the same question, find answers so what we’ve volunteered, and hope that the Academy can 

help with, is to convene an up-to-date group to look at where we 

are right now, at any point in time, on any question, and give Congress, if it wishes, what we hope is the best available information. 

I’m sure part of your role is getting that information one way or 

the other. 

Senator VITTER. OK, Doctor, and one other question. Recently, as 

you know, there was some controversy regarding a recent joint 

Science Academy statement, and how it was characterized by different parties, and specifically, the British Royal Society’s characterization, could you sort of speak to that? 

Dr. CICERONE. Yes, in fact, some of you may have seen the exchange between my predecessor who just left town a couple of 

weeks ago, with the head of the Royal Society where we objected 

to the way they characterized the statement that the Science Academies from the G8 nations, and India, and China, and Brazil had 

agreed to, we thought that the press release went beyond what we 

had agreed to, and we were surprised by the timing of it. But the 

intention of the Science Academies of these nations is driven by the 

hope and the belief that a scientific reading of scientific data of any 

49 

situation will be helpful to our governments, so there will probably 

be more efforts of these Academies to work together in the future 

on such statements, guided by the lessons of this time, I hope. 

Senator VITTER. And have those lessons been agreed to within 

the Societies? Has their been a response from the British Royal Society that is satisfactory to you, or are you still frustrated by the 

experience? 

Dr. CICERONE. A little frustrated, we have some work to do. 

Senator VITTER. Senator Lautenberg? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Cicerone, you said that the melt on land—if I understood you 

correctly—was more significant as you looked at it now, then the 

sea melt, because the sea melt couldn’t yet be fully assessed, but 

do I generally phrase correctly what you’ve said? 

Dr. CICERONE. And one raises the sea level, and the other 

doesn’t. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right. But, when we look at Glacier National Park, and Kilimanjaro, and places like that, that were homes 

for ice and snow, and now they’re almost barren, that’s a pretty 

worrisome indicator, is it not? 

Dr. CICERONE. Inland glaciers generally are disappearing around 

the world, perhaps not at the rate of Kilimanjaro, but yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And that portends problems in a disturbed 

ecology, the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2004 released a critical report on the Administration’s use of science in forming policy, 

and the report was signed by 64 scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates. And part of the criticism evolved around something, Dr. 

Mahoney, about changes to the references, EPA, to remove references in a report to the 2001 National Academy of Science study, 

that confirmed that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

finding human activity is contributing to climate change, and to insert instead a discredited study of temperature records that were 

funded, in part, by the American Petroleum Institute. 

I wrote you a letter on June 29, requesting that you remove from 

NOAA’s website, two reports on climate change which were altered 

by a former member of the White House staff, and I thank you for 

your written reply. But it’s not clear to me from your response 

whether changes made by Mr. Cooney, the gentleman in question, 

and approved by non-partisan scientists, did scientists sign-off on 

Mr. Cooney’s changes? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Senator, I think the short, simple answer is yes, 

in particular in the sense that all of the edit comments we receive 

come back and are vetted by our core office, and by me. It’s a responsibility I have, and the other key staff who work with me on 

that are all Ph.D. level scientists. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So, it was OK to alter the report as it was 

produced? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Well, Senator, there was no alteration of the report, the phrasing you’re using makes it sound like a report was 

prepared and then it was changed by this person. The fact is that 

a draft was prepared, and that draft was circulated to the representatives of all 13 agencies who take part in the program, as 

well as representatives of OMB, and CEQ, and OSTP, all White 

50 

House functions, so basically, everything we produce first exists as 

a draft, then it goes to 16 addresses. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So, you’re satisfied, Dr. Mahoney, that the 

hand of science was firmly imprinted on that report as it finally 

came out? Because you suggest that a draft was only a draft, but 

this isn’t a novel, a fictional novel that is being written and someone is editing, I mean, I assume that we’re dealing with facts, determined, developed in the production of the draft, is that not so? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Well, that’s true, however, the principle of the two 

documents—the one that we’re speaking about—is the strategic 

plan I mentioned earlier. That plan was not a statement of fact or 

finding, it was a statement of our planned work program over the 

years ahead, so that is not the same thing as a document that 

would be saying, ‘‘Here are our key findings about climate change,’’ 

it was, instead, ‘‘Here’s our work plan.’’ And that work plan was 

very heavily commented on by all 16 of those entities that I mentioned, the 13 agencies and the three White House offices. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I thank you for that explanation. The 

Union of Concerned Scientists, are they a reliable organization? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Yes, I think they’re an advocacy organization, but 

that doesn’t mean they’re unreliable, but sometimes advocacy organizations—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What do you think of them, Dr. Cicerone? 

Are they a lobbying organization more than they are a science organization? 

Dr. CICERONE. They’re pretty activist. A lot of great individual 

scientists work with them, so I certainly don’t dismiss them, but 

I do know they’re pretty activist. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Which says that what they issue is not 

necessarily unbiased, scientific discovery? 

Dr. CICERONE. No, I think they use a record that can be checked, 

so I think they try to use a scientific method. I think that the topic 

that they’ve been concerned about is their reading that science advice generally hasn’t been used as much in the last decade as previously, so this is part of their view, a lot of scientists feel that 

way. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK, but what they would produce, or they 

would publish, would be fairly well based on scientific knowledge, 

and it wouldn’t be largely on advocacy, kind of mission, but would 

they be stimulated to produce a report based on the knowledge of 

science? 

Dr. CICERONE. I think so, and they usually document what they 

say. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. So, Dr. Mahoney, if the commentary 

that accompanied their criticism, or their information developed as 

a result of a change in the report, the National Science Association, 

the NAS study that confirmed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finding that human activities contributing to climate 

change, and to insert a discredited study of temperature records 

that was funded, in part, by the American Petroleum Institute— 

are you aware of that assertion? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Senator, I’m not aware of the specific assertion, 

what I do know is that the Union of Concerned Scientists has written at least one broad letter criticizing the use of science in this 

51 

Administration. I know that the Union of Concerned Scientists also 

expressed displeasure, and I think it may have been in a written 

document about information in an EPA document that dealt, in 

part, with climate issues. I’m not aware of any written statement 

or even verbal statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists 

about the documents for which I’m responsible in the Climate 

Change Science Program, so I don’t have the basis to respond directly, I’m not aware of it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I just want to confirm something and I’ll 

turn the podium back to the Chairman, but you feel that what Mr. 

Cooney did, that to your knowledge, you’re familiar with the 

changes? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Absolutely, the comments he made—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. They were approved by those with a 

science background? People who understood and saw no harm or no 

change of materiality in the changes that he’d made? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Well, I think you’re asking a question, sort of, 

with two parts. One, were they approved, and then saying, did anybody see any change, any materiality? I don’t want to parse the 

words too much. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That’s not for us to argue, but I’m not 

talking about the process, I’m talking about the outcome. Were Mr. 

Cooney’s comments, you said they were vetted by those who have 

science as their background? 

Dr. MAHONEY. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And that there were not significant, there 

were no changes as a result of his comments. He’s not in the Administration any longer, as we know. 

Dr. MAHONEY. That’s correct, he’s not in the Administration. He, 

like many other commenters, made a very large number of suggested edits to these draft reports, and our job after getting those 

draft edits from everyone was to consider them all, and then to recast the report, making our best judgment about the right things 

to say and the right science. I’ve now done two stints in government dealing with this kind of interagency work, I did this with 

acid rain back in the late 1980s, too, and in both of these cases, 

basically every document that is produced goes for review by all of 

those who might want to comment on it, but then it all comes back, 

so that someone is responsible for deciding what comments to accept or partly accept, or reject, and I would say specifically, relative 

to Mr. Cooney’s comments, they came, sometimes, to others first, 

but they all come to me. So that document, at the end of the day 

is my responsibility. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And you’re confirming you were satisfied 

with the changes you made? 

Dr. MAHONEY. To get to the core of it, absolutely. I confirm that 

I am—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That you endorse it? 

Dr. MAHONEY. I endorse it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Dr. Mahoney. 

Senator VITTER. All right, I want to thank all of our witnesses 

again for your participation in this hearing, we certainly appreciate 

it. We’ll also be sending along some follow-up written questions, 

52 

and would appreciate those answers so we can consider them and 

make them part of the record. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(53) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

HON. JAMES R. MAHONEY

Background: The recent announcement of a new Asian-Pacific climate pact involving India, China, and the U.S. highlights the important role of international collaboration in climate change policy and in the scientific research that will continue to 

improve our understanding of the consequences of changes in climate for communities, governments, and businesses in the Asia-Pacific region and throughout the 

world. As you know, the State of Hawaii is home to a number of scientific institutions and programs that will be important assets as the U.S. moves forward with 

this new Asian-Pacific climate pact including, for example: the International Pacific 

Research Center (IPRC) at the University of Hawaii; the NOAA Joint Institute for 

Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR); the East-West Center; the new NOAA 

Integrated Environmental Applications and Information Center (NIEAIC); and a 

number of ongoing NOAA-supported programs such as the Pacific Islands Regional 

Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA) program, NWS international weather 

and climate research and services, and regional contributions to environmental observing system programs such as the Global Climate Observing System and the 

Global Ocean Observing System. 

Question. Please describe the Administration’s plans, with specific focus on 

NOAA’s plans, for engaging these assets in support of the observations, research, 

modeling, and assessment programs that will be necessary to support the new 

Asian-Pacific climate pact as well as other regional and international climate agreements in the region such as the U.S.-New Zealand and U.S.-Australia Climate 

Change Science bilaterals and the long-standing science bilateral with Japan. 

Answer. 

Asia-Pacific Partnership 

The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP–6) and the 

activities NOAA are involved with such as the United States Group on Earth Observations (USGEO) are two separate programs with separate objectives. The AP–6 is 

a public/private partnership for addressing the challenges of assuring economic 

growth and development, poverty eradication, energy security, pollution reduction, 

and mitigating climate change. The U.S. joined by Australia, China, India, Japan, 

and South Korea, are actively engaging leaders in the private sector in our various 

countries to develop and implement programs and projects that implement the objectives of AP–6 while making good business sense. This creative partnership is 

unique because it made up of 6 countries with common energy needs, and because 

of the substantial private sector involvement. 

NOAA, through its leadership of the United States Group on Earth Observations 

(USGEO), plans to work with the 15 other agencies and 3 White House offices to 

identify parameters for measuring success in energy efficiency and emissions reduction. These parameters could include emissions output, energy consumption, particulate matter and air quality, weather conditions affecting energy load, etc. Tools 

such as those being developed through the USGEO should prove very useful to initiatives such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership. 

Working through the international mechanism, the intergovernmental Group on 

Earth Observations (GEO), which is co-chaired by the U.S. (Under Secretary 

Lautenbacher) and China, and in which all 6 Asia-Pacific Partnership countries participate, the United States can provide leadership in establishing common data formats for measuring like parameters in each country by providing a trusted, but 

verifiable metric. Common formats will ensure more accurate performance measures. 

Pacific Climate Science and Information Services 

NOAA and its extramural partners at the East-West Center, the University of 

Hawaii (including the International Pacific Research Center, the School of Ocean 

54 

1http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/default.htm. 

and Earth Science and Technology, and the Social Science Research Institute), the 

University of Guam, and other agency partners continue their substantial collaboration toward the development of an integrated, regional climate information system 

for the Pacific. 

The Pacific climate information system will engage and build on a strong legacy 

of ongoing programs including: 

• The Pacific ENSO (El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation) Applications Center (PEAC) 

which delivers ENSO-based climate forecast and applications services to the 

American Flag and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands in the Pacific and represents 

a key node in the emerging WMO Regional Climate Centre for the Pacific; 

• The Pacific Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (Pacific RISA) program 

designed to understand and reduce regional vulnerability to climate-related extreme events (e.g., droughts, floods, and tropical cyclones) through a number of 

program objectives including: sustained, interactive dialogue with decision-makers in climate-sensitive sectors; enhanced regional efforts to develop and apply 

climate forecasts and information products; develop enhanced data and information products that address the nature and consequences of climate-related extreme events; and adapt and apply model-based decision support tools and techniques designed to more effectively manage the risks associated with climaterelated extreme events; and 

• NOAA’s climate information services in the Pacific are being coordinated with 

the efforts of other Federal, state, and local agencies, regional organizations and 

scientific partners in universities and the private sector). 

U.S. Climate Science Bilateral Agreements in the Pacific 

Since 2003, the U.S. (led by the State Department) has entered into a number 

of important bilateral climate agreements. Specifically, the U.S. GCOS Program Office is involved in funding projects with Australia and New Zealand that directly 

relate toward furthering the progress of GCOS and GOOS in the region. The bilateral projects cover a wide range of projects dealing with climate prediction, ocean 

observing, stratospheric detection, water vapor measurements, capacity building and 

training, and communication of information, and will focus the attention and resources of all these countries toward developing a more sustainable and robust 

GCOS program. 

For example, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) in New Zealand, there are now two new projects which have been 

implemented on a long-term basis. The first one involves the implementation of a 

global stratospheric water vapor measurement station in Lauder, New Zealand. A 

second significant project involves the implementation of a new ship track for trace 

gas measurements, which has been implemented on a car carrier ship on a route 

between Nelson, New Zealand, and Nagoya, Japan. This is a brand new route and 

is unique in that it crosses both the Intertropical and South Pacific convergence 

zones. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO

HON. JAMES R. MAHONEY

Question 1. Given that we now know, as the President has said, that ‘‘the surface 

of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans 

is contributing to the problem,’’ when does the Administration intend to produce a 

plan to reduce emissions and stabilize the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere? 

Answer. The goal of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is to advance 

the science and provide scientific results that can be used to support policies and 

planning to address climate change for policymakers. In fact, CCSP recently held 

a public workshop on Climate Science in Support of Decision Making,1 which drew 

more than 700 participants from the research, decisionmaking, and international 

communities, as well as students, users, and individuals interested in the applications of climate science. The workshop included discussion of decision-maker needs 

for scientific information on climate variability and change, as well as expected outcomes of CCSP’s research and assessment activities that are necessary for sound resource management, adaptive planning, and policy formulation. 

55 

2http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050727-11.html. 

3http://www.climatetechnology.gov. 

4http://www.climatevision.gov. 

5http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders. 

6http://www.epa.gov/smartway. 

7http://earthobservations.org/. 

Over the past few years, several actions—in addition to the roughly $2 billion annual investment in science—have been taken by the Administration to address the 

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations, which include: 

• Setting a national goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 

2012. 

• Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate.2

• Energy Policy Act of 2005, which includes $9.2 billion in tax incentive over the 

period of 2005–2015 and other important provisions that will promote new, 

cleaner technologies. 

• Reaffirming the commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change and regular participation in the Conference of Parties meetings. 

• Approximately $2 to $3 billion in annual investments into the development and 

deployment of transformational technologies through the Climate Change Technology Program.3 Key research and development areas are included in the 

President’s Advanced Energy Initiative: biomass, solar, wind, hydrogen, nuclear, 

and clean coal. CCTP deployment programs include Climate VISION 4 (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now), Climate Leaders,5 and 

SmartWay Transport Partnership.6

• Leadership in the Group on Earth Observations 7 and the development of the 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems. 

• United States Department of Agriculture’s conservation programs, which provide incentives for actions that may increase carbon sequestration. 

• Increased fuel economy standards for new light trucks and sport utility vehicles 

by 1.5 miles per gallon over the next three model years. 

Question 2. If you do not intend to do so, I want to point out that the National 

Academies of Science said: ‘‘[L]ack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of 

climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a 

reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.’’ What specific scientific questions does the Administration need answered before it is convinced that we need such a plan to reduce emissions and stabilize concentrations? 

Answer. A key finding of the 2001 NAS report on climate science requested by 

the President was as follows: ‘‘While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin 

now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.’’ Key scientific uncertainties being addressed by the Climate Change Science Program include: 

• How much humans contribute to climate change (i.e., what percentage of the 

warming is contributed by humans versus natural variability)? 

• How much of the change in climate is reversible? 

• How effective would various mitigation and adaptation strategies be? 

In addition, the President stated in 2001 that the Academy’s report tells us that 

we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on 

warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. 

We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could 

impact it. CCSP is addressing these questions as well. 

Despite not having answers to these key questions, the Administration, as explained in response to Question 1, has already invested in several programs and has 

provided tax incentives to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Our approach draws upon the best scientific research, harnesses the power of markets, fosters the creativity of entrepreneurs, and works with the developing world to meet 

shared aspirations for our people, our economy, and our environment. 

Question 3. Eleven national science academies (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) said in their statement issued on 7 June 2005: ‘‘It is likely that 

most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.’’ Do 

you agree with this statement? 

Answer. Since 2001, the President has stated that humans are contributing to 

changes in climate. However, as explained in response to Question 2, there are still 

56 

uncertainties around how much humans are contributing versus natural variability 

and what types of strategies will be most effective. 

Question 4. The National Academy of Sciences’ review of the new CCSP strategic 

plan was particularly glowing. In your written testimony you highlight this fact 

with an extended quote from the review. Left out of your excerpt, however, is NAS’ 

conclusion that the CCSP budget did not appear sufficient to meet all of the goals 

in the strategic plan. If the President’s climate budget is enacted unchanged, the 

CCSP budget will have shrunk by $84 million, or 4 percent, from Fiscal Year 2004 

enacted levels. How will these cuts alter implementation of the strategic plan that 

was so well received by the National Academies? 

Answer. CCSP priorities are reviewed on an annual cycle through the budget 

process. A critical function of CCSP is coordinating the CCSP budget across the 13 

CCSP agencies. In Fiscal Year 2006, this coordination process involved the alignment of agency climate programs with the goals and key research focus areas in the 

CCSP Strategic Plan, thus helping to ensure consistency. The emphasis is on ensuring alignment of current funding with a recommended list of priorities and identifying gaps that may occur, as well as identifying measurable milestones and 

deliverables that reflect accountability toward meeting program goals. 

Each year, we expect that agency budgets will fluctuate. Thus, the current CCSP 

program is a high-priority selection of activities that merit continued support. However, new initiatives are required to move in directions identified in the CCSP Strategic Plan. CCSP must maintain key research activities, while encouraging innovation in a constrained budget environment. There is a need for continuing evolution 

of program priorities and activities through new initiatives, the competitive grant 

process within agencies, and other evolutional redirection reflecting new focus areas 

for high-priority research in climate science. 

Question 5. Could you elaborate on the different activities undertaken by the Climate Change Research Initiative and the U.S. Global Change Research Program? 

How are they different? 

Answer. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) supports research 

on the interactions of natural and human-induced changes in the global environment and their implications for society. The USGCRP began as a Presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 

1990, which mandates development of a coordinated interagency research program. 

USGCRP organized its research in seven areas: Atmospheric Composition, Climate 

Variability and Change, Global Water Cycle, Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, 

Global Carbon Cycle, Ecosystems, and Human Contributions and Responses. 

The Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) was launched by the President 

in 2001 with four key priorities: (1) to reduce significant uncertainties in climate 

science; (2) improve global observing systems; (3) develop science-based information 

resources to support policymaking and resource management; and (4) communicate 

findings broadly among the international scientific and user communities. 

The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) was announced in 2002 with strong 

focus on advancing scientific understanding of global climate change, as well as coordinating and integrating scientific research on global change and climate change 

sponsored by 13 Federal departments and agencies. This new structure required 

CCSP to incorporate and integrate the long-standing work of USGCRP and the more 

recent research organized within CCRI. 

As CCSP has evolved, the four CCRI priorities continue to form the basis for the 

nine priorities areas of CCSP overall for Fiscal Year 2006. However, there is still 

a current budget line for CCRI, as displayed in Our Changing Planet, the annual 

report to Congress. The CCRI line budget totals include research specifically to reduce uncertainties in the areas listed above. For example, CCRI line items for 

NOAA in Fiscal Year 2006 include Global Climate Observing System and Global 

Ocean Observing System to support the CCRI priority to improve global observing 

systems. The USGCRP line items for NOAA in Fiscal Year 2006 include Global Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Composition research which are two of the seven science 

elements established under USGCRP. These topics are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but specific research items under each program determine how they are reported for budget purposes. Both the CCRI and USGCRP lines make up the CCSP 

totals. 

Question 6. What contribution is the CCSP making to the Global Earth Observation System? Please be specific in terms of both money and other programmatic support. 

Answer. Under NOAA’s Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) budget line 

for the support of atmospheric Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) networks, 

the U.S. remains committed to improvements in the management and operation of 

57 

GCOS and GCOS-related atmospheric and oceanographic networks in line with the 

GCOS Implementation Plan approved in October 2004 (see http://www.wmo.int/ 

web/gcos/gcoshome.html). GCOS is an international program with inputs from 

many countries as well as U.S. Government agencies. The U.S. National GCOS Report done in 2001 was a multi-agency effort. GCOS also serves as an organizing 

focus for the CCSP’s Observations Program. Finally, GCOS is the formal climate 

component of the Global Earth Observations System of Systems (GEOSS) and forms 

the basis for the Climate component of the U.S. Strategic Plan for the Integrated 

Earth Observations System. 

NOAA’s U.S. GCOS Program Office, which represents the U.S. on the GCOS Cooperation Board, has committed to leading the way for facilitating improvements in 

the management and operation of GCOS and GCOS-related atmospheric networks. 

The U.S. GCOS Program Office has taken leadership, working with our partners at 

the World Meteorological Organization, in further GCOS improvements. The U.S. 

GCOS Program Office has been the catalyst for revitalizing the GCOS Cooperation 

Mechanism process by organizing the second meeting of the GCOS Cooperation 

Donor Board that took place on November 30, 2005, in Montreal, Canada, in conjunction with the meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change. This work began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and plans are for continued efforts in this area for the foreseeable future. The GCOS program reflects a broadbased approach that looks at supporting observing and data management activities 

at the international, regional, and bi-lateral levels. In addition, support for Pacific 

Islands Ocean and Climate observing regional coordinators in Fiji and Samoa to aid 

in coordinating these observing activities among developing countries in the region 

has been a great boost toward capacity building in that critical region. 

Support for developing nations has primarily been to retrofit surface and upper 

air observing stations that had been silent but are key to global climate monitoring 

activities. Countries that have received new equipment and resources over the past 

2 years include: Argentina, Armenia, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 

Ivory Coast, Kenya, Maldives, Namibia, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe. In addition, 

and in cooperation with the U.S. State Department, a number of workshops for enhancing climate change monitoring in support of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) have or are being staged in South Africa, southern South 

America, northern South America and Central America, Southwest Asia, Southern 

Asia, and Southern and Eastern Africa. These workshops are all hands-on, involving 

seminars and hands-on work with data from the various countries in attendance. 

In addition, the State Department has been instrumental in aiding the establishment of regional GCOS maintenance facilities which have been established in the 

Pacific and the Caribbean. In 2005, a third regional GCOS Maintenance Center was 

established in Botswana to aid in monitoring and maintaining GCOS equipment in 

Eastern and Southern Africa. The maintenance centers have demonstrated real 

progress in improving the performance of GCOS in those three regions. 

The support provided is used to: (1) Support the operations of the GCOS Secretariat; (2) stage GCOS regional workshops in developing countries; and (3) support 

critical GCOS data management activities at the GCOS Lead Data Center at NCDC 

in Asheville, North Carolina. The Fiscal Year 2005 budget of $3.5M continued the 

work begun in 2003 and 2004 and expanded support to GCOS Upper Air Network 

observing sites in Argentina, Armenia, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 

Ivory Coast, Kenya, the Maldives, Namibia, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe. 

Over the past decade NOAA has worked with national and international partners 

to begin building a sustained global ocean system for climate, focusing first on the 

tropical Pacific, and expanding to the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. It is now well 

understood that documenting and forecasting climate will require continuous measurements from space, along with the measurements obtained from instruments deployed across the entire global ocean. The present international effort is about 51 

percent of what will ultimately be needed for the global system. NOAA presently 

maintains approximately 60 percent of the in situ networks and 30 percent of the 

space components, and is committed to the goal of providing at least 50 percent of 

the composite system over the long term. The existing foundation is comprised of 

twelve complementary in situ, space based, data and assimilation subsystems: (1) 

Global Tide Gauge Network; (2) Global Surface Drifting Buoy Array; (3) Global 

Ships of Opportunity Network; (4) Tropical Moored Buoy Network; (5) Argo Profiling 

Float Array; (6) Ocean Reference Stations; (7) Coastal Moorings; (8) Ocean Carbon 

Monitoring Network; (9) Arctic observing System; (10) Dedicated Ship Operations; 

(11) Satellites for Sea Surface Temperature, Sea Surface Height, Surface Vector 

Winds, Sea Ice, and Ocean Color; and (12) Data and Assimilation Systems and their 

products. 

58 

NOAA’s plan includes an additional element—System Management and Product 

Delivery—to focus program resources on answering the Nation’s highest priority 

policy- and economically-relevant questions. The global ocean observing system, 

when fully implemented, will provide specific ocean outcomes such as data sets that 

can be used to drive forecast models, and analysis products describing the present 

state of the ocean, how the present state compares with the past, and the confidence/uncertainty in the analysis. NOAA’s contribution to this global implementation is represented in the program budget profile illustrated in Appendix B. Implementation of this program plan demonstrates to the world community that the 

United States is taking action to observe climate, is playing a leadership role in 

achieving global coverage of the ocean networks, and is committed to sustained operations. 

The progress that the U.S. GCOS Program has made over the past few years was 

recently recognized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change (UNFCCC). In September 2004, the UNFCCC Secretariat published an Indepth Review (IDR) of the Third National communication from the U.S., entitled 

‘‘U.S. Climate Action Report—2002 (Climate Action Report 3)’’. The IDR was performed by an independent review team on behalf of the UNFCCC and is now available online at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/idr/usa03.pdf. Climate Action Report 

3 (CAR3) can be found online at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usnc3.pdf. 

The IDR had a number of findings related to CAR3, however the U.S. GCOS program was specifically identified in findings 130 and 131 on pages 28–29 of their report as follows: 

130. The United States has one of the most impressive national Global Climate 

Observing Systems (GCOS) for climate monitoring in five distinct yet integrated 

areas. The system acquires detailed local and large-scale national data, including observation of environmental variables, representing a major contribution to 

the Integrated Global Observing Strategy. 

131. The review team was informed that NOAA has formulated a framework 

for international GCOS support. It focuses on needed improvements to meteorological surface-based networks and on the GCOS terrestrial and oceanic surfacebased and satellite-based observation networks. NOAA has identified nine activities that it proposed to launch in 2003 in association with the GCOS Secretariat, with a total spending of USD 4 million annually. Additional funding for 

rescue and digitization of long-period observational data in Africa and Asia is 

also provided. The provision of these datasets comprises a major contribution 

to the science of climate change, and is likely to enhance the Intergovernmental 

Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) process. The review team noted a NOAA initiative for the development of radio and Internet-based climate information dissemination tools for rural farmers in developing countries. 

The work undertaken by the U.S. GCOS Program is consistent with the G8 

Gleneagles Plan of Action on Climate Change, Clean Energy, and Sustainable Development issued in July 2005; item number 34 from that plan addresses particular 

needs with respect to GCOS that the U.S. program will continue to work on. 

The G8 made a commitment at Evian to strengthen international cooperation 

on global Earth observations. We will continue to exercise leadership in this 

area, and welcome the adoption of the 10-year implementation plan for development of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) at the Third 

Earth Observations Summit which took place in Brussels in February this year. 

We will: (a) move forward in the national implementation of GEOSS in our 

member states; (b) support efforts to help developing countries and regions obtain full benefit from GEOSS, including from the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) such as placement of observational systems to fill data gaps, developing of in-country and regional capacity for analysing and interpreting observational data, and development of decision-support systems and tools relevant 

to local needs; (c) in particular, work to strengthen the existing climate institutions in Africa, through GCOS, with a view to developing fully operational regional climate centres in Africa. 

In summary, the inception of the U.S. GCOS Program Office in 1999, coupled with 

the resources provided via the CCRI program has led to a robust and active U.S. 

GCOS program. The program has been working with a number of partners in order 

to provide support across a broad range of international, regional, and bi-lateral climate activities that are leading to progress for GCOS in-line with the overall GCOS 

Implementation Plan. Appendices A and B of this document details the amount of 

funding contributed toward GCOS from Fiscal Year 2003–05, including more than 

59 

$12.3M for atmospheric climate observing support and more than $43.4M for ocean 

climate observing support. 

APPENDIX A 

Summary of U.S. GCOS Support for FY 2003, FY 2004 and FY 2005 

[NOAA and State Dept Funds] 

Support Area Funding 

Level Activities Supported 

FY 2003 

GCOS Upper Air Network 

(GUAN) 

$1650K 7 Sites Upgraded with Radiosonde Support 

Atmospheric Brown Cloud (ABC) $1462K New ABC Observatory Support 

Regional Maintenance $500K Regional GCOS Maintenance (e.g., spares, 

radiosondes) for RA–I; RA–IV; and RA–V) 

Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) 

Aerosol Observations 

$300K Enhanced Observing Equipment for South Africa 

and China GAW Stations 

GAW $215K Support for North American QA/SAC # 

Data Management $189K Support for National Climatic Data Center as a 

Global GCOS Data Center 

GCOS Secretariat $150K Support for Full-Time Equivalent GCOS Implementation Project Manager 

GCOS/IPCC Workshops $108K 4 Climate Workshops in RA–I, RA–II, RA–III, 

and RA–IV 

GAW $100K Regional Ozone Calibration Facility for South 

America 

Regional Activities, and Other 

GCOS-related Support 

$100K GCOS regional workshop in South America, 

upper air site surveys, and Pacific Region 

GCOS/GOOS support 

Administrative Travel $7K ABC Science Panel Meeting for 2 persons 

Total $4853K 

FY 2004 

GUAN $1475K 10 Sites Upgraded with Radiosonde 

ABC $1398K New ABC Observatory Support 

GCOS/IPCC Workshop Support $225K Climate Workshop in India (and associated 

IPCC software work) 

GAW $215K Support for North American QA/SAC # 

Data Management $202K Support for Global GCOS Data Center 

Bi-Lateral Support $180K Pacific GCOS Support 

Global Observing System Information Center $125K GCOS Data Management 

Regional Support $115K Regional GCOS-related activities 

GCOS Secretariat $110K Support for GCOS Secretariat 

GCOS Surface Network (GSN) $56K Prototype high-altitude GSN site 

Total $4099K 

FY 2005 

ABC $1398K New ABC Observatory Support 

GUAN $535K 4 Sites Upgraded with Radiosonde 

U.S. GCOS Office Support $375K Travel and Salaries 

GSN Support $350K 4 Prototype Reference Sites in AK and HI 

GAW $265K Support for North American QA/SAC # 

Bi-Lateral Climate Support $250K Pacific GCOS Support 

Data Management $200K Support for GCOS Lead Data Center 

Global Observing System Information Center $125K GCOS Data Management 

Full-Time GCOS Implementation 

Manager at GCOS Secretariat— 

Geneva 

$110K Salary and Travel for Project GCOS Project Improvement Projects 

Regional Support (Pacific) $95K Regional GCOS-related activities 

60 

Summary of U.S. GCOS Support for FY 2003, FY 2004 and FY 2005—Continued 

[NOAA and State Dept Funds] 

Support Area Funding 

Level Activities Supported 

Central UV Calibration Facility $40K Critical Support for Baseline Surface Radiation 

Network now Radiation Component of GCOS 

Total $3743K 

APPENDIX B—GLOBAL OCEAN CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS SUPPORT

Question 7. The scientific and international communities have found it very useful 

to have a single document, such as the IPCC Third Assessment report, to point to 

as a universal overview of climate science knowledge. In a recent letter addressed 

to this committee you suggest that the conclusions of all 21 CCSP assessments will 

be summarized in a standard programmatic progress report, presumably in 2007 or 

2008. This hardly seems like the appropriate place for establishing a true synthesis 

of all the knowledge gained over the previous seven or 8 years. Why has the CCSP 

elected not to produce a single synthesis volume? 

Answer. The current position of the Climate Change Science Program is to incorporate a summary of findings of all completed products required by the 1990 Global 

Change Research Act in our annual Our Changing Planet report to Congress, starting in 2006. The CCSP assessment activity is an ongoing process, and this is the 

most efficient mechanism to disseminate summaries of each completed product. The 

alternative would be to wait for the completion of the entire set of 21 products before beginning the preparation of a single summary document. While CCSP is committed to providing timely dissemination of the summary information on an annual 

basis through the mechanism of the existing OCP series, we will seriously consider 

the question of providing a single summary document upon the completion of the 

series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment documents. 

Question 8. Phillip Cooney, the former Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality resigned amidst allegations he had improperly edited climate reports. Do you feel his editing of a scientific report was appropriate for an official 

in his position? 

Answer. CCSP documents are produced through a customary interagency review 

process. The thirteen CCSP agencies (U.S. Agency for International Development; 

Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology; Department of Defense; Department of Energy; Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; Department of State; Department of Transportation; Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey; Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science 


720n.eps
61 

1http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/iqgloct2002.pdf. 

Foundation; and the Smithsonian Institution), the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy review draft documents and propose edits that range from corrections of 

grammatical errors to suggestions for insertions or deletions of text. The comments 

and suggested revisions are considered by CCSP Office scientific staff working 

under the supervision of the CCSP Director or directly by the CCSP Director. Subsequently revised drafts are prepared and these drafts are again circulated for final 

clearance and release. As Director of the CCSP, I have had final authority over the 

editorial process and the approved content of all CCSP reports disseminated since 

2002. 

We do not view the edits proposed by CEQ as inappropriate, but rather suggestions made through a review process that may or may not appear in the final 

version of the document. 

Question 9. Has the Administration learned anything from this incident? Why was 

Phillip Cooney involved in editing scientific literature at all? 

Answer. All CCSP planning and program report documents undergo a well established review process that involves all thirteen of the Federal agencies participating 

in CCSP (DOC/NOAA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NASA, USDA, DOI, State, USAID, DOD, 

Smithsonian, DOT, and HHS), as well as three or more units within the Executive 

Office of the President (OSTP, CEQ, and OMB, and occasionally other elements). 

Each CCSP document begins as a draft that is circulated to the sixteen (or more) 

agencies or offices mentioned above. Representatives of all sixteen entities—both 

scientific and non-scientific personnel—are invited to comment on the draft document by means of individual responses to the CCSP Office. The CCSP Office Director (who coordinates the day-to-day operations of the interagency CCSP Office) and 

his immediate technical staff (Ph.D.-level scientists), as well as the CCSP Director 

(Senate-confirmed appointee who supervises the entire CCSP program and products) 

and his immediate technical staff (also Ph.D.-level scientists) are responsible for 

considering all suggested editorial comments, and for final decisions about the text 

contained in the published document. It is common that many of the proposed editorial comments are not adopted, or are only partially adopted, by the CCSP senior 

technical management. In the end, the CCSP Director is responsible for the scientific integrity of these CCSP planning and program report documents. 

Question 10. Why not go back to commissioning scientific reports from independent teams of eminent scientists, and let them write their reports without subjecting them to a clearance process by the White House? 

Answer. The Federal Government has a process in place to develop scientific information with the best possible science and assurance of information quality. The 

CCSP was created to advance the understanding of climate science and to develop 

scientific information useful to decision and policymakers. The CCSP was also created on the premise that open and transparent processes would be used during the 

development of its deliverables. CCSP has a wide range of resources (technical, administrative, and financial support from 13 agencies) to develop and deliver the best 

possible scientific information. The Information Quality Act (IQA) 1 required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to Federal agencies designed to ensure the ‘‘quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity’’ of information disseminated to the public. The IQA also required agencies to issue their own information quality guidelines, and to establish administrative mechanisms that allow affected persons to seek correction of information maintained and disseminated by the 

agencies that does not comply with the OMB guidance. IQA also requires a rigorous 

peer review mechanism for scientific and technical papers from a panel that has the 

appropriate expertise and is balanced, independent, and free of conflicts. 

Most CCSP deliverables will have significant input from non-Federal experts (e.g., 

non-Federal scientists, academicians, the National Academy of Sciences, and Federal Advisory Committees). However, because they will be CCSP products, these 

documents are held to a higher standard using the best available science, open and 

transparent processes, and must comply with the Information Quality Act. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. JAMES R. MAHONEY

Question 1. Dr. Mahoney, $1.8 billion is a lot of money. I understand you are 

doing an enormous amount of research with it, but for Congress to benefit from that 

research, NOAA must produce a report summarizing its research. The GAO recVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
62 

1http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/default.htm. 

ommended that NOAA prepare at least a summary of the 21 reports you’ve proposed. Will you do that? 

Answer. As stated in a letter sent transmitted to the Hill on July 15, 2005, the 

Climate Change Science Program will incorporate a summary of findings of all completed products required by the 1990 Global Change Research Act in our annual 

Our Changing Planet report to Congress, starting in 2006. The CCSP assessment 

activity is an ongoing process, and this is the most efficient mechanism to disseminate summaries of each completed product. The alternative would be to wait for the 

completion of the entire set of 21 products before beginning the preparation of a single summary document. While CCSP is committed to providing timely dissemination 

of the summary information on an annual basis through the mechanism of the existing OCP series, we will seriously consider the question of providing a single summary document upon the completion of the series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment 

documents. 

Question 2. What do you see as the key potential impacts of climate change, and 

what are you doing to study and report on them? 

Answer. The purpose of the Climate Change Science Program is to obtain the best 

possible science that is useful in managing climate variability and change. Research 

conducted through CCSP is building on scientific advances of the last few decades 

and is deepening our understanding of the interplay of natural and human-caused 

forces. CCSP is developing information to facilitate comparative analysis of different 

approaches to adaptation and mitigation of climate change. CCSP also promotes capacity development among scientists and information users—both in the developed 

and developing world—to address the interactions between climate change, society, 

and the environment. 

The potential impacts of climate change are vast and we include many of these 

impacts in the CCSP research elements—Atmospheric Composition, Climate Variability and Change, Global Water Cycle, Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, Global 

Carbon Cycle, Ecosystems, Decision Support Resources Development, Related Research on Human Contributions and Responses, and Observations and Monitoring. 

As described in the last two editions of Our Changing Planet, hundreds of research and impact studies are produced each year to enhance our understanding of 

climate science. CCSP is preparing 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products to support informed discussion and decision-making on climate variability and change by 

policymakers, resource managers, stakeholders, the media, and the general public. 

These products will integrate research results focused on key issues and related 

questions frequently raised by decision-makers. 

CCSP recently held a public workshop, titled Climate Science in Support of Decision Making. The workshop which drew more than 700 participants from the research, decisionmaking, and international communities, as well as students, users, 

and individuals interested in the applications of climate science. The workshop included discussion of decision-maker needs for scientific information on climate variability and change, as well as expected outcomes of CCSP’s research and assessment 

activities that are necessary for sound resource management, adaptive planning, 

and policy formulation. The principal topics covered in the workshop provide a useful guide for some of the most climate-impacted areas being studied by CCSP. These 

include Water Management, Ecosystems Management, Coastal Management, Air 

Quality Management, and Energy Systems Management. The abstracts for the presentations are available on the CCSP website.1

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

HON. JAMES R. MAHONEY

Question 1. Do you agree with the recent joint statement by the National Academies from the G8 countries concerning the state of climate change science? 

Answer. We rely on the continued efforts and leadership of the U.S. National 

Academy of Sciences, working with its sister societies, to ensure the U.S. response 

to climate change is informed by the best available scientific knowledge. The Joint 

Academies’ Statement on Climate Change reaffirms the central findings of the 2001 

National Academy of Sciences report on climate science requested by the President. 

Based on this advice, President Bush stated his comment back in 2001 that ‘‘While 

scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.’’ 

We recognize that action is needed to address climate change and we have already 

taken several important steps toward that goal, including leading public investment 

63 

in the development of low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions technology suitable for 

application by all nations; continuing investments on essential climate research 

questions; major participation in the development of an integrated Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS); extensive industry and sector specific GHG 

emissions control programs; and collaborative bilateral and multilateral programs 

with key partners throughout the developed and developing world. More information 

on this effort can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/ 

20050518-4.html. 

Question 2. In terms of being responsive to the science which the President has 

stated the Administration would be, do you believe that the Climate Science Program is being responsive and taking urgent action as called for by the joint statement by delaying the national assessment report further? 

Answer. The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is taking urgent action to 

obtain the best scientific information that is useful to Congress, stakeholders, the 

media, and the general public. CCSP was announced in February 2002 and by November 2002, CCSP published a Discussion Draft Strategic Plan for public review. 

After holding an international workshop and considering comments from a National 

Academy of Sciences review and the public, CCSP released its revised 10-year Strategic Plan in July 2003. This strategic plan describes a strategy for developing 

knowledge of variability and change in climate and related environmental and 

human systems, and for encouraging the application of knowledge. The plan also 

identifies 21 Synthesis and Assessment products to fulfill the assessment required 

by statute. Modifications have been made to the list of 21 products, with the products required by law scheduled for completion by 2007. 

While much of the focus from Congress and the media has been on the 21 

deliverables, the CCSP agencies continue to publish hundreds of papers each year 

that deepen our understanding of climate science. These papers are referenced in 

Our Changing Planet. We take climate change very seriously, and we are aggressively working to deliver our findings to Congress and the public in a timely manner 

without compromising the scientific process. 

Question 3. The Washington Post recently reported that the White House’s Council of Environmental Quality has been altering the scientific reports. Many are concerned that this type of altering will only seek to undermine and destroy the credibility of the not only the Climate Change Science Program, but all Federal science 

programs. How do you respond to such criticisms? 

Answer. CCSP documents are produced through a customary interagency review 

process. The thirteen CCSP agencies (U.S. Agency for International Development; 

Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology; Department of Defense; Department of Energy; Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; Department of State; Department of Transportation; Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey; Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science 

Foundation; and the Smithsonian Institution), the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, and other offices as necessary review draft documents and propose edits that 

range from corrections of grammatical errors to suggestions for insertions or deletions of text. The comments and suggested revisions are considered by CCSP Office 

scientific staff working under the supervision of the CCSP Director or directly by 

the CCSP Director. Subsequently revised drafts are prepared and these drafts are 

again circulated for final clearance and release. As Director of the CCSP, I have had 

final authority over the editorial process and the approved content of all CCSP reports disseminated since 2002. 

We do not view the edits proposed by CEQ as alterations of a document, but rather suggestions made through a review process that may or may not appear in the 

final version of the document. 

Question 4. There has been a lot of controversy concerning the ‘‘hockey stick’’ or 

the 1,000 year temperature record for the Northern Hemisphere over the past few 

months. Chairman Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has requested an extraordinary amount of information from the individual scientists who 

develop the temperature record. Others, including Dr. Cicerone, have criticized this 

request for information as an attack on the individual scientists. As head of the Climate Change Science Program, what are your views of the technical merits of the 

‘‘hockey stick?’’ 

Answer. The scientific conclusion that climate change, or more specifically ‘‘global 

warming,’’ has been observed rests in part on analysis of surface temperature 

records. A 1998 study (Mann et al., 1998) reconstructed temperatures using a comVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
64 

bination of instrumental records and proxy data derived from tree rings, ice cores, 

and corals, and concluded that warming during the 20th century was unprecedented 

in the last 600 years. The resulting curve of surface temperature plotted over time 

resembles a hockey stick laid on its side. That conclusion, which was extended to 

the last 1,000 years in subsequent studies, figured prominently in the 2001 IPCC 

Third Assessment Report and seemed to mark a turning point in the scientific debate about climate change. 

Two Canadian researchers (MacIntyre and McKitrick, 2005) criticized the Mann 

et al. study on a number of grounds. Their reanalysis of the Mann et al. data concluded that the 14th century was roughly as warm as the 20th century and hence 

that current temperatures are not unique, as Mann et al. concluded. In addition, 

MacIntyre and McKitrick said that Mann et al. used data that biased the results 

toward the ‘‘hockey stick’’ shape. Subsequently, Mann has been accused of filtering 

data, and MacIntyre and McKitrick have been accused of using ‘‘bad’’ (no quality 

control) data. 

A number of additional studies have been conducted since the original Mann et 

al. study, some extending the analysis even further back in time and some using 

different techniques in both use of the data and the analytic methods. 

Two key differences among the studies relate to the answers they provide to the 

following questions: 

(1) Is the warming trend observed in the 20th century unique? Specifically, was 

a period in the Medieval Period as warm or warmer? 

(2) How much has temperature varied naturally? 

Subsequent analyses have been conducted. Rutherford et al. (2005) is an updated 

version of the Mann et al. (1998) analysis and includes the Mann et al. (1998) team 

as co-authors. Moberg et al. (2005) uses a completely different analysis technique 

called wavelet decomposition and reconstruction, a time series signal processing 

technique frequently used in telecommunications. Rutherford et al. (2005) and 

Moberg et al. (2005) both support the Mann et al. (1998) conclusion that the late 

20th century is anomalous in the context of the last millennium. As stated by 

Moberg et al., ‘‘We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia 

with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period—in agreement with previous 

similar studies.’’ Moberg et al., believe that the main implication of their study is 

that ‘‘natural multicentennial climate variability may be larger than commonly 

thought, . . . [although] this does not imply that the global warming of the last few 

decades has been caused by natural forcing factors alone. . . .’’ There are secondary 

controversies over the ‘‘medieval warm period’’ and the ‘‘little ice age’’ (this is not 

new, see Hughes and Diaz 1994), but no controversy remains on the late 20th century anomalous warming. 

As Director of CCSP, I feel that the Mann et al. reconstruction is one of many 

that are broadly consistent with a finding of unusual warming in the late 20th century. I also note that this type of debate is the result of a sound scientific process 

whereby there is encouragement of varying scientific ideas. The scientific community does not often ‘‘walk in step’’ and we often find that continued probing with 

different processes may yield divergent results. 

References: 

Hughes, M.K. and Diaz, H.F., 1994. Was there a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ and if so, 

where and when? Climate Change 26: 109–142. 

Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Global-scale temperature patterns and 

climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, 392, 779–787, 1998. 

Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Northern Hemisphere Temperatures 

During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759–762, 1999. 

McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R., 2005. The M&M critique of the MBH98 Northern 

Hemisphere climate index: updata and implications. Energy and Environment 

16:69–100. 

Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, Datsenko, N.M., and Karlen, W., 2005. 

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from lowand high-resolution proxy data. Nature 443:613–617 (10-Feb–2005). 

Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., 

Jones, P.D., 2005, Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature 

Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, (in press, July 2005 issue). 

Question 5. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion as to when the next national assessment is due. You stated in your July 15, 2005 letter to me, you request 

that the Congress recognize the year 2007 as the required completion date for those 

65 

products required by the section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. 

Why should we accept this date when the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 

website still indicate the previous assessment was submitted to the President and 

Congress in November 2000? This is also the date the GAO indicated in its April 

14, 2005 report. 

Answer. The CCSP Strategic Plan was published in July 2003 and in the plan 

we identified 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products, that would fulfill the requirements for an updated assessment contained in Section 106 of the Global Change Research Act, to be delivered 4 years from the release of the plan or 2007. We used 

our resources to develop the plan in 2002 and 2003 and provide direction to the 

scope and breadth of the program and its deliverables. We have since begun the production of the Synthesis and Assessment Products as well as continue publishing 

papers, many of which will be considered during the development of these products. 

As previously stated, we have had to make some modifications to the schedule of 

some products due to some administrative issues as well as an underestimate of the 

complexity and scope of the development of the products. In the July 15, 2005 letter, 

we requested that Congress consider establishing a longer cycle for future assessments, to be prepared under the provisions of the GCRA, which reflects the increasing complexity of climate science and related information. We note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has adopted a six-year cycle for its Fourth 

Assessment Report. 

Question 6. The Administration has worked with other nations to develop an implementation plan for the Global Earth Observation System of Systems. Can you 

discuss the coordination of this implementation plan with the Strategic Plan for the 

Science program? 

Answer. Chapter 12 of the Climate Change Science Program’s (CCSP) Strategic 

Plan of July 2003 [http://climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/] lays out 

the basis for a climate observing system strategy in the U.S. that is based upon several key Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) documents. GCOS is an international program sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the 

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the International Council for Science (ICSU), and forms 

the climate component of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

(GEOSS). In addition to being sponsors of GCOS, the WMO, IOC, UNEP, and ICSU 

are also part of the GEOSS process. 

In setting forth the CCSP’s climate observing system priorities, as stated in the 

CCSP Strategic Plan, the guiding document has been the GCOS Second Adequacy 

Report, April 2003 [http://www.wmo.ch/web/gcos/gcoshome.html] table of ‘‘Essential Climate Variables’’ as a baseline of required observables for climate. The GCOS 

Second Adequacy Report was developed by an international panel of scientists, including several in the U.S., and this scientific document forms the basis for the 

GCOS Implementation Plan of October 2004 [http://www.wmo.ch/web/gcos/ 

gcoshome.html]. If fully implemented, the GCOS Implementation Plan will provide 

most of the observations of Essential Climate Variables. This plan is in response 

to the GCOS Second Adequacy Report and has considered existing global, regional, 

and national plans, programs and initiatives. The implementation plan was developed in consultation with a broad and representative range of scientists and data 

users, and included an open review of the implementation plan. Review occurred 

both within CCSP, through the Observations Working Group, and at workshops organized by the ad hoc Interagency Working Group on Earth Observations, IWGEO 

(now the U.S. Group on Earth Observations). The plan identifies implementation 

priorities, resource requirements and funding options, and includes indicators for 

measuring progress in implementation and is fully aligned with the CCSP Strategic 

Plan. 

The goal of the GCOS Implementation Plan is to specify the actions required to 

implement a comprehensive observing system for the Essential Climate Variables 

that would, if fully implemented provide for: 

• Global coverage. 

• Free and unrestricted exchange and availability of observations of the Essential 

Climate Variables required for global-scale climate monitoring in support of the 

UNFCCC. 

• The availability of integrated global climate-quality products. 

• Improvements to and maintenance of the global in situ surface and airborne 

networks and satellites required to sustain these products, including system improvements and capacity building in developing countries, especially in the least 

developed countries and small island developing states. 

66 

1http://www.climatescience.gov. 

• Internationally accepted standards for data and products especially in the terrestrial domain and adherence to the GCOS Climate Monitoring Principles. 

• Characterization of the state of the global climate system and its variability. 

• Monitoring of the forcing of the climate system, including both natural and anthropogenic contributions. 

• Support for the attribution of the causes of climate change. 

• Support for the prediction of global climate change. 

• Projecting global climate change information down to regional and local scales. 

• Characterizing extreme events important in impact assessment and adaptation, 

and to the assessment of risk and vulnerability. 

As the U.S. plan for climate observations moves forward, we strive to build on 

the GCOS Implementation Plan by addressing priority elements over the near-term 

(2–4 years); mid-term (4–7 years), and long-term (7–10 years), which are in line 

with the goals of the CCSP Strategic Plan. 

Furthermore, GCOS is the climate component of the Global Earth Observation 

System of Systems (GEOSS). Understanding, Assessing, Predicting, Mitigating and 

Adapting to Climate Variability and Change has been identified as one of the 9 societal benefits of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems. As the implementation plan states: 

‘‘The climate has impacts in each of the other eight societal benefit areas. Coping with climate change and variability demands good scientific understanding 

based on sufficient and reliable observations. GEOSS outcomes will enhance the 

capacity to model, mitigate, and adapt to climate change and variability. Better 

understanding of the climate and its impacts on the Earth system, including its 

human and economic aspects, will contribute to improved climate prediction and 

facilitate sustainable development while avoiding dangerous perturbations to 

the climate system.’’ 

The need for enhanced observations was clearly identified in the Climate Change 

Strategic Plan as a necessity for understanding the science underlying climate variability and change. 

As a participant in the National Science and Technology Council’s committee 

structure which develops the U.S. input into the international process to implement 

GEOSS, the Climate Change Science Program contributed to the development of the 

GEOSS Implementation Plan to ensure the two were consistent. 

Question 7. What is the status of the Our Changing Planet report for Fiscal Year 

2006? 

Answer. Our Changing Planet for Fiscal Year 2006, was published November 9, 

2005. Copies were distributed to the office of every Member of the House and the 

Senate, and to relevant majority and minority staff of key Committees in both 

Houses. The document is also being widely distributed within the global climate 

science community. It is available on the CCSP website,1 and CDs are being prepared for distribution to include the full document. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

DR. RALPH J. CICERONE

Question 1. I am very disturbed by the mounting series of attacks on science and 

scientists in recent years. I appreciate your recent suggestion to an independent 

panel to help settle scientific disputes. Do you think a permanent non-partisan congressional office of science could be effective in settling these disputes? 

Answer. The National Academies have long recommended a permanent non partisan office of science and technology advice to the Congress. It did so when the old 

Office of Technology was created in the early 1970s, and also recommended against 

its closure in 1994. We think such an office would have many benefits and continue 

to think so now. 

Question 2. During the Energy Bill debate, I offered an amendment to protect 

agency reports that were based on peer-reviewed science from being tampered with. 

I was unable to get a vote on my amendment. Is there a role for the National Academy of Sciences in countering this trend of the politicization of science? 

Answer. The National Academies have made a number of recommendations concerning the structure of the peer review system over the last twenty years. HowVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:56 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 062359 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\62359.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
67 

ever, since we are not a governmental entity, it is difficult for us to actually govern 

the actions of government. We can only give advice. 

Question 3. Recent press accounts have reported that the 2001 National Assessment entitled, ‘‘Climate Change Impacts on the United States, ‘‘ published by Cambridge University Press, is being removed from all documents and reports generated 

by the United States Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP recently 

asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a comparative analysis of 

lessons learned from prior assessments. Will the 2001 National Assessment be included in this NRC study? I would like to see the full task list and related documents regarding this analysis, including the original proposal. 

Answer. The NRC will be beginning to look at the use of climate assessments, 

which will include the 2001 National Assessment. The task statement for that 

project is as follows: 

‘‘An ad hoc committee will seek to identify lessons learned from past assessments to guide future global change assessment activities of the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP). The study will be approached in two steps. 

(1) The committee will conduct a comparative analysis of past assessments that 

have stated objectives similar to those of the CCSP. Specifically, the committee will 

examine the strengths and weaknesses of selected past assessments in the following 

areas: 

• establishing clear rationales and appropriate institutional structures; 

• designing and scheduling assessment activities; 

• involving the scientific community and other relevant experts in the preparation 

and review of assessment products; 

• engaging the potential users of assessment products; 

• accurately and effectively communicating scientific knowledge, uncertainty, and 

confidence limits; 

• guiding plans for future global change research activities, including observation, 

monitoring, and modeling of past and future changes; and 

• creating assessment products that are valued by their target audiences. 

(2) The committee will identify approaches (in terms of geographic scale, scope, 

assessment entity, and timing) and products that are most effective for meeting the 

CCSP’s stated objectives for assessments.’’ 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

DANIEL A. REIFSNYDER

Question. The G8 Summit statement claimed that there is uncertainty with regard 

to global warming, but at the same time, the U.S. and 10 other National Academy 

of Sciences issued this statement. 

‘‘The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 10 other national science academies today in calling on world leaders, particularly those of the G8 countries 

meeting next month in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate 

change is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to prepare for its consequences.’’ National Academy of Sciences—June 7, 2005. 

Isn’t there a serious intellectual gap between what the scientists are saying and 

what the G8 leaders are willing to say? Using energy efficiency measures alone, 

IBM, DuPont, Bayer and three other corporate giants have reduced their carbon 

emissions by 60 percent since the early 1990s, while at the same time growing business. What data supports the Administration’s claim that mandatory carbon reductions will harm businesses and our economy? 

Answer. No, there is no gap between what the scientists are saying and what the 

G8 leaders said at Gleneagles. In their statement on Climate Change, Clean Energy 

and Sustainable Development, G8 leaders said: 

‘‘Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to 

affect every part of the globe. We know that increased need and use of energy 

from fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with warming of the Earth’s surface. 

While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know 

enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.’’ 

68 

The Academy report encapsulates the diverse views of the many distinguished scientists that served on the panel. While significant gaps remain in our understanding of climate change, many of them described in the Academy report, we are 

taking steps now to address the factors that contribute to it, in a serious and sensible way. 

The G8 Summit highlighted that the issue of climate change is a part of an interrelated set of challenges dealing with energy security, economic development, and 

air pollution. The climate document frames the issue in those terms and contains 

a concrete set of actions and initiatives that the G8 have agreed upon to advance 

work cooperatively in advancing our objectives in those interrelated areas. 

The Gleneagles outcomes are fully consistent with our longstanding approach of 

practical, cost-effective actions in the near term along with substantial, strategic investments in key longer-term technologies. Moreover, they highlight the interrelated 

nature of energy security, climate change and other sustainable development issues. 

The plan puts climate change in the context of broader sustainable development 

goals, a key United States priority. 

The Administration applauds the private sector for looking at ways to continue 

to apply technologies to addressing climate change. This demonstrates how the private sector is able to identify and take advantage of opportunities that offer both 

financial benefits and address other issues such as reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions while diversifying sources of energy. 

It is widely acknowledged that the mandatory carbon limits for the United States 

contained in the Kyoto Protocol would have required at least a 30 percent reduction 

in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from the level that would otherwise have obtained 

in the 2008–2012 time period, with significant implications for the U.S. economy. 

Examples of the projected impacts in the U.S. economy can be found in many studies, including: 

• Management Information Services Inc. (MISI), Potential Economic Impacts of 

the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol on Blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. (Washington, D.C.: MISI, June 2000) (http://www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/ 

MISIStudy.pdf). 

• Energy Information Administration, I Analysis of the Impacts of an Early Start 

for Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, SR/OIAF/99–02 (Washington, D.C., 

July 1999). (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto3/pdf/sroiaf9902.pdf). 

• Charles River and Associates, The Post Kyoto Climate: Impacts on the U.S. 

Economy (Washington, D.C.: Charles River and Associates, 1999). 

• Energy Information Administration, Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, SR/OIAF/98–03 (Washington, D.C., October 1998). (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/pdf/sroiaf9803.pdf). 

• WEFA, Inc., Global Warming: The High Costs of the Kyoto Protocol, National 

and State Impacts (Washington, D.C.: WEFA, 1998). 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

DAVID W. CONOVER

Question. Most of the reductions in carbon emissions so far have resulted from 

corporations who invest in renewables and conservation, yet the President’s budget 

would cut funding for both renewable energy and energy conservation by nearly $50 

million. Could you explain the rationale for these cuts? 

Answer. The Administration’s R&D investment criteria help guide 2006 Budget 

decisions. The Fiscal Year 2006 request reduces or closes out several program efforts 

that were identified as complete (e.g., Hydropower Program) or have reached a point 

where Federal funding for some program activities is no longer appropriate (e.g., Industrial Technologies Program). We have focused our research, development and deployment funds on projects that will most cost-effectively help us achieve public benefits (such as reduced energy consumption or energy costs) that the private sector 

would not undertake on its own. Also, excessive Congressional earmarks in renewable energy programs have slowed many programs’ technological progress. 

It is important to note that the President’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget request also 

included $3.6 billion in tax incentives to deploy energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. These incentives included credits for residential solar heating systems, the purchase of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, energy produced from landfill 

gas, electricity produced from alternative energy sources such as wind and biomass, 

and combined heat and power systems. 

69 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO

DAVID W. CONOVER

Question 1. In a 2003 report, the Government Accountability Office found that 

this Administration had no plans to generate an interim report on progress toward 

its 2012 greenhouse gas intensity reduction goal. Without this report, GAO noted 

that the Administration would have no means of gauging its success in meeting its 

stated goals until its Climate Change Initiative was a decade old. Do you have plans 

to assess progress in the interim? 

Answer. Under the provisions of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate 

Change (UNFCCC), the United States periodically prepares and submits a ‘‘national 

communication’’ detailing its activities in support of the Framework Convention. 

These reports provide detailed information on GHG inventories, policies and measures taken to limit or remove GHG emissions, the estimated mitigation impacts of 

these policies and measures, and their projected impacts on future emissions, among 

other information. An interagency process is underway to develop the fourth U.S. 

national communication, which the Administration plans to submit to the UNFCCC 

sometime next year. This and subsequent national assessments will help the Administration and the Congress assess our progress. 

Question 2. If so, are your voluntary programs on track to achieve the 18 percent 

reduction in greenhouse gas intensity? 

Answer. Yes. The President’s 18 percent intensity goal represents an average annual rate of improvement off about 2.0 percent (compounded) over the ten-year period. Recent data suggest that we are making good progress in achieving this goal. 

According to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003, the GHG emissions intensity of the U.S. 

economy was 2.3 percent lower in 2003 than in 2002. The report said: 

‘‘U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases in 2003 totaled... 0.7 percent more than 

in 2002. . . . The U.S. economy grew by 3.0 percent in 2003, which is equivalent to the average annual growth rate that has prevailed during the 1990–2003 

period. Consequently, U.S. greenhouse gas intensity (greenhouse gas emissions 

per unit of real economic output) was 2.3 percent lower in 2003 than in 2002.’’ 

[http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html]. 

This is 0.3 percentage points better than the annual rate of improvement needed 

to meet President Bush’s objective. 

Moreover, in June 2005, EIA released it 2004 ‘‘flash estimate’’ of energy-related 

GHG emissions—which account for about 83 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions— 

and reported an improvement in the energy-related carbon intensity of the U.S. 

economy of 2.6 percent [http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.ppt]. These 

EIA carbon emissions data suggest that we are maintaining an annual rate of improvement greater than that needed to achieve the President’s goal. 

Question 3. How is the Administration tracking progress annually toward this 

goal? 

Answer. The Administration is able to track general progress in meeting its overall goal of an 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity 

using publicly available emissions, sequestration/sinks data, and economic data. 

EIA publishes an annual report on greenhouse gas emissions, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, usually in December. EIA also provides estimates 

of energy-related carbon emissions in flash estimates based on preliminary energy 

data, and its Annual Energy Outlook presents projections of energy-related carbon 

emissions. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s U.S. Emissions Inventory reports, published annually each April, provides a very detailed and comprehensive look at the 

U.S. GHG emissions, individual greenhouse gases, emissions from specific economic 

and industrial sectors, emissions trends, removals and sinks, and factors that affect 

changes in emissions. The data used to produce this report are derived from a number of agencies and organizations. Economic data from the Department of Commerce 

is used to the measure GHG emissions intensity, which is calculated as emissions 

per unit of economic output. 

Question 4. GAO has also reported, and the Administration has confirmed, that 

emissions intensity reductions will still result in increased annual emissions. How 

much has greenhouse gas intensity decreased (or increased) since 2002 and what 

does this translate to in terms of reducing or increasing emissions of greenhouse 

gases since 2002? How much have greenhouse gas emissions increased annually 

since 2000? What are projected emissions levels in 2012? 

70 

Answer. From 2002 to 2003, total net U.S. GHG emissions intensity decreased 2.3 

percent. Although total GHG data are not yet available for 2004, preliminary EIA 

data show an improvement in energy-related carbon emissions intensity of 2.6 percent (see the response to Question 2). Given that energy-related carbon emissions 

represent about 83 percent of total GHG emissions, it is unlikely that the improvement in total GHG intensity for 2004 will differ appreciably from this figure, absent 

significant revisions to the underlying energy consumption data. 

Between 2002 and 2003 (the most recent year for which data are available), total 

GHG emissions grew 0.7 percent, rising from 6,031.6 to 6,072.2 MMTCO2 [http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ 

ghgbrochure.pdf]. EIA data for energy-related carbon emissions are available 

through 2004. From 5,746 MMTCO2 in 2002, carbon emissions rose to 5,796 

MMTCO2 in 2003 (an annual increase of 0.9 percent) and to 5,896 MMTCO2 in 2004 

(an annual increase of 1.7 percent) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/ 

flash.ppt]. 

Total net GHG emissions from 2000 to 2003 decreased at an annual rate of 0.3 

percent owing primarily to a large decline in emissions in 2001 caused by a weak 

economy [http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAM 

R5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf]. EIA energy-related carbon emissions data are 

available through 2004. Over the 2000 to 2004 period, these emissions increased by 

an average of 0.4 percent per year [http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/ 

flash.ppt]. 

Projections of total GHG emissions out to 2012 will be included in the U.S. national communication to the UNFCCC, which is now being prepared. The last (third) 

U.S. national communication, issued in 2002, included projections of total net GHG 

emissions of 6,972 MMTCO2 in 2010 and 7,604 MMTCO2 in 2015 [http://unfccc.int/ 

resource/docs/natc/usnc3.pdf]. More recently, ETA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 

reference case projects energy-related carbon emissions of 6,812 MMTCO2 in 2012 

[http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeotabl18.pdf]. 

Question 5. Could you please provide the Committee with documentation for the 

intensity reduction and total emissions figures? 

Answer. Web links to data sources have been provided in the response to each 

question. 

Æ