Congressional Hearings
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE: THE IMPACTS AND THE NEED TO ACT
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.R 31/3
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-116hhrg34954
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hsii00 | H | S | Committee on Natural Resources |
[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLIMATE CHANGE: THE IMPACTS AND THE NEED TO ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
34-954 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Daniel Webster, FL
Joe Cunningham, SC Liz Cheney, WY
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Mike Johnson, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO John R. Curtis, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI Kevin Hern, OK
Anthony G. Brown, MD Russ Fulcher, ID
A. Donald McEachin, VA
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Vacancy
Vacancy
Vacancy
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, February 6, 2019...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 4
Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, prepared statement of................... 114
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hice, Hon. Jody B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia, prepared statement of.................... 115
Statement of Witnesses:
Baker, Hon. Charlie, Governor, State of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts...................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Questions submitted for the record....................... 27
Cobb, Kim, Director, Global Change Program; Advance
Professor, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia............................ 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Questions submitted for the record....................... 70
Cooper, Hon. Roy, Governor, State of North Carolina, Raleigh,
North Carolina............................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Questions submitted for the record....................... 10
Curry, Judith A., President, Climate Forecast Applications
Network, Reno, Nevada...................................... 83
Prepared statement of.................................... 85
Questions submitted for the record....................... 93
DiPerna, Paula, Special Advisor, CDP North America, New York,
New York................................................... 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Hollie, Derrick, President, Reaching America, Bennsville,
Maryland................................................... 80
Prepared statement of.................................... 81
Questions submitted for the record....................... 82
Nazar, Nadia, Co-Founder, Co-Executive Director, and Art
Director, Zero Hour Movement; Co-Organizer of the Youth
Climate March, Perry Hall, Maryland........................ 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Yeampierre, Elizabeth, Executive Director, UPROSE, Co-Chair
of the Climate Justice Alliance, Brooklyn, New York........ 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Questions submitted for the record....................... 64
Yearwood, Lennox, Jr., President and CEO, Hip Hop Caucus,
Washington, DC............................................. 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Facebook, Letter dated February 8, 2019, Submitted for the
Record..................................................... 115
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 116
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Graves
Letter addressed to the President from Senators Cantwell,
Schumer, Menendez, and Markey on oil production dated
May 23, 2018........................................... 43
Average Electricity Prices for each State, chart......... 45
Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
Highlights from the NOAA Report, U.S. and Global Climate
for 2018............................................... 46
Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman
Dilbert Cartoon.......................................... 49
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE: THE IMPACTS AND THE NEED TO ACT
----------
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Napolitano, Costa,
Sablan, Huffman, Lowenthal, Cox, Neguse, Levin, Haaland, Van
Drew, Cunningham, Velazquez, Clay, McEachin, Case, Horsford,
Bishop, Gohmert, Lamborn, McClintock, Gosar, Westerman, Graves,
Webster, Hern, and Fulcher.
The Chairman. Let me call the Committee on Natural
Resources to order.
The Committee today is meeting to hear testimony on the
impacts of climate change and the need for Congress and the
Administration to act.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Welcome, everyone, to the first hearing of the 116th
Congress for the Natural Resources Committee, and thank you to
our witnesses for appearing before us, as we begin to tackle
one of the most urgent and pressing challenges of our time.
THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The Chairman. The majority of Americans consider meaningful
action on climate change to be a moral and economic imperative.
They are absolutely right. And they have friends on this
Committee, including myself and other colleagues who are here
to work on solutions.
Climate change is real. The emissions we produce from
burning fossil fuels are making it worse. It is a threat to our
public health, national security, infrastructure, and natural
resources. We are seeing the impacts now, and they will grow
stronger unless we change course.
Our communities are paying the price for years of inaction
on this issue. The massive and unprecedented storms, heat
waves, fires, and droughts we are experiencing are not normal.
They are being made worse by climate change, and if we don't
take action now, we are only at the beginning of this process.
The last 4 years have been the 4 hottest years ever
recorded. Ice sheets are melting far faster than previously
thought. The coast of Alaska is literally disappearing into the
ocean. Indigenous villages are already having to relocate.
We will see more climate refugees as time goes on. Parts of
our planet where people currently live may very well become
uninhabitable.
Every day that we fail to act increases the costs of
addressing this crisis for future generations. Putting our
heads in the sand puts people's lives at risk and our Nation's
safety in jeopardy.
Today, we turn the page on this Committee from climate
change denial to climate action. The Democratic Majority is
here to listen to people, to work for people, to hear from
Americans across the country from all walks of life whose
experiences emphasize the need to address this crisis.
The rest of the world understands the urgent need to take
action on climate change. The Trump administration chooses to
mock science and mislead the public about what our country will
look like if we do nothing.
As President Trump seeks to expand fossil fuel production
on public lands, roll back the protections for clean air and
clean water, suppress the role of science, and turn his back on
international agreements, we have situations.
That is why states, local community leaders, businesses,
and many others are stepping up. They can't wait for action
from an Administration that appears not to care about their own
well-being and of their constituents.
This is a great opportunity for American entrepreneurs to
lead the way in creating and deploying new energy technologies
the world will need. But with people's lives in imminent
danger, we know that we need more than innovation; we need good
policies.
Climate change is a matter of social justice. Communities
of color and tribes are disproportionately impacted by climate
change, and will continue to struggle unless we take action.
Along with testimony from our witnesses today, I invite the
public to provide their climate crisis stories at
www.naturalresources.house.gov. I would like to briefly share
just one of the many stories we have already heard from the
public. This is from a woman named Katie Davis, from Goleta,
California.
``Last July on a freakishly hot night that broke records
across Southern California, a fire suddenly broke out in our
neighborhood due to hot winds, the likes of which I've never
felt before, that pushed flames toward us rapidly. It was one
of the most terrifying moments of my life. We ran out of the
house with nothing, no time to prepare, and fled. Our house
survived with minor damage, but on that anguishing night most
of the houses on our street burned down. I look at the
foundations of five burned down houses as I write this.''
These are the stories we need to hear in this Committee and
in this Congress. The best policies are informed by a
combination of sound science and informed public input. These
are the guideposts for this Committee, both in our hearing
today and everything we do in the next 2 years. Climate change
is an urgent problem. It demands urgent action and a sense of
purpose from Congress. This Committee will offer both.
And I want to thank you again to the witnesses. I look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on
Natural Resources
The Committee on Natural Resources will now come to order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the impacts of
climate change and the need for Congress and the Administration to act.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings
are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member.
Welcome everyone to the first hearing of the 116th Congress for the
Natural Resources Committee and thank you to our witnesses for
appearing before us as we begin to tackle one of the most urgent and
pressing challenges of our time.
The majority of Americans consider meaningful action on climate
change a moral imperative. They're absolutely right. And they have
friends on this Committee, including the Chairman, who are here to work
on solutions.
Climate change is real. The emissions we produce from burning
fossil fuels are making it worse. It's a threat to our public health,
national security, infrastructure, and natural resources. We are seeing
its impacts now, and they will only grow stronger unless we change
course.
Our communities are paying the price for years of inaction on this
issue. The massive and unprecedented storms, heat waves, fires, and
droughts we are experiencing are not normal. They are being made worse
by climate change, and if we don't take action now, we're only at the
beginning.
The last 4 years have been the 4 hottest years ever recorded. Ice
sheets are melting far faster than previously thought. The coast of
Alaska is literally disappearing into the ocean. Indigenous villages
are already having to relocate.
We will see more climate refugees as time goes on. Parts of our
planet where people currently live may very well become uninhabitable.
Every day we fail to act increases the costs of addressing this
crisis for future generations. Putting our heads in the sand puts
peoples' lives at risk and our Nation's safety in jeopardy.
Today, we turn the page on this Committee from climate denial to
climate action. The Democratic Majority is here to listen to the
people. To work for the people. To hear from Americans across the
country, from all walks of life, whose experiences emphasize the need
to address this crisis.
The rest of the world understands the urgent need to take action on
climate change. The Trump administration chooses to mock science and
mislead the public about what our country will look like if we do
nothing.
President Trump seeks to expand fossil fuel production on public
lands, roll back protections for clean air and clean water, suppress
the role of science, and turn his back on international agreements.
That's why states, local community leaders, businesses and many
others are stepping up. They can't wait for action from an
Administration that doesn't care about their well-being.
There is a great opportunity for American entrepreneurs to lead the
way in creating and deploying new energy technologies the world will
need. But with people's lives in imminent danger, we know that we need
more than innovation. We need good policies.
Climate change is a matter of social justice. Communities of color
and tribes are disproportionately impacted by climate change and will
continue to struggle unless we take action.
Along with testimony from our witnesses today, I invite the public
to provide their climate crisis stories an naturalresources.house.gov.
I'd like to briefly share just one of the many stories we've already
heard from the public. This is from a woman named Katie Davis who wrote
to us from Goleta, California: ``Last July on a freakishly hot night
that broke records across Southern California, a fire suddenly broke
out in our neighborhood due to hot winds, the likes of which I've never
felt before, that pushed flames toward us rapidly. It was one of the
most terrifying moments of my life. We ran out of the house with
nothing, and no time to prepare, and fled. Our house survived with
minor damage, but that anguishing night most of the houses on our
street burned down. I look out at the foundations of five burned out
houses as I write this.''
These are the stories we need to hear in this Committee and in this
Congress. The best policies are informed by a combination of sound
science and informed public input. Those are the guideposts for this
Committee, both in our hearing today and in everything we do for the
next 2 years. Climate change is an urgent problem. It demands urgent
action and a sense of purpose from Congress. This Committee will offer
both.
Thank you again to the witnesses. I look forward to your testimony.
I now recognize Ranking Member Bishop for his opening statement.
______
The Chairman. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Bishop, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Congratulations, Mr. Grijalva, on your first
Full Committee chairing. I know you had a Ranking Member
chairmanship at the time, but that was a long, long time ago. I
am happy to have you here, happy to be here for this particular
discussion.
I know you have made February as Climate Change Month. I
appreciate the fact that you picked the shortest month of the
year to do that.
Also, it happens to be, of course, Black History Month,
which I wish we could deal with some other things. Because in
the last couple of years, this Committee has done some
significant issues in the area of Federal lands and projects. I
mean we have expanded the Martin Luther King home, historic
site, as well as the Central High School in Little Rock,
Arkansas, which I had the opportunity of going to this summer,
and was amazed at how actually great that was, as a narrative
history of what is going on here.
We will have, in the last package the Senate is pushing
over, the establishment of the Medgar Evers National Monument,
Camp Nelson National Monument. We also did the Kennedy-King
Historic Area in Indiana this particular year, as well as the
African-American Civil Rights Network, and re-authorizing
historically black colleges and university preservation grant
programs.
All of those are within the purview of this Committee. That
is our jurisdiction, talking about those kinds of things would
be very positive. In the ones I have just listed to you also
there is a $41 million maintenance backlog, just on the
programs I just enunciated. Talking about that is in the
jurisdiction of this Committee.
The Chairman has been very good in helping us come up with
ways of funding that maintenance backlog creatively in the
past. I hope that we can actually get to those kind of
activities, which would be extremely important.
All right. Now, focusing to the topic of this particular
meeting, it is my hope that what we do is coming up with ways
we can actually help people.
Utah, for example, has had terrible air. It is part of the
topography, especially in the winter time. But it is much
better than the air that Representative Curtis and I grew up in
in Utah, simply because of the actions of the state of Utah.
EPA and other Federal agencies over the last 15 years haven't
done squat, but the state has made major changes. And I hope
that we can look at how we can do those types of changes.
I appreciate the fact that we have two governors here with
us today. Thank you for being here. Once again, it would have
been nice to have known some of the topics of this hearing,
even though Rule 4(c) requires that to be in there, and
transparency requires it. We did not have time to invite
another governor. I would have loved to have a governor from
the West come here and join you two, simply because they are,
unfortunately, in the middle of our legislative sessions, or
the beginning of their legislative sessions, and could not make
it in such short notice. But they actually have Federal lands
over which we have jurisdiction that would be an input.
But I hope that you guys can enlighten us, even though you
are only governors. You are one of those peons that work in the
outer hinterlands of America that really aren't as important as
we here in the Federal Government.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. So, we appreciate your groveling before us,
because all of us and the agencies breathe the rarified air and
drink the leaded water of Washington. Therefore, we know
exactly what is right to do. And for you to actually come here
on hands and knees, I appreciate that.
I hope, though, in the process, you can give us some ideas
of what you all are trying to do in your states, how maybe
permitting process--we can work with you easier to actually
allow states to become partners with us, instead of being
dominated by us, to find real solutions for real people. That,
I hope, is the ultimate goal of what we are attempting to do.
As I said, Utah has amazingly bad air in the winter. It is
part of the topography. When it is snowing on the ground, the
mountains prohibit any kind of wind gust from cleaning out the
atmosphere. We never have bad air in the summer, except for
this year, which meant that as every forest burned in
California, a week later we were breathing the air of the
burned California. And that was unique.
And it is going to happen again, unless we actually can do
something about that, which is why the frustration I had with
the Senate using the filibuster to gut most of the forest fire
reforms that we passed. That is one of the things that is in
the jurisdiction of this Committee, and I wish we were talking
about that.
If we actually were able to control forest fires by
different managing systems that are experts, like Mr.
Westerman, who has a doctorate in this area, that the experts
from the Forest Service in both the Obama and Trump
administrations told us they needed to do to manage the lands,
we could actually help with the environment.
There is another one, too. Even though a lot of the people
who are--well, carbon sequestration. If we actually want to get
carbon out of the air, there are enough new studies that are
being done, specifically in Portugal and Australia, and here in
the United States, as well, that talk about the way of using
carbon sequestration--to use plant life, which needs carbon, to
suck it out of the air and put it into the ground where it
could be useful for plant life, and then also help clean the
air. That is the jurisdiction of this Committee. And those are
the kinds of things I hope we can do to talk about specific
issues.
So, I have to mention I am at kind of a loss. I do not know
where this hearing is going, or the other six hearings you
planned, because you simply haven't told us where the goal is.
At some point we may be asking, ``Where are we going?''
What is the real legislation to help people that is
supposed to come out of these hearings--to understand whether
these hearings are simply for those of us around the horseshoe
who are going to make legislation.
Or are these hearings designed for that group that is
sitting at a table in the corner so they can write cute
stories?
Once again, we have not been given the detail of where
these hearings are going. We would like to know that in the
future.
With that, we are ready to get started on this wonderful
new adventure in a month that has only 28 days. But I would
like Rule 4(c) to be instituted so that we actually can have
greater understanding and preparation so we can participate
fully with you in these hearings.
And governors, thank you for joining us. Thank you for
groveling before us. I am looking forward to your testimony.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And I can assure you
that, in terms of all the areas of jurisdiction, and on this
particular topic that I think has significance and consequences
over all our jurisdictions that this Committee is under, that
we will aptly be able to--and adroitly, as well--chew gum and
walk. We can do all these things.
Mr. Bishop. Are you saying that because I am chewing gum?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. OK, fine.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would like to introduce our
first panel, our distinguished panel, which consists of the
governor of North Carolina, the Honorable Roy Cooper, and the
governor of Massachusetts, the Honorable Charles Baker. I
appreciate them being here, taking the time--in particular,
bringing an insight.
I don't know if it is so much a question of groveling, but
setting an example where, across party lines, people confront
the issue of climate change, the effect on their constituents,
and begin to take action. I think that is an important example
that we need to remind ourselves, that we are not impotent to
do nothing about this. We can, and we should. And the point is
that we have elected executives here, governors, who can speak
to those issues today, and I welcome them.
I want to particularly thank Governor Baker for scheduling
the Patriots' victory parade yesterday so that he could be
here, and it wouldn't conflict with this hearing. I very much
appreciate it.
Under our Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5
minutes, but your entire statements will appear in the hearing
record.
The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
minute left in the presentation, and red when time is up.
After the governors have testified, Members will be given
the opportunity to ask them questions.
I would like to inform the members of the Committee that,
due to commitments, the governors can only be here--we have a
hard stop of 11:30 a.m. So, depending on how many Members are
here, we may need to shorten the time each Member has to ask
questions.
With that, the Chair now recognizes Governor Cooper of
North Carolina for his testimony.
Welcome, sir. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROY COOPER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Cooper. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for your
hospitality. Thank you, Ranking Member Bishop, for your
expression of humility through humor. Thanks to all of the
other members of the Committee. We are grateful to be here
today.
As a lifelong resident and now it is governor, I know that
North Carolina is a fantastic place to live, grow a family, and
have a business. Between our majestic mountains, miles of coast
land, and scenic tourist venues, a visit to North Carolina is
bound to be the time of your life.
But just like many places in our country and across the
globe, we are beginning to feel the harsh effects of climate
change on our communities and on our economy. Scientists have
found that climate change makes weather more erratic. It makes
storms larger and more powerful. And it intensifies heavy
rainfalls and drought.
North Carolinians, unfortunately, know about this the hard
way. We have weathered two so-called 500-year floods within 2
years, and three of them within 20 years.
In the western North Carolina mountains, erratic weather
has caused mudslides, damaged infrastructure, cost apple
growers valuable crops, and forced ski areas to close mid-
season, hurting local businesses and putting jobs in jeopardy.
In central North Carolina, soaring summer temperatures have
killed poultry and crops, costing farmers critical income. Fort
Bragg and military ocean terminal Sunny Point, two of the most
important military installations in our country that are
located in North Carolina, are listed at current and future
risk for wildfires and recurrent flooding, respectively, in the
U.S. Department of Defense report on the effects of our
changing climate.
And the worst damage has been in eastern North Carolina,
where we now are more vulnerable than ever to devastating
storms and floods.
In September, just 2 years after our state was deluged by
Hurricane Matthew, Hurricane Florence slammed into North
Carolina. Its powerful winds and storm surge decimated coastal
communities and crushed coastal tourism and fisheries. The
storm stayed for days, dropping trillions of gallons of rain,
inundating communities, drowning crops, and bringing rivers to
historic flood levels. Hurricane Florence caused at least $17
billion in damage, and tragically took 43 lives.
Then, a month later, Tropical Storm Michael took additional
lives and caused millions more in damage. But for the survivors
of these storms, the true cost is incalculable.
I have traveled to hard-hit communities and listened to
North Carolinians whose lives are changed forever; tireless
first responders who kept showing up to work, even though their
own homes were destroyed; children who went weeks without
schools; families whose livelihoods were washed away.
I spoke with an elderly woman who was pulled from flood
waters by a first responder, bringing with her only a few
possessions that she could carry. When I saw her in the shelter
I told her how sorry I was, and she looked at me and said, ``I
thank God I am alive. I thank God for that firefighter who
pulled me to safety. And I thank God for these volunteers here
in this shelter. Many of them have had their own homes flooded.
I am going to make it.''
Well, as governor of North Carolina, I have a
responsibility to help her make it. I have a responsibility to
keep all of our people safe. I told them we have to do
everything we can to rebuild our state smarter and stronger,
and we are pursuing unprecedented recovery and resiliency plans
to help North Carolinians get back on their feet.
We are also making a difference together. I am pleased that
members of our congressional delegation and Federal agencies
are helping provide meaningful relief to North Carolinians hit
hard by the storm, and I look forward to continuing to work
together with you on the Federal appropriations process.
But when storms are becoming more fierce, it is not enough
just to pick up the pieces. We must take action to prevent this
kind of devastation in the future. I urge Congress and all of
our Federal partners to match the level of determination
brought to recovery efforts in our fight to reduce the effects
of climate change.
We in North Carolina are doing our part to address those
effects. I have signed an executive order that sets a goal for
our state to achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases
by 2025. North Carolina is second in the country in solar
energy, and my order directs more use of renewable energy.
It also orders state agencies to begin using more zero
emission vehicles in our motor fleet. It orders a clean energy
plan and better state building efficiency. It also directs our
state department of commerce to grow our strong clean energy
economy by supporting the expansion of clean energy business,
service providers, and companies with commitments to using
clean energy.
In 2017, I ordered that North Carolina join the U.S.
Climate Alliance, a bipartisan group of states focused on
reducing our pollution and protecting our environment.
And while local and state action is critical, Federal
partners must join us in taking action to protect our people
from the growing harm of climate change. We need Federal
legislation and regulations that promote emission reductions,
preservation of forests, marshes, barrier islands, and other
national infrastructure. We need Federal leadership to work
with global partners to fulfill and strengthen our
international agreements. We need consistent Federal action
that meets the urgency of our global climate problem. Our
communities, our economy, and our future depend on it.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Governor Cooper follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Roy Cooper, Governor of North
Carolina
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and members of the
Committee:
As a lifelong resident and now its governor, I know North Carolina
is a fantastic place to live, grow a business and raise a family.
Between our majestic mountains, miles of coastline and scenic tourist
areas, a visit to North Carolina is bound to be the time of your life.
But just like many places in our country and across the globe, we're
beginning to feel the harsh effects of climate change on our
communities and our economy.
Scientists have found that climate change makes weather more
erratic. It makes storms larger and more powerful and intensifies heavy
rainfalls and droughts. North Carolinians unfortunately know this the
hard way. We've weathered two so-called 500-year floods in 2 years and
three in fewer than 20 years. In the Western North Carolina mountains,
volatile weather has caused mudslides, damaged infrastructure, cost
apple growers valuable crops and forced ski areas to close mid-season,
hurting local businesses and putting jobs in jeopardy. In central North
Carolina, soaring summer temperatures have killed poultry and crops,
costing farmers critical income. Fort Bragg and Military Ocean Terminal
Sunny Point, two of the many important military installations we're
proud to have located in our state, were recently listed at current and
future risk for wildfires and recurrent flooding, respectively, in a
U.S. Department of Defense report \1\ on effects of our changing
climate. And the worst damage has been in eastern North Carolina, which
is now more vulnerable than ever to devastating storms and floods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/
2019/01/DoD-Effects-of-a-Changing-Climate-to-the-Department-of-
Defense.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September, just 2 years after our state was deluged by Hurricane
Matthew, Hurricane Florence slammed into North Carolina. Its powerful
winds and storm surge decimated coastal communities and crushed coastal
tourism and fisheries. The storm stayed for days, dropping trillions of
gallons of rain, inundating communities, drowning crops and bringing
rivers to historic flood levels. Hurricane Florence caused at least $17
billion in damage and tragically took 43 lives. One month later,
another tropical storm, Michael, took additional lives and caused
millions more in damage.
For survivors of a storm like Florence or Hurricane Matthew before
it, the true cost is incalculable. I've traveled to hard-hit
communities and listened to North Carolinians whose lives are forever
changed: Tireless first responders who kept showing up to work even
though their own homes were destroyed; children who went weeks without
school; families whose livelihoods were washed away. I spoke with an
elderly woman who was pulled from floodwaters by a first responder,
bringing with her only the few possessions she could carry. When I saw
her in a shelter, I told her how sorry I was. She said, ``I thank God
I'm alive, I thank God for that firefighter who rescued me and I thank
God for all of these volunteers helping in this shelter. Many of them
had their own homes flooded. I'm going to make it.''
As governor of North Carolina, I have a responsibility to help her
make it. I have a responsibility to help keep all our people safe. I've
told them we have to do everything we can to rebuild our state smarter
and stronger and we're pursuing unprecedented efforts to help North
Carolinians get back on their feet.
Weeks after Florence, I announced the new North Carolina Office of
Recovery and Resiliency (NCORR), which is administering U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development-funded Community Development Block
Grants for Disaster Recovery for Hurricane Matthew recovery efforts.
NCORR is also planning for additional Federal funding for residents
hurt by Florence and will develop and implement strategies to protect
North Carolina from future storms. We've continued to invest in the
North Carolina Flood Inundation Mapping and Alert Network (FIMAN), a
state-of-the-art flood mapping technology that helps indicate where to
direct first responders and which communities remain most at risk
during disasters, as well as the safest locations to rebuild. I've
worked together with members of the North Carolina General Assembly to
appropriate state relief, including $65 million to help our state draw
down Federal disaster recovery dollars and $200 million to fund the
North Carolina Farmer Recovery Reinvestment Program.
We're also making a difference together. I'm pleased that members
of our congressional delegation and Federal agencies are helping
provide meaningful relief to North Carolinians hit hard by the storm.
We've approved over $1 billion in State and Federal recovery resources,
including over $100 million in individual housing assistance from FEMA,
over $550 million in estimated claims paid through the National Flood
Insurance Program and more than $380 million in low-interest loans for
homeowners, renters and business owners from the U.S. Small
Administration.
While we've come a long way, we have much more work to do. I'm
submitting two documents for the record: The first is a damage and
needs assessment related to Hurricane Florence produced by the North
Carolina Office of State Budget and Management \2\; the other is North
Carolina's request to Congress for assistance in the aftermath of
Hurricane Florence,\3\ which I shared with the North Carolina
delegation and Federal appropriators in November. I look forward to
continuing to work with Members of Congress throughout the Federal
appropriations process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://files.nc.gov/ncosbm/documents/files/
Florence_Report_Full_rev20181016v10.pdf.
\3\ https://files.nc.gov/governor/documents/files/
Hurricane%20Florence%20Appropriation%20and
%20Leadership%20Request%2011-28-18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But when storms are becoming more destructive, it's not enough to
pick up the pieces. We must take action to prevent this kind of
devastation in the future. I urge this Congress and all our Federal
partners to match the same level of determination brought to disaster
recovery in our fight to reduce the effects of climate change.
We in North Carolina are doing our part to address those effects.
I've signed an executive order that sets a goal for our state to
achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025,
increase state building efficiency and get at least 80,000 zero-
emission vehicles on the road in North Carolina. North Carolina is
second in the country in installed solar capacity and my order directs
the development of a state clean energy plan to ensure a continued
transformation of the power sector away from fossil fuels and toward
clean energy. My executive order also directs state agencies to begin
using more zero-emission vehicles in our state motor fleet. Further, it
directs our state Department of Commerce to grow our strong clean
energy economy by supporting the expansion of clean energy business,
service providers and companies with commitments to using clean energy.
North Carolina is a national leader in clean energy and technology
innovation and we're taking steps to promote the growth of energy
efficiency, solar, land-based and offshore wind, storage and other
clean energy resources.
In 2017, I ordered that North Carolina join the U.S. Climate
Alliance, a bipartisan group of 20 governors committed to uphold the
goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change, including by
collectively achieving our share of the U.S. emission reduction target.
The Alliance represents 47 percent of the U.S. population, over half of
the national GDP and 1.5 million clean energy jobs. Alliance states are
tackling climate change and growing our economies at the same time.
We're working across party lines to share best practices and defend our
Nation's most important environmental, energy and climate policies.
I've also worked with coastal community leaders and business owners
to fight seismic testing and offshore drilling, two activities that
endanger the health and economic success of our coast.
While local and state action is critical, Federal partners must
join us in taking action to protect our people from the growing harm of
climate change. State and local governments, researchers and the public
rely on Federal data, research and analysis to inform policy decisions.
Federal funding fuels critical scientific research and drives
innovation that can help solve our climate crisis.
We need Federal legislation and regulations that promote emission
reductions and the preservation of forests, marshes, barrier islands
and other natural infrastructure that protect communities from the
worsening effects of storms. We need Federal leadership to work with
global partners to fulfill and strengthen international agreements. We
need consistent Federal action that meets the urgency of our global
climate problem. Our communities, our economy and our future depend on
it.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Roy Cooper,
Governor of North Carolina
Questions Submitted by Rep. Cunningham
Question 1. Do you support my beforementioned bill, H.R. 291, the
Coastal Economies Protection Act?
1a. If yes, why?
1b. If no, how could we work together to change that?
Answer. I support amending the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
place a 10-year moratorium on oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and
related activities. I would recommend adding language to specifically
state that the moratorium applies to oil and gas seismic air gun
testing.
Question 2. Governor Cooper, last year the Republican Mayor of Nags
Head, Ben Cahoon, testified before the Committee and spoke in
opposition to offshore oil and gas development. Why is opposition to
offshore oil and gas drilling a bipartisan issue in your state?
Answer. North Carolinians, regardless of party affiliation, love
and depend on the natural beauty and resources of our state. Offshore
drilling and damaging seismic testing threaten North Carolina's coastal
economy and environment yet offer little economic benefit to our state.
These oil and gas activities present an unacceptable and unnecessary
risk to our coast, which depends upon vibrant tourism and fishing
industries.
My comment letter, dated March 9, 2018, in response to BOEM's Draft
Proposed Program (see attached) lists in detail the economic and
natural resources that could be impacted by drilling off North
Carolina's coast:
Coastal tourism, which generates $3.4 billion annually and
supports 35,000 jobs in the region.
Commercial and recreational fishing, which contribute
nearly $2 billion to the state's economy.
Approximately 300 miles of ocean beaches, 614,000 acres of
submerged lands and waters within the state's 3nm
Territorial Sea, 22 barrier islands, 2.5 million acres of
estuarine waters, and more than 10,000 miles of estuarine
shoreline.
Department of Defense mission capability which, as the
state's second largest economic sector, contributes $66
billion in gross state product, and $34 billion in personal
income.
12 Division of Parks and Recreation units and recreational
areas located adjacent to ocean waters or the sounds, which
welcome 5.2 million visitors annually.
The items listed above provide jobs, recreational opportunities,
and homes for North Carolinians and people who travel here from around
the world. Protecting these resources is a bipartisan issue.
Question 3. Aside from the risks of an offshore oil spill, what
other harmful impacts might result--either onshore or offshore--from
opening the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas
development?
Answer. Here are potential risks broken down by issue.
Geological
One location in North Carolina's coverage area in the
National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
Program has overlapping geologic plays located directly off
Cape Hatteras. Known geologic hazards could induce failure
in safety measures, as was determined when Mobil evaluated
the Manteo block in 1987 or induce submarine landslides.
The known underwater landslides offshore of North Carolina
could impact underwater wellheads and trigger disastrous
results in each of the six geological plays off our coast.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) identified three major
slides: the Currituck Slide that extends from the northern
border of the state; the Cape Lookout Slide that extends
from the Outer Banks; and the Cape Fear Slide that extends
from the southern border of the state.
If oil- and gas-related activities destabilize these
slides, a tsunami could result.
A slide destabilization could also undermine the wellhead
where blowout preventers are located.
The unique physical oceanographic area off Cape Hatteras
at the confluence of the two major surface currents of the
western Atlantic Ocean--the Gulf Stream and the Labrador
Current--present significant complications for subsurface
resource development due to the instability of the marine
floor and severe surface weather.
According to the National Parks Service's Cape Hatteras
National Seashore, these natural elements, including
devastating hurricanes and Nor'easters ``form a
navigational nightmare that is feared as much as any in the
world.'' It is estimated that over 1,000 vessels have been
lost near Cape Hatteras.
Marine Fisheries and Habitats
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, acting
through the National Marine Fisheries Service, designated
several areas offshore of North Carolina as Essential Fish
Habitat; a subset of these areas is designated as Habitat
Areas of Particular Concern. Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern are designated where they are considered
particularly important for managed species or species
complexes due to the importance of the ecological functions
they provide and where they are at risk due to their rarity
or sensitivity to human degradation. These designated areas
include The Point, Ten Fathom Ledge, Big Rock and the
shoals of Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout and Cape Fear.
Essential Fish Habitat is important to migratory species
such as king and Spanish mackerel, dolphin, tuna, and
cobia, as well as the snapper grouper complex. Due to the
importance of these species to the state's economy, it is
vital that Essential Fish Habitats are protected from
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with
oil and gas drilling and development in the Outer
Continental Shelf waters off North Carolina.
Deep waters of the Blake Plateau in the Southeast harbor
some extremely unusual and valuable marine ecosystems. A
deep water coral wilderness stretches from North Carolina
to Florida, including ancient reefs--some documented as
more than a million years old--of slow-growing Lophelia
corals. An area encompassing 23,000 square miles of these
reefs has been designated as Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern under Federal essential fish habitat provisions by
the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Deep water
methane seep communities are just now being discovered; the
one that is well documented on the Blake Ridge was also
protected in the same action by the South Atlantic
Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC).
The SAFMC Habitat and Environmental Protection Advisory
Panel also identified further unexplored areas where deep
water coral discoveries are likely to be made.
Commercial and Recreational Fishing
The commercial fishing industry in 2016 supported an
estimated 7,410 jobs, $166 million in income, and a $388.32
million economic impact for the state. In the same year,
approximately 1.4 million recreational anglers embarked on
approximately 5.4 million trips in North Carolina's coastal
waters. Coastal recreational fishing activity supported an
estimated 15,069 jobs, $621 million in income, and $1.57
billion economic impact to the state economy. Combined,
commercial and recreational fishing activities support an
estimated 22,500 jobs, $787 million in income, and $1.96
billion in annual economic impact.
Oil and gas development off our shores, including oil
platforms, could severely limit the areas within which our
state's fishermen could fish for certain species.
Historic Resources
North Carolina has earned the nickname ``Graveyard of the
Atlantic'' for the thousands of ships lost off the Outer
Banks, from Native American dugouts to colonial-era ships
to Civil War ironclads and WWII U-boats. Other submerged
historic resources include downed military aircraft. Many
of these sites have the potential to contain human remains
and may legally be considered graves subject to state,
Federal, and international law. While some of these
resources have known locations for avoidance and planning
purposes, other archaeologically sensitive locations are
unknown or unexpected.
Both pipeline excavation and dredging are likely to affect
submerged historic resources within both state and Federal
waters. Additionally, pipeline connections onto shore for
resource transportation by land and construction of
additional port infrastructure have the potential to affect
archaeologically sensitive areas or nearby historic
districts.
Military
Military exercises conducted in North Carolina and from
North Carolina-based military installations are vital not
only to national defense and security, but also to the
economies of North Carolina and the Nation. Oil and gas
leasing and development off North Carolina's coast could
jeopardize both military readiness and the North Carolina
economy.
The normal operations of oil and gas development in the
region would be enough to hinder military training
exercises off the North Carolina coast.
The presence of multiple shipping and exploratory sea
vessels and oil derricks pose a risk of obstructing
visibility and encroaching on existing flight paths.
Because the military is the second largest sector of North
Carolina's economy, adverse impacts from oil and gas
development would be felt throughout the state economy.
North Carolina has the fourth-largest active and reserve
military population in the Nation. The military contributes
$66 billion in gross state product and $34 billion in
personal income. More than 575,000 individuals are either
directly employed by the military or work in the private
sector providing goods or services that support the
military's presence in North Carolina.
Renewable Energy
Development of oil and gas resources off North Carolina's
coast would jeopardize renewable energy opportunities in
the same general area.
The Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Area is located in the same
offshore region that BOEM proposes for oil and gas drilling
and development in North Carolina's Outer Continental Shelf
waters.
Co-locating two separate incompatible large-scale energy
projects increases the potential for user conflicts and
environmental impacts.
The best way to mitigate these potential use conflicts is
to remove North Carolina's Outer Continental Shelf waters
from further consideration in the Federal oil and gas
leasing program.
Commercial Shipping
Potential navigation and safety impacts to commercial
shipping along the East Coast.
Question 4. Governor Cooper and Governor Baker, while we're
discussing the threats and impacts associated with climate change,
there's an obvious connection to opening vast new areas of the Atlantic
Ocean to oil and gas development. At a time when our country needs to
confront the reality of climate change, what does the Trump
administration's desire to open the Atlantic coast to unfettered fossil
fuel development tell you about their priorities about environmental
protection?
Answer. The most prudent actions the U.S. Department of the
Interior could take on this topic are to exclude the Atlantic Coast
from its forthcoming Proposed Plan for the National Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for the years 2019-2024 and to deny
permit applications for oil and gas seismic air gun surveying off North
Carolina's coast. Offshore drilling and seismic testing unnecessarily
threaten North Carolina's coastal environment and economy.
Question 5. Did either of you have conversations with former
Secretary Ryan Zinke about his decision to unilaterally exempt Florida
from offshore oil and gas development, but no other states that have
equally as valuable and vibrant fishing and tourism industries?
5a. Why do you think former Secretary Zinke tried to exempt
Florida, but no other state?
Answer. In February 2018 a bipartisan group of local officials and
I met with former Secretary Zinke in Raleigh. We asked Mr. Zinke to
exempt North Carolina's coast from the offshore drilling plan, just as
he had putatively exempted Florida. We emphasized that like in Florida,
coastal tourism is important to North Carolina. And like Florida, North
Carolina has bipartisan opposition to drilling, an ecologically fragile
shoreline, and the potential for catastrophic accidents.
I don't know why Mr. Zinke purported to exempt Florida, but the
Department of the Interior still has the ability to remove water off
North Carolina's coast and the rest of the Atlantic Ocean from
consideration for the 5-year offshore leasing plan.
5b. Do you believe former Secretary Zinke potentially violated
Federal laws when he made the snap decision to exempt a single state
from his oil and gas leasing plan without going through the required
public process?
Answer. I can't speak to whether or not Secretary Zinke violated
the law in the Florida process, but I did tell him during the February
2018 meeting that if the final 5-year offshore leasing plan includes
coastal waters off North Carolina, he could expect to be involved in a
lawsuit.
Question 6. Why do your administrations oppose offshore oil and gas
development, and are your positions in line with your state's coastal
communities and coastal businesses?
Answer. Simply put, offshore oil and gas development off North
Carolina's coast is a bad deal for the state. Please refer my responses
to Questions 2 and 3 above for an explanation of why North Carolina
opposes seismic air gun testing and offshore drilling.
North Carolina's coastal communities and businesses strongly oppose
seismic air gun testing and offshore drilling in the Atlantic. Nearly
40 coastal governments have passed resolutions in opposition to oil and
gas exploration and development activities off the coast. So too have
North Carolina business interests passed resolutions in opposition to
oil and gas exploration and development, including the tourism
development authorities in Carteret, New Hanover, and Dare counties;
the Carteret County, Outer Bank, and Wrightsville Beach chambers of
commerce; the Outer Banks Home Builders Association; and the Outer
Banks Association of Realtors.
In addition, other business and key stakeholders, including the NC
Association of Resort Towns and Convention Cities, the NC Council of
Churches, and NC Interfaith Power and Light, submitted comments in
opposition to offshore oil and gas activities. These positions in
opposition taken by communities and business organizations echo the
message we've heard from our state's residents and the editors' desks
of our major news organizations. In August 2017, following BOEM's
renewed call for a new 5-year leasing plan, the NC Department of
Environmental Quality hosted three public hearings on the coast and
solicited feedback from the public on the Federal proposal. In total,
465 people attended the hearings in Wilmington, Morehead City, and
Manteo. Of the 104 people who made remarks at the hearings, 96 spoke
against oil and gas exploration off North Carolina's coast.
Question 7. Do you support seismic air gun blasting that is a
precursor to oil and gas development?
Answer. North Carolina is opposed to seismic air gun blasting.
Research indicates that the proposed seismic surveys off of North
Carolina's coast would harm marine mammals. Our state has a higher
diversity of marine mammals than anywhere else along the East Coast or
in the Gulf of Mexico. The disruption of North Carolina's critical
marine resources by allowing seismic testing represents a critical
threat to North Carolina's coastal communities and economy.
My administration has taken numerous steps to oppose seismic
surveying. I have signed onto two letters that include multiple East
Coast governors in opposition to oil and gas exploration and
development in the Atlantic Ocean. The most recent letter--dated
December 20, 2018, and submitted to the Secretaries of the Department
of the Interior and Department of Commerce--was signed by a bipartisan
group of 10 governors. On July 21, 2017, my administration submitted
regulatory comments to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration asking that it deny applications to incidentally harass
marine mammals off the North Carolina coast.
Additionally, after new scientific studies regarding potential
impacts of Geological and Geophysical (G&G) activities on marine
resources were published, the N.C. DEQ's Division of Coastal Management
sent letters to four companies on December 22, 2017, asking them to re-
open the consistency determinations pursuant to 15 CFR 930.66 and
submit additional information about proposed seismic surveying for
offshore oil and gas resource development. On March 13, 2018, N.C.
DEQ's Division of Coastal Management sent a letter to the U.S. Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management asking it to refrain from issuing permits to
seismic companies, as the requested information for the supplemental
consistency determinations was never received.
My administration continues to have concerns about the potential
impacts of seismic testing on marine resources that could severely
impact North Carolina's commercial and recreational fisheries. We
cannot afford to endanger the natural resources that serve as the
foundation of our tourism industry and coastal economy.
Question Submitted by Rep. Bishop
Question 1. Governors, you both stated your opposition to offshore
oil and gas development in Federal waters. Governors, do you believe
that states should have the right to control offshore energy
development in Federal waters adjoining their coasts?
Answer. Comments from the governors of coastal states should be of
paramount importance given that states and communities have the best
understanding of the environmental, social, and economic implications
of offshore energy exploration and development and that they are the
most likely to be directly affected. Overwhelming state opposition to
oil and gas exploration and development requires significant
consideration under Federal law, namely the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
The OCSLA requires that as part of the 5-year plan review process,
the Secretary of Interior must solicit and consider comments from the
governors of affected states. At least 60 days prior to publication of
the program in the Federal Register, the Secretary must submit the
program to the governor of each affected state for further comments and
for the governor to consult with local government leaders.
Additionally, when the Secretary submits the program to Congress and
the President, that submission must include an explanation for
accepting or rejecting any specific recommendations made by a governor,
per 43 U.S.C. 1344.
In addition, section 307 of the Federal CZMA affords states an
important role in decision making regarding offshore energy development
based on potential impacts to a state's coastal resources and uses,
even when that development activity takes place in adjacent Federal
waters.
*****
ATTACHMENTS
January 17, 2018
The Honorable Ryan Zinke
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC. 20240
Dear Secretary Zinke:
We write today to express our joint opposition to the leasing,
exploration, development and production of oil and gas in the Atlantic
Ocean as proposed by the 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Program. We also write to request that our states and the
Atlantic Coast be exempt from this program.
Like Florida, each of our states has unique natural resources and
an economy that is reliant on tourism as an essential driver. We
support the notion of energy diversity, but the environmental and
economic importance of the Atlantic Ocean must be weighed against the
potential unintended consequences of these types of activities.
More than one hundred and forty (140) local communities passed
resolutions opposing offshore drilling in the Atlantic. They have also
been joined by tourism associations, convention and visitors bureaus
(CVB's), businesses, trade groups, and legislators from both sides of
the aisle.
Not only are ocean and oceanside resources at risk, but also nearby
bays, estuaries, coastal communities, iconic natural areas, and ports.
The irreversible impact on ecosystems including marine mammals, fish,
sea turtles, and other aquatic life that inhabit the ocean offshore is
gravely concerning, as is potential risk and harm to our state's
economies, our natural resources, our military installations, and our
residents.
We appreciate the emphasis that you have placed on public input and
urge you to grant our request to be exempt from this program.
Sincerely,
Governor Larry Hogan Governor Dannel P. Malloy
Maryland Connecticut
Governor John C. Carney Governor Roy Cooper
Delaware North Carolina
Governor Charles D. Baker Governor Gina M. Raimondo
Massachusetts Rhode Island
Governor Ralph S. Northam
Virginia
*****
December 20, 2018
The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr.
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC. 20230
The Honorable Ryan Zinke
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC. 20240
Dear Secretary Ross and Secretary Zinke:
As the governors of 10 states on the Atlantic seaboard, we write to
reiterate our strong opposition to seismic airgun surveys and oil and
gas drilling off our coasts. These activities pose an unacceptable and
unnecessary threat to our coastal ecosystems and coastal economies. We
emphatically disagree with the recent decision by the Department of
Commerce to issue incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) for
seismic airgun surveys in the Atlantic Ocean. We urge the Department of
the Interior to deny permits for seismic airgun surveys in the
Atlantic. In addition, we adamantly oppose the inclusion of any
Atlantic Ocean region in the final 2019-2024 National Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
The coastal economies in each of our states depend upon vibrant
tourism and fishing industries. The IHAs would allow five companies to
conduct seismic airgun surveys in the Atlantic Ocean, despite peer-
reviewed evidence portending significant harmful impacts to marine
mammals and fisheries, including endangered species. Seismic airgun
surveying can cause acute, cumulative, and chronic negative impacts on
the ability of marine mammals to send and receive signals that are
essential for feeding, reproduction, raising offspring, and navigation.
The repeated, loud noises from airgun blasts also risk diminishing
essential fish stocks for commercial and recreational fishing
communities in our states.
The seismic survey restrictions in the IHAs do not ensure that such
activities will have a negligible impact on affected species. These
restrictions, for example, fail to account for the ability of seismic
airgun pulses to travel over long distances, the correct exposure
thresholds for changes in species behavior, and the cumulative impacts
of conducting multiple seismic airgun surveying operations at once. As
a result, conducting seismic surveys under these authorizations can
lead to mortality and permanent injury of fish and marine mammals,
including endangered species such as the North Atlantic right whale.
The Atlantic Coast's ocean economy generates more than $98 billion
in gross domestic product, an economic impact that would be jeopardized
by seismic airgun surveys and offshore oil and gas drilling. More than
200 local governments have passed resolutions opposing seismic airgun
surveying and/or offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. Tourism
associations, convention and visitors bureaus, businesses, trade
groups, and elected officials from both sides of the aisle also have
voiced opposition to these activities.
State and local leaders in our states have voiced consistent,
bipartisan opposition to seismic airgun surveys and offshore drilling.
We ask that you respect our request and concerns by denying all permit
applications and issuing no further IHAs for seismic airgun surveys in
the Atlantic Ocean. In addition, we request that you exclude the
Atlantic Ocean from the 2019-2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Leasing Program for offshore drilling and deny any future
activities whose purpose is to support offshore drilling in the
Atlantic Ocean.
Sincerely,
Roy Cooper Henry McMaster
Governor of North Carolina Governor of South Carolina
Dannel Malloy Andrew Cuomo
Governor of Connecticut Governor of New York
Larry Hogan Charlie Baker
Governor of Maryland Governor of Massachusetts
John Carney Ralph Northam
Governor of Delaware Governor of Virginia
Gina Raimondo Phillip D. Murphy
Governor of Rhode Island Governor of New Jersey
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Governor, much
appreciated.
Let me now turn to Governor Baker for your testimony. The
floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLIE BAKER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Governor Baker. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking
Member Bishop, for those warm, welcoming remarks. And I want to
thank the members of the Committee for being here, as well, and
inviting me to testify on the approach that Massachusetts has
taken to deal with the very real challenge associated with
climate change.
In Massachusetts, climate change is not a partisan issue.
While we sometimes disagree on specific policies, we understand
the science and know the impacts are real because we are
experiencing them firsthand.
Shortly after I took office in January 2015, the snow
started falling hard. And it didn't end for months. Last
winter, we saw four major Nor'easters, setting record flood
levels and causing significant damage to natural resources and
property. Rising temperatures have led to warmer winters,
impacting weather-dependent industries like skiing and
agriculture. Climate change is also warming our coastal waters
and threatening some of the Nation's most important commercial
fisheries.
While many of these challenges are not new, they are more
frequent and more damaging than before. While rising
temperatures and warmer winters have impacted weather-dependent
industries like skiing, local businesses like Berkshire East
have adapted to these challenges by diversifying their business
to include non-winter activities, which now account for 60
percent of the mountain's revenue. Berkshire East has also
become the first ski mountain in the world to be 100 percent
powered by renewable energy.
The magnitude of the impacts from climate change requires
all of us at the Federal, state, and local levels, to work
together. That is the path we have taken in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts, via bipartisan legislation, was one of the first
states in the Nation to establish a long-term requirement to
reduce carbon emissions by at least 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050, while also setting interim targets. We are well
on our way to reaching our 2020 goal of a 25 percent reduction
in emissions.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap and trade
program encompassing large electric generators across nine
northeast states, also provides a stable policy to reduce
emission and allow states to invest in cost-effective energy
efficiency programs. The investments from this initiative has
saved ratepayers across the RGGI states an estimated $8.6
billion.
We have also developed regional partnerships with New
England states, the Canadian provinces, and the Federal
Government. Utilizing the comparative strengths of different
regions allows us to obtain competitive pricing on projects
like hydropower from Quebec.
In 2016, we competitively bid and selected an offshore wind
project on a Federal lease area that will save ratepayers money
over the next 25 years. This would not have been possible
without our partnership with the Federal Government, and I
applaud Congress for providing a predictable investment tax
credit for this industry, and also the Trump administration's
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for working with us to
quickly review the project and build a new industry here in the
United States off our eastern shores.
We have also been preparing for the ongoing impact of
climate change. Our administration recently completed a state
hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plan. Leveraging
Federal Emergency Management Agency money, the plan is the
first in the Nation to fully integrate Federal hazard
mitigation planning requirements with a proactive approach to
addressing the impacts of climate change.
Our administration has also sought to work closely with our
local communities. Our municipal vulnerability preparedness
program provides grants and technical assistance to cities and
towns, so they can assess their vulnerabilities and plan for
and implement climate change adaptation projects. Importantly,
these program allows communities the flexibility they need to
design solutions that work for their unique circumstances.
Based on our experience in Massachusetts, I would like to
share four themes that I believe will help further reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and increase resiliency across the
country.
First, states and local communities need support from the
Federal Government. Many Federal initiatives are only available
after a disaster occurs. Incentives similar to our MVP program
would help communities address resiliency issues before the
next disaster. Expanding programs like FEMA's new resilient
infrastructure grants and increasing funding available to
states would accelerate existing efforts and galvanize new
ones.
Bipartisan interest in infrastructure funding also holds
tremendous promise to not only repair and modernize our
infrastructure, but also make it resilient to changes in
weather. Federal infrastructure legislation should incorporate
consideration of climate change emissions, vulnerability, and
design standards that reflect that changing climate.
Both state and Federal governments also need to develop
public-private partnerships to bring private-sector dollars
into our communities, while leveraging the knowledge and
strategic thinking the private sector can bring to this
challenge.
Second, we need strong Federal leadership and a bipartisan
vision on climate change that prioritizes practical, market-
driven, and cost-effective solutions, while affording states
the flexibility to design strategies that work for their unique
challenges. We believe it is essential for the Federal
Government to create a target with respect to emission
reductions that can vary by state or region.
In our state's experience, setting an aggressive target for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions provides the foundation for
clean energy policy, sends a clear message to industry, and
enables long-range planning.
Third, strong Federal leadership should also include making
impactful investments in research around both emission
reductions and climate change adaptation. Federal research and
development gave us the internet and GPS, technology that has
changed our lives forever. I believe the Federal Government
could bring its resources to bear in developing the next
breakthrough battery cell or other technological advances that
could help dramatically reduce emissions and radically
transform our energy future.
Fourth, the Federal Government should incorporate climate
risk and resilience in future Federal spending and planning
decisions to ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Our own
Boston Harbor Islands, managed through a partnership between
state and Federal Government and a non-profit, were already
threatened by rising sea levels and storm surges.
Governors around the country are seeing and responding to
the effects of climate change in our states and communities.
This is not a challenge any one of us can solve alone. We need
collective action from Federal, state, and local governments
working with the private sector to aggressively reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the changes that are
already in motion.
I want to thank this Committee for the invitation to speak,
and I thank my colleague, Governor Cooper, for joining me here
today. I have submitted written testimony, which goes into more
detail than my oral remarks. I look forward to working together
on this challenge, and I am pleased to answer any questions
from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Governor Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles D. Baker, Governor of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today before the House
Natural Resources Committee on the Commonwealth's approach to the very
real challenge of climate change. Thank you for addressing this issue
in a bipartisan manner and for looking to the states who, along with
cities and towns, are directly taking on this challenge by setting bold
targets, developing practical and cost effective solutions, and working
collaboratively across the country.
challenges and opportunities in massachusetts
In Massachusetts climate change is not a partisan issue--while
there may sometimes be disagreement on specific policies, we understand
the science and we know the impacts are real. We know through
experience that mitigation to clean up our energy supply and
transportation system, paired with adaptation strategies to reduce risk
and build resilience can foster strong communities, protect residents
and natural resources, and contribute to strong economic growth and
innovation throughout the state.
We have seen firsthand the impacts of a changing climate in
Massachusetts. Shortly after taking office in January 2015, the snow
started falling, hard, and it didn't end until well into April. What
was different about those storms was the sheer volume of snowfall, with
record-breaking amounts in Worcester and Boston. Although it seems
counterintuitive, climate change is indeed producing higher volume
precipitation events. As the air and oceans have warmed, higher
concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere lead to more intense
rain and snowfall, and what we are seeing in Massachusetts is part of
this pattern. In fact, the percentage of rain and snow falling in the
heaviest 1 percent of storms in the Northeast has increased by over 70
percent since 1958.\1\ The increasing frequency and intensity of storms
is something of great concern to us in Massachusetts. Last winter we
saw four major Nor'easters, setting record flood levels in Boston and
other coastal communities, and causing significant damage to natural
resources and infrastructure as well as devastating property loss. We
have also seen an increase in intense rainfall events, with flash
flooding and damage to ageing infrastructure in cities like Worcester
and Lynn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Horton, R., G. Yohe, W. Easterling, R. Kates, M. Ruth, E.
Sussman, A. Whelchel, D. Wolfe, and F. Lipschultz, 2014: Ch. 16:
Northeast. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third
National Climate Assessment, J.M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
G.W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 16-1-nn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While last fall was the wettest ever recorded in Massachusetts, in
the summer of 2016, we experienced one of the worst droughts on record.
These droughts greatly strained public and private water supplies in
many communities and led to significant losses in agricultural
production, including cranberries, apples, peaches and Christmas trees
whose growers reported up to 80 percent loss of seedlings. In September
2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture designated all 14 counties in
Massachusetts as primary or contiguous natural disaster areas due to
losses caused by the drought, making them eligible for Federal disaster
assistance.
Temperatures have also been rising. On the heels of the warmest 3
years on record, last August was the warmest month ever recorded in
Massachusetts. This overall warming trend is leading to more frequent
heat waves that threaten vulnerable population groups, warmer winters
that impact weather dependent industries like maple syrup and skiing,
and increases in Lyme disease and other tick and mosquito-borne
illnesses. Climate change is also warming our coastal waters and
threatening some of the Nation's most important commercial fisheries
off the coast of New England. Stretching from Cape Cod to Cape Sable
Island in Nova Scotia, the Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99
percent of the world's oceans. Warming waters have already led to 80
percent reduction of Atlantic cod habitat over the last decade. Further
warming is projected to shift lobster populations 200 miles north into
Canada and enhance the ongoing invasion of green crabs that threaten
the soft-shell clam industry.
By talking with our farmers and fisherman and touring the damage
after weather events, one theme has become clear to me--while many of
these challenges are not new, they are not like they used to be. They
are occurring more frequently and they are more damaging than they ever
were in the past. The science and economic data bear this out and we
know that these changes are happening all across the globe. I am all
too aware of the unique challenges other governors are facing, from the
deadly wildfires in California and Montana, to permafrost and glacial
melt in Alaska, to severe heat waves last summer across the Southwest.
These impacts come with a growing cost. Federal data from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that 2017
was the costliest year for weather and climate disasters with over $300
billion in total spending.\2\ In New England, the string of Nor'easters
we saw last March cost the region $2.2 billion and we lost nine lives.
Since 2015, Massachusetts has also seen at least $200 million in
disaster damages to our towns and public agencies, which is only a
fraction of the costs our communities face. The 2015 February blizzards
alone were devastating--lives were lost, and the storms cost our state
and local governments $35 million, with total losses exceeding an
estimated $1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S.
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2018). https://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Massachusetts our rural economy and natural resource based
industries are increasingly threatened by changing seasons, shorter
winters, and less snow. Warmer temperatures are hitting the ski
industry particularly hard. Just one mild winter in 2009/2010 cost the
Northeast ski industry 1,700 jobs and $108 million in economic
value.\3\ But our ski resorts are responding to this pressure with
entrepreneurship to diversify their business model and expand into
recreation and tourism activities outside of the traditional winter
season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Burkowski, E., and M. Magnussen. 2012. Climate Impacts on the
Winter Tourism Economy in the United States. Natural Resources Defense
Council. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/climate-impacts-
winter-tourism-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the eastern slopes of the Berkshires, Jon Schaefer's family
business Berkshire East has become the first ski mountain in the world
to be 100 percent powered by renewables. Concerned about the
unpredictable cost of energy and the impact of climate change, Mr.
Schaefer invested in wind and solar, using State and Federal incentive
programs. The cost savings from installing clean energy allowed him to
invest in more efficient snow-making equipment while also diversifying
his business to include off-season activities like zip-lining and white
water rafting to bring in additional revenue. He reports that 60
percent of the mountain's revenue now comes from non-winter business,
resulting in an operation that is much more resilient to the changing
weather patterns ahead.
There are stories like this across the country--stories of family
businesses, farms, large industry and cities and small towns threatened
by the changes they are already seeing, but harnessing innovation and
ingenuity to take on these challenges. But they can't do it alone. The
magnitude of the impacts from climate change requires all of us to put
politics aside and act together, quickly and decisively. We still have
the opportunity to check the severity of future impacts by aggressively
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the changes that are
ongoing. That is the path we have taken in Massachusetts.
a history of bold leadership on climate change and breakthrough
mitigation policies
The effort to reduce emissions to a level that avoids the most
catastrophic changes to our climate clearly requires state, national,
and international leadership. At the same time, there are aspects of
Massachusetts' own experience in successfully establishing achievable
goals, working regionally, and fostering innovative breakthroughs that
could offer lessons for other states, regions, and the Federal
Government.
With the unanimous, bipartisan passage of the Global Warming
Solutions Act in 2008, Massachusetts became one of the first states in
the Nation to establish both a long-term requirement to reduce carbon
emissions by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, while also
setting interim targets every decade. The Act requires us to report our
emissions annually, track policy effectiveness and develop plans for
the future. By mid-century this course will yield significant GHG
reductions, overhaul our energy structure, and lead to significant
economic and societal change, while the interim targets will guide the
implementation of cost-effective policies that reflect current
technology. Clearly, this is an enormous undertaking but developing
ambitious, yet realistic goals is working. Our 2020 goal of a 25
percent reduction under that baseline was set ambitiously in 2010 and
as of 2016 we have reached a 21.4 percent emissions reduction and are
well on our way to reach the 25 percent limit. Moreover, far from being
an economic burden, we have seen close to a 70 percent increase over
1990 levels in our gross state domestic product and clean energy has
been one of the strongest job growth sectors in our economy in the last
decade.
The Commonwealth's aggressive 2020 goal puts the state on track to
meet emissions reductions of 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by
2025--the nationally determined U.S. contribution through the Paris
Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Shortly after the announcement of the intent to withdraw the United
States from the Paris Agreement, Massachusetts joined with a bipartisan
coalition of states committed to fulfilling the tenets of the Paris
Agreement by implementing policies to reduce emissions, tracking and
reporting progress on emissions reductions and accelerating new and
existing policies to reduce carbon pollution and promote clean energy
deployment at the State and Federal level. The coalition is now 20
governors strong.
This 2020 goal has not only provided a focus within Massachusetts,
but it has also compelled us to develop instrumental regional
partnerships with New England states, the Canadian provinces and the
Federal Government. Specifically, we have found that utilizing the
comparative strengths of different regions--whether it is hydropower
from Quebec or offshore wind in Federal waters--allows us to obtain
cost-competitive pricing. Every region of our country should have the
flexibility to develop a unique plan that leverages existing resources
and economies, but we must seize the opportunity to responsibly reduce
emissions now.
The predictability of the regional clean energy market and
promotion of clean energy development and trade have also been
essential to the Commonwealth's success. The Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program encompassing electric
generators larger than 25 Megawatts across nine states, provides a
stable policy to reduce emissions and allows states to invest auction
proceeds in cost-effective energy efficiency programs, including nearly
$400 million in Massachusetts since its inception. While the program
marginally increases wholesale electricity pricing, the reinvestment in
highly cost-effective energy efficiency measures has resulted in $3-$4
in benefits for every $1 of incremental cost. In Massachusetts,
businesses across sectors are seizing the opportunity to take advantage
of energy efficiency programs through our MassSave Program--from
optimizing efficient cooling technology at the largest data center in
New England run by the Markley Group, to installing advanced lighting
at Hannaford, one of the largest supermarket chains in the state, to
removing redundant motors at Cedar's Mediterranean Foods operations,
saving over $100,000 annually in energy costs. Our major sports
facilities, including Fenway Park, have undergone LED lighting upgrades
that have reduced the park's electricity use by 12 percent. Bottom
line, we have saved billions in avoided electrical costs for all
ratepayers by keeping electric load basically flat while our economy
has grown. The results on New England sports fields have been pretty
decent as well.
In total, the region's greenhouse gas emissions from this sector
have fallen 50 percent since 2005 and the regional investments from the
proceeds are estimated to have saved ratepayers across the RGGI states
a cumulative $8.6 billion. Regulated generators see the value in the
clarity and the predictability of the program, while businesses support
the energy efficiency investments that have earned Massachusetts the
title of the #1 state for energy efficiency in the Nation for 8
consecutive years.
While we have leveraged cost-effective efficiency investments,
including the installation of over 24.1 million LED light bulbs, energy
innovation opportunities are accelerating. From further advancements in
lighting, electrical heating and cooling, and advanced insulation
improvements that make zero energy consumption for new building
construction a reality, we now have commercially available efficient
technology and materials that are transforming our economy.
There is no single solution to the challenges we face and we need
to take a flexible approach that supports the innovations of tomorrow
while acknowledging the role existing resources like natural gas and
nuclear power, have played in our success to date. Clean energy
innovation, guided by targeted research and development and pure
entrepreneurial initiative, continues to deliver declining energy costs
and new disruptive technologies. While deploying the cost-effective
technology of today we should invest in clean energy research and
development. These investments will likely produce key components of
our energy future. For example, the ARPA-E program has partnered with
MIT to move forward with advanced nuclear research to increase reactor
performance. Harvard University is researching a flow battery that
utilizes organic molecules to store electricity beyond increasingly
competitive--but still expensive--electric batteries.
Storage completely alters the value proposition for renewable
energy, presents unique advantages to reconfigure our electric
distribution system, and can target reductions in the peak electricity
consumption through timely dispatch. Our Department of Energy Resources
determined that in Massachusetts, 40 percent of the electrical cost for
ratepayers occurs during the top 10 percent of the usage hours of year.
Storage technology can therefore provide both ratepayer and greenhouse
gas reduction benefits. Massachusetts electric utilities are looking to
avoid costly upgrades to distribution lines through targeted storage
deployment, diesel generation on our islands are being replaced with
storage units, and manufacturers are lowering bills through avoided
demand charges by curtailing demand with storage during peak demand
periods.
In 2019, we must jettison preconceived assumptions about the costs
of clean energy and look at the facts. Just 7 years ago, Massachusetts
considered moving forward with an offshore wind project at a cost of
roughly 20 cents per-kilowatt and projecting billions in above-market
costs for ratepayers. In 2016, acting after passage of the bipartisan
legislation, we issued a competitive Request for Proposals and
Massachusetts selected an offshore wind project on one of three Federal
lease areas proposed by Vineyard Wind that represents a cost reduction
of more than 65 percent below the previous proposal and is projected to
save ratepayers money. The factors that led to these disruptive prices
include technology that will increase turbine sizes by nearly three
times, economies of scale delivered by a larger project, and a
competitive solicitation that challenged bidders to deliver the best
price. These industry advancements would not have been possible without
our critical partnership with the Federal Government. I applaud
Congress for providing a predictable investment tax credit for this
industry and also the Trump administration's Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management for working with us to expeditiously review the project and
build a new industry in the United States. The Administration has
recognized the potential economic opportunity of modern offshore wind
turbines and last December moved forward with lease sales for three
additional parcels in Federal waters south of Massachusetts. Not only
did the auction collectively deliver $405 million for the Federal
Government, but it attracted traditional companies like BP, Shell, and
the Norwegian state energy company, Equinor. This is a partnership that
can reduce emissions, save ratepayers money, and provide critical
revenue to the Federal Government.
We can seize this economic opportunity while simultaneously
realizing the emission reductions afforded by the best available
science and technology. Congress has come together in the past to
successfully enact meaningful bipartisan energy and climate change
legislation that resulted in emission reductions and predictability for
our business community. Just over 4 years ago, Republicans and
Democrats came together and developed a compromise that included the
extension of the renewable investment tax credit allowing Vineyard Wind
to move forward with an 800 Megawatt project. This credit was
imperative to the results: emission reductions by over 1.6 million
metric tons annually, the equivalent of taking 325,000 cars off the
road and it is estimated that the project will provide over 3,600 local
full-time equivalent jobs over the life of the project.
While we have made significant progress to reduce power sector
emissions, our next challenge will be transportation. In Massachusetts
transportation emissions represent close to 40 percent of total
emissions and continue to climb, while most other sectors are
declining. In that spirit of regional partnership, this past December,
we joined eight states and the District of Columbia through the
Transportation Climate Initiative to work together over the next year
to develop the framework for a regional program to address greenhouse
gas emissions in the transportation sector, building on the strong
foundation provided by RGGI. The announcement follows the recent
release of the report of the Commission on the Future of
Transportation, which I appointed to help Massachusetts navigate a
disruptive transportation future. The report called for the de-
carbonization of transportation, including collaborating with regional
partners to develop a carbon pricing mechanism to cap emissions and
invest revenue back within the state.
building a resilient commonwealth
In Massachusetts we have focused first on reducing our
contributions to climate change and building our clean energy economy,
but our experience with severe weather and natural hazards has made
clear the importance of preparing for the ongoing impacts of climate
change. In 2016, I signed an Executive Order to, for the first time,
pursue an aggressive, integrated effort using sound science to prepare
state government and partner with our local communities to build
resiliency for the challenges ahead.
One of the first things we did was to partner with the federally
funded Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center at the University of
Massachusetts to understand the climate changes we are seeing now and
the kinds of changes we will see in the future. Our secretaries of
Energy and Environmental Affairs and Public Safety and Security led a
2-year, government-wide effort to complete a State Hazard Mitigation
and Climate Adaptation Plan. The plan, which leveraged Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money and engaged over 500
stakeholders, is the first in the Nation to fully integrate Federal
hazard mitigation planning requirements, with a proactive, forward
looking approach to addressing the impacts from climate change.
Throughout the development of the plan, every state agency completed a
vulnerability assessment of their assets and functions and identified
initial strategies to increase resiliency.
The plan will be used to inform policy, management and spending
decisions including development of climate change resiliency criteria
in our capital planning process to ensure that the investments we are
making today are designed for changing conditions and do not increase
our exposure to climate risk. While we know we need increased funding
to deal with these challenges, the first step in this process is making
sure existing spending is climate-smart and cost-effective.
As I mentioned, our local communities are already experiencing
climate change impacts and are taking leadership themselves on this
issue--our administration strongly values our municipal partners and
has sought to work closely together on this challenge. Our Municipal
Vulnerability Preparedness program (MVP), launched in 2017, builds on
this partnership by providing grants and technical assistance to
municipalities so they can assess their vulnerabilities, and plan for
and implement priority climate change adaptation projects to build
resiliency and reduce risk. My administration worked with partners
across the state to develop this community-based program, including the
Nature Conservancy and the Massachusetts Audubon Society and has
trained over 300 technical service providers from consulting firms,
regional planning authorities, engineering companies, small businesses
and non-profits to lead municipal planning efforts. In its first 2
years, the MVP program enrolled 44 percent of Massachusetts
municipalities, and awarded over $8 million in grants.
These grants are advancing local resilience innovation--like the
development of the city of Boston's first ever resilient building code,
restoration of an urban floodplain in Arlington, and a town-wide road
stream crossing resiliency strategy in Belchertown. High participation
from Massachusetts communities underscores the real need and enthusiasm
for a program that maintains and enhances quality of life, helps to
repair and replace aging infrastructure with climate-smart solutions,
and promotes strong local economies while reducing risks and future
costs. Importantly the program allows communities the flexibility to
design solutions that work for their unique circumstances, are grounded
in science and funded by the Commonwealth.
These programs cost money, and in fact over the first 4 years of my
administration we have invested over $600 million on climate change
mitigation and adaptation actions through our environmental agencies
alone without raising taxes or fees. Building on this investment, we
recently worked together with the Legislature to craft an environmental
bond bill focused on climate change adaptation, environmental
protection, and recreation that authorizes $2.4 billion of investments
over 5 years.
Now that we have a better understanding of the scope of the
challenges ahead through our state and local planning efforts, I also
filed legislation in January calling for a modest increase in the
excise on property transfers to fund a substantial and sustained
investment in climate change adaptation to protect property. The
proposal is estimated to generate $1.3 billion over 10 years that would
go directly back to cities and towns to invest in climate-smart
infrastructure and nature-based solutions that protect public health,
safety, and property across the Commonwealth. Climate-smart
infrastructure is resilient to damage caused by climate change and
extreme weather because it is designed to accommodate the climate
conditions it will experience over its lifetime, rather than historic
conditions which set the standards for the infrastructure we have
today. Examples include:
right-sizing culverts to accommodate increased streamflow
from more intense storms;
removing underutilized dams and restoring floodplains
along rivers and streams to prevent flooding;
installing resilient energy technologies such as
microgrids that pair on-site renewables like wind and solar
with battery storage to allow a critical facility like a
hospital or campus to remain on-line during severe weather;
employing nature-based solutions such as wetland
restoration in urban areas to absorb increased runoff
during storms;
installing artificial oyster reefs and restoring natural
coastal habitats to buffer against increased storm surge
and sea level rise;
upgrading combined sewer overflows to separate wastewater
from stormwater to ensure cleaner water and fewer flooding
events involving untreated sewage; and
ensuring materials used in roads, bridges, train tracks
and other heat sensitive infrastructure can withstand
increasing temperatures over their useful life span.
recommendations and conclusions: commonwealth perspective
I would like to share some themes I believe will help make progress
on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resiliency across the
country based on our experience in Massachusetts.
Support Local Communities and States
Communities need support in the form of incentives, like our MVP
grant program, to address resiliency issues before the next disaster.
Many of the current Federal incentives directed through FEMA are only
available after a disaster occurs, yet for every dollar spent
proactively on resiliency measures, taxpayers save $6.\4\ One example
of this type of funding comes from FEMA's new resilient infrastructure
grants which provide large scale funding support to projects that will
reduce risks, loss of life, and damages from future disasters. Our
public and private sector partners are ready to make resilient
investments in projects that protect our communities, and these matched
funds ensure that construction can get started. Expanding programs like
this and increasing funding available to states would accelerate
existing efforts and galvanize new ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2017 Interim Report. The 2017
Interim Report (January 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bipartisan cooperation around funding to address the Nation's
ageing infrastructure also holds tremendous promise to reduce climate
change vulnerability, help transition to a clean energy economy, spur
economic development, and build community resiliency. Additional
Federal funding cannot only repair and modernize our deteriorating
infrastructure but also help make it resilient to changes in weather.
Consideration of climate change emissions, vulnerability, environmental
justice communities, and design standards that reflect a changing
climate must be incorporated into any infrastructure legislation that
is filed. Nature-based solutions hold great potential for buffering or
replacing existing traditional infrastructure and should be explored
here. Our environmental bond bill includes these types of strategies
that conserve, restore or mimic the functions of natural ecosystems to
replace or enhance traditional infrastructure and provide multiple
benefits for communities in the form of added resiliency, carbon
sequestration and clean water and air.
These types of combined approaches, utilizing traditional
infrastructure but enhancing its resilience with nature-based
solutions, are in progress in many places now, including Louisiana,
following the widespread devastation during Hurricane Katrina. First
the levees were built higher and stronger, but Louisiana has also been
incorporating wide-ranging nature-based flooding solutions, including
restoring wetlands to absorb water, building up barrier islands to
reduce wave energy and storm surge, and creating oyster reefs to
protect against flooding as the seas rise.
Governments alone cannot sustain the enormous funding needs to
support local and state resiliency initiatives or the transition to
clean energy and transportation. Both State and Federal Government need
to develop public-private partnerships that bring more dollars back to
our communities while also leveraging the wealth of knowledge and
strategic thinking the private sector can bring to this challenge.
Federal Leadership
I am proud of our record of climate leadership in Massachusetts,
and there is much to learn from how states and regions have approached
this issue; but states cannot solve this problem alone. We need strong
Federal leadership and a bold bipartisan vision on climate change that
seeks compromise and prioritizes practical market-based solutions,
while affording states the flexibility to design strategies that work
for their unique challenges while continuing to grow their economies.
In Massachusetts setting an aggressive target for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions provides the foundation for our clean energy
policy, sends a clear signal to industry, and enables us to complete
long-range planning. We believe it is essential to establish Federal
emission reduction targets that can vary by state or region with policy
flexibility for states to design solutions that work for their unique
circumstances. Such targets would level the playing field and send a
clear signal to business and industry as we transition to a clean
energy economy.
Our transportation sector targets are particularly important now.
While predictability and compromise have made cost-competitive
renewable energy projects possible, recent proposals to roll back the
current Federal fuel economy standards are creating uncertainty for the
automobile industry and will undermine national and state emission
progress. Achieving Massachusetts' 2020 emissions limit assumes a
strong foundation of Federal fuel economy standards based on
harmonization with California's Clean Car Program standards which 13
states including Massachusetts currently follow; states cannot succeed
in reducing transportation sector emission without these strong
standards.
Federal Research, Science and Innovation
Strong Federal leadership should also include making impactful
investments in research to develop technologies that can reduce
emissions and to design strategies and tools for adapting to the
ongoing impacts of climate change. The congressional bipartisan effort
to prioritize clean energy research is paying dividends across this
country and must be measured in years. The research at the Department
of Energy and our national laboratories around the country continues,
and is the key mechanism to release disruptive innovation. It is
inspiring to consider what this country could accomplish through a
sustained commitment to clean energy research, while implementing a
stable and simple commitment to emission reductions.
States, communities, businesses, agricultural producers, and
natural resource managers rely heavily on science, data and management
tools developed by Federal agencies including NOAA, the U.S. Geologic
Survey and the Environmental Protection Agency. For example, the
products provided by the NOAA National Weather Service, including real-
time data that predicts climate variation on the scale of weeks to
years, is used to inform decisions on national security, crop prices,
insurance rates, tourism and recreation, energy, and the transportation
sector. The Service provides outreach and education to local users
across the country. We need agencies like NOAA to continue to deliver
on their service mission by providing the best climate science and
data, tracking climate change impacts, and helping states and
communities develop and implement strategies for adaptation to climate
change.
Use Climate Change Science and Data to Inform Planning, Policy-Making,
and Resource Management
In the Commonwealth, we strive to set an example by working to
incorporate climate risk and vulnerability into all of our decisions
whether it is through our statewide planning, bonding, policy
development or grant-making. The Federal Government should also take
this approach by incorporating climate risk and resilience in all
future Federal spending and planning decisions to ensure taxpayer
dollars are used wisely on climate-smart investments. Failing to
account for climate change impacts like sea level rise and inland
flooding will put significant assets at risk within their serviceable
life span and may further expose already vulnerability populations and
communities to increased risk. Without intervention to adapt over $1
trillion of coastal property and assets are vulnerable to as little as
2 feet of sea level rise--a level that may be surpassed before the end
of the century.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dahl, K.A., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Caldas, A. and Udvardy, S.,
2017. Effective inundation of continental United States communities
with 21st century sea level rise. Elem. Sci. Anth., 5, p. 37. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, Federal agencies released climate adaptation plans to
ensure agencies can continue to meet their mission and serve the
American public in the face of a changing climate. Like our state plan,
these plans outlined strategies to reduce the vulnerability of Federal
programs, assets, and investments to the impacts of climate change.
Many of our Federal resources across the country are threatened by
climate change. It is critical that Congress provide oversight to
ensure that agencies implement these plans and prioritize actions based
on a long-term, positive return on investment for the American
taxpayer.
This is an issue of particular relevance for this Committee in your
role providing oversight of our rich public lands. A recent study by
National Parks Service scientists and independent researchers finds
that all 417 parks are at risk of significant climate change impacts,
including the disappearance of glaciers in Glacier National Park and
increasing wildfires in Yellowstone that could transform the forested
ecosystem to grassland within the century.\6\ Closer to my home, our
Boston Harbor Islands, managed through a partnership between State and
Federal Government and a non-profit are already threatened by sea level
rise and storm surge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Patrick Gonzalez, et al, 2018. Disproportionate magnitude of
climate change in United States National Parks. Environ. Res. Lett. 13,
104001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These islands have rich historical and ecological value, provide
unique recreational opportunities for urban youth, and also offer
critical defense for Boston Harbor against increasing storm surge.
Risks are likely to be widespread across many different types of
Federal holdings, including military installations. A report on climate
change impacts from the Department of Defense this January \7\ found
that at least 79 military installations have significant
vulnerabilities from climate change related risk including wildfires,
drought, recurrent flooding, thawing permafrost or other threats. These
bases have already experienced extreme weather, including wildfires in
2016 and 2017 at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California,
permafrost loss on training grounds at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and
recurrent flooding at bases in Virginia due to sea level rise, land
subsidence, and changing ocean currents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Report on the Effects of Climate Change to the Department of
Defense, January 2019. https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/
client_files/1547826612.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
closing
Governors around the country are seeing the effects of climate
change in our states and communities, and we know that the decisions we
make today will determine our ongoing risk and the well-being of future
generations. But we also recognize the significant economic opportunity
at hand to build a new clean energy industry, transform transportation,
spur research advancements, and better design the resilient communities
of tomorrow. This is not a challenge the Federal Government can solve
alone; the severity of the impacts from climate change depends on our
collective actions as Federal, state and local government, working with
the private sector to aggressively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
and adapt to the changes that are already in motion. I thank the
Committee for the invitation to speak and look forward to working
together on this challenge.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Charlie Baker,
Governor of Massachusetts
Questions Submitted by Rep. Cunningham
Question 1. Do you support my beforementioned bill, H.R. 291, the
Coastal Economies Protection Act?
1a. If yes, why?
1b. If no, how could we work together to change that?
Answer. Thank you for your efforts to protect the Atlantic Coast
from the hazards associated with oil and gas activity and your
sponsorship of H.R. 291. As I wrote to Secretary Zinke in 2017,
Massachusetts does not support the inclusion of areas of the North
Atlantic in the new Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Program, and I support Congress taking action to protect the
Atlantic Coast. As Congress considers legislation regarding energy
development in Federal waters, I recommend including stronger
consideration of states' views in the Outer Continental Shelf planning
process. I do not believe that the Federal Government should move
forward with oil and gas activity over the objections of a coastal
state, and I recommend providing specific authority that oil and gas
activity decision making be cooperatively managed by the states and the
Federal Government. Massachusetts has worked successfully with the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on developing offshore wind in
Federal waters and recommend State-Federal task forces on identifying
where energy development, especially renewable energy, may be
responsibly sited.
Question 2. Governor Baker, what does it say about the potential
impacts of the offshore oil and gas drilling that a Republican such as
yourself opposes this type of energy development?
Answer. Massachusetts has long history of managing our commercial
fishing industry and promoting our state as a tourism destination
irrespective of party affiliation. I believe it is imperative that the
Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
review comments from governors, visit the coastal states, and
meaningfully engage to develop responsible energy development that
protects existing industries and has the support of the states. As
mentioned in my written testimony, in Massachusetts, we have focused
that partnership on renewable energy development.
Question 3. Aside from the risks of an offshore oil spill, what
other harmful impacts might result--either onshore or offshore--from
opening the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas
development?
Answer. Massachusetts is particularly concerned about the
interaction with our commercial fisheries, as well as the potential
effects on endangered species, including the right whale. Massachusetts
has a historical commercial and recreational offshore fishing industry
as well as a major tourism industry that relies on the health of our
ocean and beaches. In addition to the fertile fishing grounds of
Georges Bank, on our sea scallop fishery--which is responsible for the
port of New Bedford being the top in the Nation for catch value--would
be placed at risk by oil and gas development on the Outer Continental
Shelf.
Question 4. Governor Cooper and Governor Baker, while we're
discussing the threats and impacts associated with climate change,
there's an obvious connection to opening vast new areas of the Atlantic
Ocean to oil and gas development. At a time when our country needs to
confront the reality of climate change, what does the Trump
administration's desire to open the Atlantic coast to unfettered fossil
fuel development tell you about their priorities about environmental
protection?
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, every level of government must
accelerate efforts to address climate change. Massachusetts will
continue to move forward with cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation
policies from energy efficiency to clean and renewable energy
development. Every state and every region should be working with the
Federal Government to implement individual cost-effective mitigation
strategies that reflect existing economies and unique opportunities
that would collectively lower emissions by the levels required to avoid
catastrophic climate change. Local, state, and Federal leadership is
required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Question 5. Did either of you have conversations with former
Secretary Ryan Zinke about his decision to unilaterally exempt Florida
from offshore oil and gas development, but no other states that have
equally as valuable and vibrant fishing and tourism industries?
5a. Why do you think former Secretary Zinke tried to exempt
Florida, but no other state?
5b. Do you believe former Secretary Zinke potentially violated
Federal laws when he made the snap decision to exempt a single state
from his oil and gas leasing plan without going through the required
public process?
Answer. I conveyed my concerns about the proposed oil and gas
activity both in a formal letter and in person during a meeting to
discuss this issue and the other Department of the Interior polices
affecting Massachusetts. As stated earlier, energy development in
Federal waters requires an extensive public process to engage with
existing industries and ultimately requires a partnership with each
coastal state.
Question 6. Why do your administrations oppose offshore oil and gas
development, and are your positions in line with your state's coastal
communities and coastal businesses?
Answer. My administration and our coastal communities are strongly
aligned in working to protect our commercial fisheries and tourism
industry, and we seek to further develop our partnership with the
Federal Government for renewable energy development.
Question 7. Do you support seismic air gun blasting that is a
precursor to oil and gas development?
Answer. Last December I joined a letter to Secretary Ross and
Secretary Zinke alongside nine other governors of Atlantic coastal
states to express my firm opposition to seismic air gun surveys and
coastal oil and gas drilling. Peer-reviewed evidence suggests air gun
surveys would have harmful impacts on marine mammals and fisheries,
which could pose a serious risk to the economies of our coastal
communities. I maintain my position outlined in this letter.
Question Submitted by Rep. Bishop
Question 1. Governors, you both stated your opposition to offshore
oil and gas development in Federal waters. Governors, do you believe
that states should have the right to control offshore energy
development in Federal waters adjoining their coasts?
Answer. There must be a partnership between the Federal Government
and the states in energy management in Federal waters and as you noted
during the hearing this must also apply to Federal land management.
Regarding, offshore oil and gas development I recommend incorporating
stronger consideration of states' views of the Outer Continental Shelf
planning process and do not believe that the Federal Government should
move forward with oil and gas activity over the objections of a coastal
state. Rather, I would recommend providing specific authority that oil
and gas activity decision making be cooperatively managed by the states
and the Federal Government.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I recognize myself for a
couple of questions. Governors, let me just get this out of the
way.
First of all, do you believe that there is any legitimate
scientific debate over whether human-induced climate change is
occurring as we speak?
Governor Baker. No.
The Chairman. Both of you.
Governor Baker. Well, yes, based on the way you asked the
question.
Governor Cooper. No, I do not. There is overwhelming
scientific consensus that that is the case.
Governor Baker. What he said.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Some people argue, though, on that point and
on that consensus of opinion, that although we know it is
happening, that humans are a major contributing cause to it,
that there is no way to stop it, or that it will be far too
expensive to even try. It is a point of view, it is a reaction
that you hear.
Your comments on that, on those two points.
Governor Baker. Well, I guess I would say this. First of
all, you know, the northeast United States, when I was a much
younger person, had a huge issue with acid rain, which was
mostly coming from the Midwest. And that was a big problem, it
was an environmental issue. There was a lot of debate and
discussion about it. But a combination of Federal and state
policies, over time, basically solved it.
And if you look at what was done with respect to policy at
the Federal and state level with regard to the ozone layer,
while there is still repair going on there, the ozone layer is
in far better shape than it was 30, 35 years ago: pretty clear
indications that you can make a difference on big issues with
policy.
And with respect to affordability, I come back to the
procurement that we just did on offshore wind and the
hydropower procurement we did, which involves hydropower from
Quebec. The price points on both of those initiatives, each of
which are worth hundreds of megawatts of resource to
Massachusetts families and businesses, both came in at price
points that, over time, are going to be more cost-effective
than it would have been to use traditional resources.
So, I think the bigger issue here is are you willing to
sort of head in that direction, be practical, chase cost-
effective opportunities, and recognize that there are ways to
get from here to there?
And the final thing I will just mention about this, if you
have farmers or fishermen or resort operators or foresters in
your communities and in your districts, I promise you they are
worrying about climate change all the time. And whether it is
the greenhouse gas emission issue, or the resiliency issue,
they have major challenges that we should all be taking
seriously, or we are going to put them all in very significant
harm's way over time.
Governor Cooper. Mr. Chairman, if I might? We can't afford
not to take urgent action to fight climate change. It is not
too late, but it soon may be. That is why we need to take
significant action. And everyone is concerned about cost, but
can we afford not to do this?
And when you look at cost and profits and jobs, a move to a
clean energy economy brings with it significant jobs. It brings
a significant economic boost.
People may be surprised to know that North Carolina is
Number 2 in the country in solar energy. How did we get there?
Well, we forced the utilities to begin using more renewable
energy. And we set a renewable portfolio standard for our
utilities. We also took steps to limit our own coal-fired plant
emissions in North Carolina.
So, what has happened is that we have grown this solar
energy economy and clean energy economy in North Carolina to
the point where it has political support from both parties
because of the jobs that it has brought to the area. And now it
is competitive in cost.
A nudge from state government, a nudge from the Federal
Government, like you have done with tax credits, can move
something in the right direction so it becomes part of the
economy. And I think, at the end of the day, in moving to a
clean energy economy, we are going to save a lot of money in
health care costs. We are going to save a lot of money for
these billions of dollars that our states are asking for the
Federal Government to deal with climate change effects from
flooding and from snow storms. We are going to make a positive
difference if we do this.
We have to get moving fast. We have taken some small steps,
our states are working very hard to do what we can. But this
needs to be a partnership, and we want to work with you.
The Chairman. And with the time I have left, another
argument people use to excuse the Federal Government from
taking action is saying that we can innovate our way out of it,
that there is a technological fix over the horizon that we need
to find, and that, while innovation is important, that is an
excuse to say we don't need any new laws, we don't need
regulations, we don't need incentives, we are going to
technologically innovate our way out of this.
Do you believe that that innovation in and of itself is
enough?
Governor Cooper. Innovation is happening right now, with
battery storage and other technological leaps. But you have to
make it economically feasible. And state, local, and Federal
government working together can help to push that along. Yes,
it is going to require innovation for us to fight climate
change and to significantly reduce our greenhouse gases, and it
is a process.
But I think that Federal help, I think stopping the roll-
backs that are occurring right now at the Federal level,
particularly when it comes to the clean power plan and
automobile emissions, we don't need to go backward in that
area. And we need to encourage innovation and technology to
help move us forward.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me now turn to Mr. McClintock
for any questions he might have for the governors.
Sir.
Mr. Bishop. By the way, Grijalva, it is OK. You can take
your extra 2\1/2\ minutes out of my time.
The Chairman. I intended to, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed in the
written testimonies, both governors linked climate change with
the catastrophic fires we have had in the West. My district is
just southeast of Paradise, California. It encompasses the
Sierra Nevada from Lake Tahoe past Yosemite Valley and on into
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.
Last year, wildfires burned nearly 2 million acres in
California. That is nearly eight times the average annual loss
of 250,000 acres that we experienced during the last half of
the 19th century. But if you go back farther into the pre-
Columbian period, scientists estimate that wildfires destroyed
between 4\1/2\ million and 9 million acres per year.
The Camp Fire recently burned 153,000 acres. It wiped out
the town of Paradise and claimed 86 lives. But in 1910, the Big
Burn in Idaho and Montana burned 3 million acres, wiped out
seven towns, and killed 87 people among a far smaller and
sparser population.
What happened in the intervening time is that the U.S.
Forest Service was established, and it began actively managing
our forests, removing excess timber before it could choke off
the forests and die. And we actively suppressed brush on burned
lands and on brush lands.
But in the 1970s, Congress imposed a series of
environmental laws that subjected Federal land management to
endlessly time consuming and, ultimately, cost-prohibitive
environmental regulations. As a direct result, timber harvested
from Federal lands has declined about 80 percent, while acreage
destroyed by fire has increased proportionately. A typical acre
in the Sierra can support about 80 mature trees. The current
density is over 300. A single fully grown tree can draw 100
gallons of water from the soil on a hot day. Drought can
quickly kill overcrowded forests, and it has.
And the problem is climate change doesn't explain the
dramatic difference between private forests that practice
active forest management and the Federal lands that don't. The
boundary lines can often be very clearly seen from the air,
because of the condition of the forests themselves. Green,
thriving private forests grow right up to the boundary line.
And on the other side the forests are morbidly overgrown and
dying. I think it is quite clever of the climate to decimate
only the lands that are hamstrung by these Federal
environmental laws.
Now, decaying or burning forests make a mockery of all the
laws aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Wildfires in the
United States pump an estimated 290 million tons of carbon
dioxide into the air every year.
So, Governor Cooper, if the climate is warming, doesn't it
make sense to actively manage our forests so that we can match
timber density to the ability of the land to support it, so
that our forests don't die off and burn?
Governor Cooper. First, Congressman, we absolutely need to
take action to fight climate change.
Mr. McClintock. Would you address my question?
Governor Cooper. But that doesn't----
Mr. McClintock. Governor, please.
Governor Cooper. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. My time is limited, so I have to ask you to
be responsive.
Governor Cooper. Yes, sir. But that doesn't mean we
shouldn't take steps to be more resilient.
My experience in----
Mr. McClintock. If droughts are becoming more common,
doesn't it make sense to provide enough spacing between trees,
so that snow isn't trapped in dense canopies, and evaporates
before it can reach the----
Governor Cooper. I think any resiliency action that you
take needs to be balanced with environmental protection. And I
think you have to rely on scientists and regulators to
determine what needs to be done.
Mr. McClintock. Well, we stopped relying on scientists and
forest management some time ago. We have let our forests go to
benign neglect. And we are finding out the results aren't very
benign.
When I visited the Detwiler Fire that forced the evacuation
of Mariposa almost 2 years ago, the firefighters bitterly
complained that they couldn't get environmental permits to cut
preventative fire breaks.
Governor, shouldn't we be actively suppressing brush
buildup and free our firefighters to establish containment
breaks before a fire starts?
Governor Cooper. Congressman, I think if you would join us
in our fight against climate change, we could join in finding
ways to make our environment more resilient and make our
forests more resilient.
Mr. McClintock. I mean if we agree on at least these
common-sense steps, why can't we move forward together with
them to properly manage our forests, so that they are resilient
against climate change.
Governor Cooper. I think----
Mr. McClintock. Governor Baker, you waxed eloquently over
the use of wind power in Massachusetts. But just yesterday the
Wall Street Journal published a scathing editorial on the
experience of Falmouth, Massachusetts that spent $10 million on
wind turbines, and it has been a disaster.
That small town went deeply into debt to finance them. The
townspeople couldn't bear the noise, the constant flickering
light as 400-foot windmills turned. Property values plunged 20
percent. And I wonder how that squares with the bright picture
that you painted.
The Chairman. Governor, a brief answer. The time has run
out, if you don't mind.
Governor Baker. The question you raise, Congressman, is a
good one, and I will tell you why.
I deliberately used the words ``practical'' and ``cost
effective'' in my remarks on purpose. The fact that I believe
there are things we need to do with respect to mitigation,
adaptation, and resiliency because of what is going on with
climate means I also believe we ought to do things well.
My father always used to say that there are two things.
There is doing the right thing, and then there is doing the
thing right. And just doing the right thing, doing it wrong,
doesn't necessarily solve the problem. And there are a whole
series of issues associated with a well-intended effort.
In Falmouth, in many respects, that failed because they
didn't make a lot of the decisions with respect to where they
sited them and how they sited them that would have made sense.
And I think, to some extent, the success that we had with our
Deepwater Wind procurement was in part our ability to learn
from a previous experience that we had had in Massachusetts on
a project that never got developed, where people gave a sole-
source agreement to a single provider in the middle of
Nantucket Sound at a very high price, because everybody said
that was what the market would bear.
We put the thing out as a competitive procurement. We said
we weren't going to pick anybody unless we got competitive
bids. We spent a ton of time with our colleagues in the
legislature, making sure that the statute that was written gave
us the ability to do something that we thought would work. And
then we took our time in making sure that the procurement we
put out there was a procurement that would give us the answer
we were looking for. And we made clear that if we didn't get a
good bid, we wouldn't take it.
And one of the things we did in our statute that made a big
difference was we framed it as a long-term lease. So, instead
of having a type of contract that typically exists in this
environment, where people are constantly having to renew it
over and over again, we said, ``If you win, you are going to
have the time you need to amortize the cost of actually making
the investment in the project returned.''
And because of that consistency in the way we bid it, and
the fact that it was competitive, we got a great price.
The Chairman. Thank you, Governor.
Governor Baker. I think sometimes when something doesn't go
the way it should go, everybody blames the concept. Well,
sometimes we just screw up the way we actually implement it.
And it makes the concept look bad.
The Chairman. Thank you, Governor. And before I get
admonishment on my time management abilities here, if we could,
keep the questions and the response to that 5 minutes so that
everyone that is here will have an opportunity to ask
questions.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Governors.
Governor Cooper, congratulations on your executive order to
fight climate change. And there is tremendous information that
can probably be given out to the general public to have them be
part of the solution, not just the government, because
sometimes we rely everything on government.
One of the things I am looking at is, you stated removing
underutilized dams and restoring flood plains. That is a great
point that we need here in Congress, especially funding for
recycled water and conservation, education to the public, to
have them understand that we need more water to fight fires and
to generally provide for the public, for the communities that
we serve.
However, there is reticence in this Committee to fund
recycled water projects. There used to be 37 million for 17
western states. I am asking for 500 million for the future,
because we have to prepare for ongoing drought and ongoing
fires and everything else.
Suggestions? How can we improve public-private
partnerships? Two of you.
Governor Cooper. Well, I think in North Carolina we are
already doing that. We know that we have a lot of areas that
are in danger of flooding. We have put advanced flood mapping
in place. So, now that we know what to evacuate and where areas
are going to be flooded, we are taking significant mitigation
steps where we are using buy-outs, elevations, and even
strategic retreats.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do you inform the general public of your
plan, so they can be supportive of what you are doing?
Governor Cooper. Yes, we incorporate what happens with our
municipalities. They have to make these tough decisions,
particularly about strategic retreat, because we have come to
the realization that these floods are going to continue to
occur, they are going to be fierce. We need to take our----
Mrs. Napolitano. How about your aging infrastructure?
Governor Cooper. Aging infrastructure, and particularly
waste water treatment plants that are extremely vulnerable to
flooding. Helping local governments make sure that they are
rebuilt and built in a resilient way.
I have established the North Carolina Office of Resiliency
and Recovery. And what we are doing is working with local
municipalities on catch basins, trying to figure out ways to
prevent what happens in the future.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right.
Governor Cooper. In addition to our efforts to fight
climate change.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK, thank you.
Governor Baker, what policies can states and city
governments put into place to build an inclusive green economy?
Governor Baker. Well, to just sort of piggyback a little
bit on your previous question to Governor Cooper--I am a former
local official. And I get the reason why it is really important
to have local representation and local voices involved in
discussions with respect to what happens in their communities.
And that is why the vulnerability planning effort that we put
together is a municipal vulnerability planning effort, because
we want our colleagues in local government and local community
leaders to be part of those conversations.
And as I have said before, you have 351 cities and towns--
and in Massachusetts, they all have different issues with
respect to resiliency and adaptation. And we want to make sure
whatever it is we do is supported at the local level. Because
if you don't have local support for it, it is not going to
succeed, whatever it is you are pursuing. And it won't be
sustained over time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Governor Baker. I agree completely with him on that one.
Mrs. Napolitano. Part of what a discussion on the forest
fires also leads to the fact that we don't fund the agency with
enough money to do it. And what--with the future threat of more
fires, we should have enough funding there to be able to help
them do the job they are meant to do. Do you agree?
Governor Cooper. I agree completely. We spend a lot of
money--and we are grateful for it--on recovery. Not enough of
that money that is dedicated to states and local governments is
allowed to be used for mitigation and resilience.
And when you look at a flooded area and see homes that have
been elevated, or areas that have already been bought out and
now are simply catching flood water, you see the money that we
are saving from the action that we have taken.
So, I would encourage the Congress to give states more
flexibility to use this recovery funding as we rebuild smarter
and stronger, as we are trying to do in North Carolina, because
we know it is coming again. I am going to keep saying we have
to fight this emission of greenhouse gases, and to fight this
overall climate change issue here. But we know in the next few
decades, if we are going to continue to deal with this severe
weather, we need to be smart about how we rebuild. And us being
able to use that funding for mitigation and resilience is a
positive thing.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Governor. I think we have to
cut, because the Chairman is going to gavel me out. But I tell
you 20 years ago I tried to put climate change in one of my
bills, and I lost it because nobody wanted to deal with climate
change. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate, once again, you being
here. Governor Baker, I appreciate you being here.
Now, look, Ed Markey used to be part of this Committee, so
at some point off the record I would like you to tell me how
you got rid of the Rs at the end of your vowels. You are doing
that very well.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. And just as a hint, if you try to do Ski
Massachusetts on your license plates, we have already done that
in Utah. We got copyrighted on that. Don't try to go there.
I do want to ask a question of Governor Baker. You talked a
great deal about working together in a collaborative process,
the very essence of federalism. And also, you mentioned how
some of the local people who work these issues on the ground
know exactly what they are doing. I found in the state of Utah
some of my best commissioners in rural Utah are those who used
to work for BLM, and they are extremely pragmatic about what
can and cannot be done.
This is one of those areas that actually is the
jurisdiction of this Committee, and that is how can we actually
increase collaboration between the Federal Government and the
states. And you guys got to figure out state and local
government, you are on your own, that is your jurisdiction. How
do we actually increase that collaboration? Or is that
significant, to increase that collaboration?
Governor Baker. I do think on this vulnerability planning
effort, which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has
created, a program where states and locals can get together and
start to work with the Feds around doing sort of what I would
describe as high-risk analytics and making investments in
resiliency and adaptation to deal with places that people are
concerned about, so that the next time there is a storm, the
next time there is a surge, we don't end up having to deal with
the same cleanup that FEMA dealt with the time before, I think
that is, in some respects, one of the best ways for the Federal
Government to work with states, and with locals.
Mr. Bishop. Let me kind of zero in on that. Once again,
this is our area of jurisdiction. There are statutes on the
books that say we have to collaborate with you. There is
nothing in that statute that says what our collaboration
actually is.
Would there be a benefit of actually trying to list what
steps need to be taken in the collaborative process so indeed
the states and the Federal Government are working on the same
page, as opposed to you just groveling before us?
Governor Baker. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Governor Baker. I think that would be a great idea.
Mr. Bishop. And that is within our jurisdiction. However, I
realize the Appropriations Subcommittee is having a hearing on
the Anti-Deficiency Act, which has nothing to do with the
appropriations process. So, eventually I think we will get
jurisdictional issues worked out in this particular area.
Let me talk specifically once again about the concepts that
were just brought up--and Mrs. Napolitano, she mentioned it
before she left--this idea of forest fires and what they need.
And maybe when Mr. Westerman has a chance to talk, he can
exemplify on this.
One of the things that both the Obama and the Trump
administrations told us is it is not necessarily an issue of
funding that makes it difficult, it is an issue of what kind of
powers they have to actually do management practices before the
fire season takes place.
And the other big issue they also dealt with was cost of
litigation, ever-increasing litigation by special interest
groups, for which they either backed off what they were
attempting to do in order to minimize that litigation, or they
were forced to spend their money defending themselves on the
litigation. So, what they were asking for is greater
flexibility in actually managing the land, and help in
defending themselves. Again, this litigation.
I am making the assumption that when we are dealing with
you on the state level, that those issues are also significant.
And indeed, the experts on the ground who ask us for this kind
of help would be saying that same type of thing.
Governor Baker. I actually made a note to myself to ask the
folks who manage our lands. We have significant land that we
manage, both actively and passively.
Mr. Bishop. The nice thing is most of your land is state
land, and that is great.
Governor Baker. What I don't want to do is, I don't want to
answer this question having not talked to my own people about
it, but I will do that and make sure we get back to the
Committee about it.
Mr. Bishop. And I appreciate that. And actually, Mr.
Grijalva--because I won't ask you another question, I am
running out of time with that. But if we can go to the point in
future where Utah has as much Federal land as Massachusetts and
North Carolina have, I will be tickled pink.
Governor Baker. I would love that, as long as I get the
same amount of skiing that you have in Utah.
Mr. Bishop. And we will take some of our extra mountains
and put them in there, so you can actually ski.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. And that will include our airflow, so we don't
have crappy air in the winter. Perfect.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. It sounds like the Governor and the Ranking Member have
an opportunity to get great things done here, East-West.
But I think this is an important hearing for a lot of
reasons. And clearly, the impacts of climate change are one of
the most significant challenges we face in the 21st century
around the world, in this country, and in our respective
states.
I know the San Joaquin Valley that I represent has had
significant impacts as it relates to the drought conditions,
the feast or famine with too much rain and water, and trying to
balance our needs.
We think about the planet we live in: 200 years ago we had
1.7 billion people, today we have a little over 7 billion. And
by the middle of this century it is expected that we will have
over 9 billion people. And sustainability and the impact that
people have on all of our resources is the challenge that we
face today.
We have people living in areas in which people didn't live
before, where they are impacted by these fires, these floods,
and these other natural conditions that include hurricanes and
tornadoes and other weather events.
We, in California, have done a lot, I think, to try to
address the future here in renewable and sustainable sources,
as have other states--Governors, as you have recommended and
told us of your own efforts.
I think the earlier comment about better coordination
between the state, local, and Federal efforts needs to be done.
We talk a lot in kind of broad, general terms. We don't, I
think, focus enough on how we can coordinate together in
actually getting something done on the impacts of climate
change. And a multi-pronged approach, I think, is critical to
that success.
Both governors, let me ask you a few questions here. And I
am looking this way because, Mr. Chairman, the clock is blocked
here. So, for those of us who watch it, make sure we get our
time in. It is a little bit of a handicap.
As we continue to see, as you testified, the trends on
intense weather changes and the impacts there, we have an aging
infrastructure. We have been talking about a bipartisan
infrastructure measure. Where do you think the best channeling
of that funding in transportation and in water infrastructure
would best be spent in your respective states?
Governor Baker. Well, with respect to the issue we are
talking about today, which is resiliency, I think the biggest
and best opportunity would be around all of the infrastructure
that we have that is designed to deal with storms. And much of
that infrastructure is nowhere near as significant as it needs
to be----
Mr. Costa. When FEMA comes--as they have in various parts
of the country and they provide support and recovery efforts.
We were just in Puerto Rico last month, and under the--I am
trying to remember--Stafford Act, or whatever--they are only
allowed to spend money to what the previous conditions were of
that infrastructure.
Governor Baker. Right, right.
Mr. Costa. That makes no sense. I mean we have to be--and
if we are repairing--guess what? More hurricanes are going to
come, more tornadoes are going to come, more floods are going
to come, and wildfires. We ought to do state-of-the-art
restoration, don't you think?
Governor Baker. Yes. We should be thinking about
infrastructure going forward, in terms of what the consequences
will be for bridges, for coverts, for dams, for all of that
stuff, based on what people anticipate the significant issues
they will be dealing with will look like. And those are
different than the ones people were dealing with 100 years ago,
absolutely.
Mr. Costa. Governor Cooper?
Governor Cooper. And, Congressman, there is a lot of money
that comes to states in the wake of disaster. But in the wake
of disaster is time to talk about that resilient
infrastructure.
People were driving around the state of North Carolina for
3 or 4 days after Hurricane Florence because Interstate 95 was
under water.
Mr. Costa. OK, I appreciate the examples. I have 30 seconds
left.
To both of you, if you can quickly--there is a call,
obviously, to provide less stringent environmental regulation
in an effort to review and rewrite common-sense policies in the
light of climate change based on sound science. Is that
reasonable to ask?
Governor Baker. I didn't understand----
Governor Cooper. I didn't understand what you said, sir.
Mr. Costa. There is a sense that maybe we need to rewrite
environmental regulations in the sense of dealing with these
impacts of climate change. Is that reasonable to ask, based
upon new science?
Governor Baker. I think we should continually be updating
our rules and our regulations with respect to new discovery and
new science. We do it in health care, which is the space I came
out of in the private sector. We do it in all sorts of areas.
Yes, I would say definitely here, yes.
Governor Cooper. But I would say we don't want to roll back
environmental safeguards that are helping us to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore fighting climate
change, while we are doing that.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and thank you,
governors, for being here today. I have had the opportunity to
spend quite a bit of time in both of your states. You have
beautiful states with beautiful forests and clean water there.
I get accused sometimes of getting too far into the weeds
when I start talking about climate, environmental policy. So,
taking a little bit of a different approach today, I was going
to submit this to the record, but I haven't got a hard copy
yet. But this is a Dilbert cartoon. And they are sitting around
the table, and Dilbert says, ``I have invented a cost-effective
product to harvest CO2 from the air and turn it into
construction material,'' and his colleague says, ``So . . . you
invented a tree.'' And it goes on from there.
But you know, when we look at the climate and how we all
want to be good stewards of it, we know that trees are one of
the best things on earth to clean the air, to clean water, and
provide good habitat.
Governor Cooper, I am from Arkansas and did a lot of work
in your state before I got into Congress. I actually did a
comparison one time of the forested area in Arkansas versus
North Carolina. And both states are almost exactly the same, 17
to 18 million acres of forested land in both states, almost the
same breakdown of hard wood versus soft wood.
There is a difference there, though. North Carolina has one
of the most vibrant forest products industries in the country.
Even though we have basically the same land mass and the same
amount of forest, you all produce a lot more wood products than
we do in Arkansas, although our forest products economy is
growing and thriving there.
So, as we look at this issue of cleaning the air, I would
like to get your take on how important the forest products
industry and forest management is in North Carolina to keeping
your forest pristine, which also helps your water quality and
your wildlife habitat, and the different kinds of products that
are made there, and how they may affect the environment.
Have you had a chance to get out--I am sure you have--to
see all of the varied forest products industries in your state?
Governor Cooper. Yes, we do have a strong forest product
industry in North Carolina. I think we have to be careful about
going too far with it. And I know that our department of
environmental quality is looking at additional safeguards that
we may need in order to make sure that our forests are
protected.
I do know, though, that it is an important industry in our
state, and we are working hard to make sure that our forests
are managed properly, because we know that those natural
resources are critically important, not only to clean air, but
to our tourism, as well, in North----
Mr. Westerman. I believe about 68 percent of your forest
land is privately held and managed by private owners who are
doing that, just using good science. And you obviously have a
sustainable forest there to be able to continue with a strong
forest products industry.
I know also that North Carolina is one of the leading
states in producing wood pellets. Those pellets were driven by
the fact that Europe put a tax on carbon coming out of some of
their big coal-fired plants, so that drove them to come to the
United States to buy renewable pellets. How do you think that
is affecting the health of the forest in North Carolina, and
then the global climate as well, being able to use those
renewable wood pellets to replace coal in Europe?
Governor Cooper. There is a concern about the increase of
the use of wood pellets in North Carolina. There is a concern
about that, yes.
Mr. Westerman. But that was all driven by a mandate from a
government saying you had to get the coal out of the plants.
So, they wanted to replace that with a bio-fuel. And North
Carolina, obviously being on the East Coast and having the
abundant forests they have, were a really good supplier to help
in Europe to offset carbon emissions over there.
Governor Cooper. I don't know about that, Congressman. I
don't know about that.
Mr. Westerman. Are we going to get a second round of
questions?
Real quickly, Governor Baker, the Quabbin in Massachusetts
is a great example of how to manage forests and get clean
water. Boston relies on that. It is a wonderful system, and I
wish we could mimic that other places around the country.
I yield back.
Governor Baker. So, just two things. We have planted
thousands and thousands and thousands of trees since we took
office for exactly the reason you just raised. And we have
about 4 million acres of forest in a state with 6\1/2\ million
acres, overall. And about a million acres are managed by the
Commonwealth.
Planting trees is one of the best----
The Chairman. Thank you.
Governor Baker. Give us some money to plant trees, we will
plant trees. They also help with soil runoff and a whole bunch
of other things, as well.
The Chairman. Mr. Sablan.
Governor Baker. And the most interesting thing about it has
been that the relationship between the sportsmen community and
the environmental community over the importance of forest and
wildlife habitat.
The Chairman. Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Baker and Governor Cooper, welcome. Thank you for
being here. Thank you for your leadership on climate change you
are both demonstrating in your states.
Getting to the question, a little history, background, is
in 2016, our bureau of environmental and coastal quality
developed a 5-year strategy that noted that although the
development surge in Saipan, one of the islands in the Northern
Marianas, would result in dramatic loss of green space and
permeable natural surface, particularly in shore land
locations, the political leadership were calling for even less
regulatory oversight and for expedited permit processing. And
that leads me to no longer be hopeful that my political
leadership would join your U.S. Climate Alliance.
But having said that, and someone mentioned earlier about
people being displaced from their homes. Over the past 2 years
alone, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been forced from
their homes, some of them as recent as Puerto Rico, Irma and
Maria. And in the future we will see many more people who need
to permanently move because their homes will become
uninhabitable, either by rising sea levels or hurricanes and
typhoons. The people of the Northern Marianas will be
especially hard hit.
So, what can states and the Federal Government do in order
to more effectively address displacement due to climate change?
Governor Cooper. Congressman, in North Carolina I think we
have seen it just as you have, that the people who can afford
it the least often get hit the hardest in these natural
disasters. And one of our problems that we have right now is
the issue of affordable housing, being able to find safe,
affordable places for people to live.
In the wake of this disaster, I think it is helping us put
together a plan on affordable housing across the state. That is
something that is going to require public-private partnerships,
and investments, and trying to get developers into making sure
that more affordable housing is constructed in areas that are
not in flood plains and in danger of being destroyed during
these disasters. It is a human tragedy.
And I look forward to your ideas. And we certainly can
provide you with some of ours on how we do that.
The Chairman. And Governor Baker?
Governor Baker. I would just get back to the question
Congressman Costa asked about rebuilding to the standard of
what it was before. I mean, clearly, we need to be taking a
much more forward-looking approach to the way we handle that
stuff, because building to the standard that existed before
will be nowhere near as resilient as you need to be to deal
with many of those issues.
Mr. Sablan. Right, and I agree with you, Governor Baker,
because where I come from, the Northern Marianas, we just had a
super-typhoon, I think the second-largest in U.S. history. And
we are not actually a wealthy community.
So, what took people years to build as their homes were
destroyed, demolished. And FEMA has inspections. Some of them
got awarded $6,000. So, they were made an offer: ``We can take
you and move you to another location away from the Northern
Marianas until you can get your structure rebuilt.'' The $6,000
is going to take care of 20 percent, maybe, of the cost of the
building, if at all.
So, that person, this family, will move and probably never
come back. And from a case where our population is hardly, very
little over 50,000, we need all our people to remain at home.
But it is not. So, yes, I agree. FEMA encourages this
relocation.
And my time is up. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time.
Governors, I want to thank you very much for being here.
Governor Cooper, I know that--I am from Louisiana. We sent
many volunteers and rescue teams to your state----
Governor Cooper. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Graves [continuing]. Following--I am trying to
remember--Chris, Matthew, Florence, Michael, a number of storms
you have had in recent years. I have been praying for you all
and working closely with your delegation.
Two things, real quick.
You mentioned some of these resiliency measures on--I think
it was October 3, the President signed the Disaster Recovery
and Reform Act into law. That law that we worked closely with
your delegation in putting together does provide some
additional flexibility and dollars on more resilient
reconstruction, to where we are not rebuilding the same things
over and over again, and I urge you to take a look at that.
Next, on the duplication of benefits letter you sent to the
White House, in regard to your recovery we are working
closely--our governor has done the same thing--we are working
closely----
Governor Cooper. Have you gotten an answer yet?
Mr. Graves. Blood pressure is going up a little bit,
potentially filing a lawsuit, but we will be working closely
with you all on that.
Governor Cooper. OK.
Mr. Graves. I also spent a good bit of time in Pisgah,
Linville, Bent Creek, a lot of your real jewels over there. You
have a great state.
Governor Baker, reading about some of the things that your
state has done in regard to emissions reduction and climate
change, it is interesting. Our states, again, south Louisiana,
Massachusetts, very different. I heard you in your testimony
talking about ski slopes. And, of course, the Ranking Member
was discussing that, as well. We would love to have that. We
have some resource issues. Ski slopes aren't really conducive
to south Louisiana.
Some of the top industries in Massachusetts, it is
technology patents, venture capital, computing technology. Some
areas that aren't necessarily licensing, aren't necessarily
energy or emissions intensive. My home state of Louisiana, we
are one of the top energy producers in the Nation, one of the
top refiners in the Nation, one of the largest petrochemical
industries in the Nation, one of the largest industrial
corridors in the Nation. It is a very different economy.
Your home state of Massachusetts, according to the EIA,
part of the Department of Energy, they indicated that your
state has virtually no oil and gas production. Yet, just within
the last few years, your state has averaged over 1 quadrillion
BTUs of fossil fuels being used to just operate your state,
over 1 quadrillion BTUs of fossil fuels being consumed for
everything going on in the state of Massachusetts.
In Revere, you have one of the three home heating oil
reserves. Much of your, if I remember right, coal and natural
gas, approximately 70 percent of the energy production in your
state is from coal and natural gas. That comes from Louisiana,
it comes from other states.
My home state of Louisiana, we are blessed with natural
resources. We are blessed with port systems and have a big
industrial corridor. How do you reconcile what you are able to
do based on your economy, versus the challenges in Louisiana
based on what our economy is founded on?
Governor Baker. Well, our view on this issue for the better
part of the past decade has been to make the kinds of
investments that can either reduce our draw on energy when we
produce productivity, or continue to redefine our source points
for energy, generally.
And if you look at the last 10 years, or even go back
before that, maybe the last 20, we have had significant
increase in our gross state product. We have had modest
population growth. We have had modest increase in the number of
vehicle miles driven, and a 20 percent reduction in our
greenhouse gas emissions over that same period of time. And the
energy draw generally has been flat over the same period,
because we have gotten more productive about how we actually
use energy.
And I think in some respects that is one thing that we
haven't really talked about at all today. One of the biggest
and best opportunities we all have with respect to climate
change and greenhouse gas emissions, generally, is energy
efficiency. Our Mass Save program----
Mr. Graves. And, Governor, I agree. I need to reclaim my
time because I am about----
Governor Baker. We have installed 24 million LED lights----
Mr. Graves [continuing]. To run out right now, but I do
appreciate that you all have taken steps, I do. But I also
think it is important to recognize that states in some cases
are fundamentally differently.
Governor Baker. Agreed.
Mr. Graves. Years ago I calculated the amount of energy
that Massachusetts consumed, and I think it was 24 times more
energy than they produced. So, you built three LNG terminals, a
lot of energy is coming in from Louisiana and other states.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask to insert in the record two
things.
First, and it is interesting, it is a letter asking the
President to increase global oil production--to increase global
oil production. And that letter is signed by Senators Cantwell,
Schumer, Menendez, and Markey.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in
the record a statement that shows the average electricity
prices for each state, indicating the state of Massachusetts
has electricity prices that are usually the top or the second
top in the continental United States, more than double that of
the state of Louisiana.
The Chairman. Thank you. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
May 23, 2018
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
World crude oil prices increased over 75 percent in the past year,
with some market analysts expecting prices to approach $100 per barrel
in the coming months. Elevated fuel prices are a burden on every
family, business, and farm and threaten our nation's continued economic
growth and global competitiveness. Today, we call on you to use all of
your authority to take timely action to pressure the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and cooperating countries to
increase world oil supplies in order to lower prices at the pump during
the upcoming summer driving season.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) attributes current
increases in crude oil prices to ``falling global oil inventories,
heightened market perceptions of geopolitical risks, and strong global
economic growth signals.'' Indeed, global oil supplies have been
relatively flat over the last two years, despite record U.S. crude oil
production, because of an agreement between the OPEC and non-OPEC
countries like Russia to decrease their oil production by around 1.7
million barrels per day starting in January 2017. Since the agreement
has been in place, those countries have actually reduced production by
over 2.4 million barrels per day.
Surging oil prices have made gas station fill-ups more expensive.
According to the EIA, gasoline prices will average $2.95 per gallon
this summer, 61 cents higher than last year. That means the average
U.S. household will be forced to pay $167 more in fuel costs this
summer driving season as compared to the same period last year. Diesel
fuel, essential for transporting American goods to market, will average
64 cents more per gallon than last summer, and prices could top $4 per
gallon in some states.
The impact of rising fuel prices on our economy and on family
budgets is significant and widespread. According to a recent analysis
by Goldman Sachs, the run up in oil prices will roughly cancel out the
effects from tax reductions this year, with the greatest impact on
households that can least afford it.
Last month, you said it was unacceptable for OPEC to artificially
inflate oil prices. We agree and urge you to work with our
international partners to take the following actions to make sure OPEC
does not continue to suppress world crude oil supplies, and to protect
domestic policies that help consumers:
Leverage your personal relationship with Saudi Crown
Prince Mohammad bin Salman to urge Saudi Arabia to use
their swing capacity to increase world oil supplies.
Send Energy Secretary Perry to the June 22, 2018, OPEC
meeting in Vienna, Austria to personally communicate the
importance of maintaining stable crude oil prices.
Initiate World Trade Organization dispute proceedings
against countries engaged in anticompetitive practices that
artificially inflate world oil prices.
Work with our European allies and China, which last year
surpassed the United States as the world's largest oil
importer, to put pressure on oil exporting nations.
Direct the Federal Trade Commission, Commodities Futures
Trading Commission, and the Department of Justice to
exercise vigorous oversight over oil markets.
Maximize the use of more environmentally friendly and
domestically produced biofuel alternatives by protecting
the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Abandon your Administration's stated plan to roll back
fuel economy standards that otherwise will save the average
car owner more than $6,000 over the life of the car and cut
the nation's oil consumption by over two million barrels
per day by 2025.
The current run up in world oil prices is effectively a tax on
every American family's discretionary budget, except that the money
goes to the OPEC cartel rather than the U.S. Treasury. Adding to our
constituents' pocketbook concerns is their understanding that our
nation's continued dependence on oil is at the heart of many of our
nation's greatest economic, environmental, and national security
challenges.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell Robert Menendez
Washington New Jersey
Charles Schumer Edward J. Markey
New York Massachusetts
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Graves
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Graves. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Also insert in the record--NOAA just released
their recap today for the U.S. and Global Climates for 2018. A
couple of highlights in that release, in that report: 2018 was
the fourth hottest year on record for our planet, falling
behind only 2015, 2016, and 2017; in 2018 the United States was
warmer than average, and the wettest in 35 years; in 2018 there
were 14 weather and climate disasters, each with damages over
$1 billion, total cost $91 billion. And this is a report that
was released as of today by NOAA. And we want that entered into
the record, as well.
Mr. Bishop. Are you asking for objections?
The Chairman. Without objections, I hope.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
Just now, NOAA released their recap for U.S. and global climate for
2018. A couple highlights from this report:
2018 was the 4th hottest year on record for our planet,
falling behind only 2015, 2016, and 2017.
The 2018 Arctic sea ice extent was its second smallest
since recordkeeping began, only behind 2017.
In 2018, the United States was warmer than average, and
the wettest in 35 years.
In 2018, there were 14 weather and climate disasters each
with damages over $1 billion, total cost was $91 billion.
NOAA: 2018 was 4th Hottest Year on Record for the Globe
U.S. Experienced $14 Billion Disasters in a Warmer- and Wetter-Than-
Average Year
2018 Global Temperature and Sea Ice
For 2018, the average temperature across global land and
ocean surfaces was 1.42+F (0.79+C) above the 20th century
average. This was the fourth highest among all years in the
1880-2018 record,.behind 2016 (highest), 2015 (second
highest), and 2017 (third highest). Nine of the warmest
years have occurred since 2005, with the last 5 years
(2014-2018) ranking as the five warmest years on record.
In a separate analysis of global temperature data,
released today, NASA scientists also determined 2018 to be
the fourth warmest year on record. Analyses from the United
Kingdom Met Office and the World Meteorological
Organization ranked 2018 among the top four warmest years
on record.
Sea Ice: Average annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was
approximately 4.00 million square miles, just edging
2017,as the second smallest annual average in the 1979-2018
record. The annual Antarctic sea ice extent was 4.20
million square miles. This was the second smallest annually
averaged value on record, about 77,000 square miles larger
than the previous record set in 2017.
2018 Annual U.S. Temperature and Precipitation
Much of the contiguous U.S. was warmer than average,
particularly west of the Rockies and across the coastal
Southeast, which were characterized by much-above-average
temperatures, within their warmest 10 percent of the
record. Fourteen states across the U.S. had annual
temperatures among the 10 highest on record. Arizona:
second highest; New Mexico: third highest; and California:
fourth highest. Most of the Northern Plains and Upper
Midwest experienced near-normal temperatures. South Dakota
and Nebraska, respectively, observed annual average
temperatures 0.4+F and 0.1+F below their 20th century
averages, marking the first year since 2014 that any state
observed a temperature nominally cooler than its 20th
century average.
The 2018 nationally averaged precipitation for the
contiguous U.S. was 34.63 inches. This total was 4.69
inches above average, the wettest in the past 35 years, and
third wettest since record keeping began in 1895. The total
was largely driven by record and near-record annual
precipitation across much of the eastern United States.
Nine eastern states--Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia
and West Virginia--experienced their wettest year on
record. Much of the West and Pacific Northwest experienced
a drier than normal year.
2018 Weather Events
There were 14 weather and climate disasters with losses
each exceeding $1 billion during 2018. These disasters
included: two tropical cyclones (Hurricanes Florence and
Michael), one western wildfire disaster comprised of
several constituent fire complexes over several months,
eight instances of severe convective storms (hail, tornado,
and/or damaging winds), one large drought episode, and two
winter storms. The 14 events, in total, claimed at least
247 lives and cost $91 billion. About $73 billion of this
total was attributable to three events: Hurricanes Michael
($25 billion) and Florence ($24 billion), and the complex
of western wildfires ($24 billion).
In other notable extremes, during a 24-hour period
spanning April 14-15, 2018, a rain gauge at Waipa Garden,
near Hanalei on the Hawaiian island of Kauai, observed
49.69 inches of rainfall. This is the largest verified
amount of precipitation observed in 24 hours in the United
States. The previous record of 43 inches was set at Alvin,
Texas, in July 1979.
January 2019 U.S Temperature, Precipitation and Drought
January 2019 average temperature for the contiguous U.S.
was 32.7+F, 2.6+F above average and ranked among the
warmest third of its historical record. Near-normal
temperatures generally prevailed in the eastern half of the
country, while the West was above average for the month.
Although short-lived, a cold outbreak near the end of the
month gripped much of the Midwest and Northeast, where many
daily cold records were set.
The contiguous U.S. precipitation total for January was
2.49 inches, 0.18 inch above average. Large portions of the
Northeast recorded much-above-average precipitation. Rhode
Island and Vermont each had their eighth wettest January on
record. This was the sixth consecutive month with
nationally averaged precipitation categorized as above
average or much above average.
According to the January 29 U.S. Drought Monitor report,
16.5 percent of the contiguous U.S. was in drought, down
more than five percentage points since the end of December.
Drought improved across much of the Southwest and
California.
For More
A more complete summary of climate conditions and events can
be viewed at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ and http://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/
Summary of 2018 Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Events
There were 14 weather and climate disasters with losses
each exceeding $1 billion during 2018. These disasters
included: two tropical cyclones (Hurricanes Florence and
Michael), one western wildfire disaster comprised of
several constituent fire complexes over several months,
eight instances of severe convective storms (hail, tornado,
and/or damaging winds), one large drought episode, and two
winter storms.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The 14 events, in total, claimed at least 247 lives
and had total losses estimated at $91 billion. About $73
billion of this total was attributable to three events:
Hurricanes Michael ($25 billion) and Florence ($24
billion), and the complex of western wildfires ($24
billion)
2018 marked the eighth consecutive year with eight or more
billion dollar disasters, exceeding the long-term average
of 6.2 per year. This was 4th highest total number of
events, behind the years 2017 (16), 2011 (16) and 2016
(15). It was also the eighth year in the period of record
(1980-present), and seventh since 2008, with at least 10
billion-dollar disasters.
2018 also had the 4th highest total costs ($91 billion)
behind the years 2017 ($312.7 billion), 2005 ($220.8
billion) and 2012 ($128.6 billion) when adjusted for
inflation.
2018 experienced a historically damaging wildfire season
($24.0 billion), a new U.S. annual record, exceeding the
previous $18.0 billion wildfire cost record set in 2017.
______
The Chairman. Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Bishop. No, Mr. Westerman has something for the record,
too, maybe.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Westerman. While we are submitting for the record, I
would like to submit this Dilbert cartoon to the record.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Westerman. It explains the photosynthetic process.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the more
substantive submittals I have seen from the other side.
The Chairman. That one will be framed.
Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing. It is so important that we have an honest
conversation about climate change. And while Ranking Member
Bishop wondered where this is heading--obviously, it is too
early to say which policy prescriptions and solutions this
Committee may eventually support, but you have to begin with
the kind of conversations, science-based, fact-based, policy-
based that we are having in this room.
And what better way to have it than this bipartisan duo of
governors? I am struck, in listening to your testimonies, that
when honest people simply listen to the facts, listen to the
science, and try to solve problems for those they represent,
the party labels kind of melt away and we just become problem
solvers. That is refreshing.
This Committee and this Congress need to hear more of that.
This country needs to hear more of that. Because, frankly, I
think America is tired of the shrill, fact-free partisan food
fight that has tended to be what they see when we talk about
climate change. So, thank you both so much for being here.
Governors, I want to ask you about offshore drilling. You
know that the Trump administration has proposed issuing new
leases for offshore drilling that would potentially affect each
of your states. You might say that they want to make your
states' economies look a little more like my friend, Garret
Graves' economy in Louisiana, which is still reeling in many
respects from the BP oil spill.
What does new offshore drilling represent, from your
perspective? Is it a threat? What would it do to the coastal
economies of your states?
Governor Cooper. North Carolina says not off our coast. We
oppose seismic testing. We oppose offshore drilling. We have
too much invested in our tourism economy and our commercial and
recreational fishing economy and our ports. We cannot tolerate
a disaster of epic proportions which could occur.
We have continued to file comments, we have stated our
opposition, we have met with Federal authorities, and will
continue to oppose it in North Carolina, just like over 200
bipartisan local governments have passed resolutions opposing
offshore drilling off of the North Carolina coast.
Mr. Huffman. Governor Baker?
Governor Baker. It is pretty unanimous support for not
drilling off the coast of Massachusetts, as well, for many of
the same reasons. We have one of the most important fisheries
in the United States. The New Bedford scallop fishery is more
than $1 billion. I think it is the largest, from a dollar
basis, of any fishery in the United States.
We also have demonstrated that the best and biggest
opportunity, we believe, for offshore energy activity is around
Deepwater Wind. And just to put a point on that, we put our bid
out, we took the best of the bids that we got. Rhode Island
took one of the bids, Connecticut took one of the bids. And New
York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Delaware all of a sudden got
very interested in Deepwater Wind when they saw the price
points on the procurement that we had negotiated.
And the Federal Government, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, put a series of Federal leases out on Federal
waters to see what kind of bids they would get on those, and
they got tremendous bids on that. And I think if we are looking
for a way to grow energy resources on the East Coast, my view
would be let's do the Deepwater Wind, which I believe has huge
potential.
But the tourism industry, the fishery industry, there are a
lot of really good reasons not to be doing offshore drilling
off the coast----
Mr. Huffman. We have never heard of a catastrophic wind
spill off our coast.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huffman. So, that seems like a prudent course.
Governor Baker, you referred a little bit to this when you
talked about climate change impact on your fisheries, and this
is something you do very much have in common with Louisiana.
You have a thriving and very vibrant commercial fishing
industry.
But I understand that the Gulf of Maine is one of these hot
spots for ocean warming. It is warming much faster than most
other parts of the ocean. Could you speak to what that is doing
to the movement of these fish that have historically been
there, how that might impact the seafood industry that you
represent, and coastal fishing communities?
Governor Baker. Well, if you think particularly about cod
and lobster, which are probably two commercial fishing
industries that are as identified with Massachusetts and Maine
as any you are going to find--in fact, there is a cod that is
actually hanging on the wall in our State House of
Representatives chamber, because that is considered to be kind
of the----
Mr. Huffman. Sacred.
Governor Baker. Yes, exactly. And that cod fishery is
moving north. And the lobster fishery is moving north, as well.
We are all very concerned that, as the water continues to warm
in the Gulf of Maine, it could have huge implications for the
shellfish industry, as well.
It is a very big problem, and it is one that you don't have
to project out. It is already happening, and it is there, and
you can see it in the data. And you can see it when you talk to
any of the folks who are part of those fishing communities.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you both for your leadership. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I want to thank the
panelists, both----
The Chairman. Mr. Lowenthal, I just want to be respectful
of the governor's time. We probably have him for the rest of my
colleagues--they are gracious enough for an additional 10
minutes. Maybe if we can--and then we will have to end at that
point.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I apologize----
Dr. Lowenthal. In my 10 seconds, I would like to talk about
the speed by which we move toward zero carbon economies. In
your experience, and you both have stated in your testimony
that you set targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Can
you share with us some of your thoughts about what we can do at
the Federal level in setting targets? And what are the
obstacles you received, or you found in doing this? How far can
we go?
Because I am leaning toward what is the balance between a
regulatory approach and an incentive, market-driven approach?
Can they complement each other? Or should we just have one
versus the other?
Governor Cooper. We have set a goal in North Carolina of a
40 percent reduction by the year 2025. And one thing we know,
it is going to take a balanced approach. For example, our
renewable portfolio standard, we are making requirements of our
utilities to increase their renewable energy production, while
at the same time we are doing things to encourage zero-emission
vehicles, energy efficiency. I mean it has to be a combination
of all of the above.
One thing I do know is that the United States needs to be a
world leader again in this issue. And anything that you can do
from a Federal perspective to make that happen, we would
appreciate it. Our 20-state Climate Alliance represents about
47 percent of the population of the United States, and a little
over half of the gross domestic product. So, we do have a
strong voice that we want the United States to be a leader in
this again. And anything that you can do, legislatively from
your bully pulpit to make that happen is greatly appreciated.
It is absolutely necessary.
Governor Baker. And I would just say a couple things. One
is I do think the most important thing is to establish long-
term goals and objectives, because that helps the private
sector plan. The second thing I would say is that the goals and
objectives can vary from region to region. And I think that,
back to the Louisiana versus Massachusetts issue, that is a
legitimate issue.
The regional greenhouse gas coalition that we put together
with the northeastern states around electricity and energy
production has been incredibly effective at reducing greenhouse
gases through energy production.
And we are currently talking to the same states about doing
something in transportation, which I believe will have similar
implications for nudging people and encouraging people to move
to zero-emission-type vehicles over time. And as I said in my
remarks before, our economy has continued to perform, even as
our actual energy use has stayed completely flat, and our
greenhouse gas emissions have gone down.
I think one of the things that is important here is, we
have created state-based incentives to encourage our utilities
and to encourage our businesses to head in this direction. And
we have about 100,000 jobs now in Massachusetts that are
related to the green economy, getting back to the point that
Governor Cooper made previously, which is even in Massachusetts
the solar industry has been very successful at finding a path
forward.
And we are now pairing solar investments with storage, and
that is another area where the Federal Government can play a
big role. I mean storage has tremendous potential, and it has
tremendous potential on both price and on environmental issues.
The time we typically burn the most environmentally
dangerous fuels at the highest price is when it is really cold
out, or really hot out, and we are paying a ton for what we
get, and most of the time it is our most environmentally
dangerous sources. And I think storage is a big opportunity to
do something about that, and that is a place where the Feds
could really play a big role.
Dr. Lowenthal. I just want to say one thing. Thank you for
that. I represent the port area of Long Beach, Los Angeles. We
are the largest complex. We have reduced our greenhouse gas
effect by 80 percent and had the greatest economic growth
because of that. So, there are a lot of models out there.
The last thing is, I think that there are regional
differences. I am glad that Representative Graves mentioned it,
the difference between Louisiana and Massachusetts. You pointed
that out. I think the transition to a green economy, which we
are doing, and green energy, is going to have to deal with
that, the transition in workers and resources to different
regions. And I think it is important that he at least mentioned
it, even though I think we have differences of opinion on how
we reach that goal.
Governor Baker. I mean I have always been--Texas is a very
big oil and gas state. It also is a very big wind and solar
state. It is a big energy state. And I wonder if that is one of
the ways we could think about some of these issues, going
forward.
The Chairman. Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Governor Cooper,
Governor Baker for being here today.
Every day, when I come to work for the people of
California's Central Valley, I think about how what we do is
going to affect their lives, particularly in these rural
communities that I represent. And while it is clear as day that
climate change is real, according to the National Climate
Assessment, rural communities in particular face more challenge
obstacles responding to climate change, because they are so
highly dependent on our natural resources.
And, certainly in California, we have seen those direct
impacts, the heat waves, the fires, the droughts. And we all
know it is only going to get worse unless we do something about
it.
But my particular concern and interest--and to you,
Governor Baker, because I know that you worked in the
healthcare industry--is really the linkage between climate
change and public health. And particularly public health, how
it is going to affect our rural communities.
Governor Baker. I think the two things I would speak to on
that, the first is, obviously, the air quality issue, which
Congressman Bishop mentioned before. There are definitely air
quality issues associated with climate, and those air quality
issues translate into issues around asthma, emphysema, and
other both acute and chronic conditions that are associated
with that.
The second thing I would say with respect to the rural
piece is the rural communities generally have difficulty not
just with climate, but with access to what I would describe as
sort of modern and sort of standard operating procedure
technology that you see in other places.
I mean one of the biggest things we have been working on in
western Massachusetts, which has many hill towns and many rural
communities, is broadband, which is a really big issue, in
terms of economic development and sort of just future capacity
to support and serve the people who live in those communities,
and provide jobs and economic opportunity. And I think, in many
ways, the strategy around rural communities needs to be about a
lot of things, one of which relates to energy and the climate.
But there are a lot of things we should be doing with rural
communities, because they have very different issues that they
need to worry about.
Mr. Cox. Yes, thank you, I appreciate the comments
regarding the air quality. San Joaquin Valley is the worst air
quality basin in the Nation. And it is not getting any better.
It is such a shame that we get to see the mountains once or
twice a year, right after a nice rainfall.
And Governor Cooper, I don't know if you had----
Governor Cooper. When we, in North Carolina, forced the
Tennessee Valley Authority to significantly reduce coal-fired
plant emissions, there was a demonstrable positive effect on
public health. That matters a great deal.
And from the rural perspective, farmers are getting hit
hard by the effects of climate change. And they know it. And
you hear from them, because in North Carolina now we have made
significant state appropriation to get some immediate help to
our farmers, many of them hit by flood after flood, storm after
storm, who are now beginning to make the decision this is just
not worth it. It is not worth it to be in this business. That
should be a frightening result, not only for my state, but for
the rest of the country and the world, for that matter.
Mr. Cox. Amen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, and to the governors, our
appreciation. Thank you very much for your testimony. Members
have up to 3 days to submit questions that we will forward to
you. And if you would be gracious enough to respond to them,
particularly the Members that didn't have an opportunity today
to ask questions or make comments and have a dialogue with you.
Governor Baker. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Can I just say one last thing? I will be
actually asking some questions, as well, to you, specifically
on Mr. Huffman's response or questions on offshore drilling,
that if you think the governors or the states have a right or
at least a say on what happens in Federal waters off your
shores.
And if your answer is yes, then I am going to wonder why my
governor doesn't have a right and a say on Federal lands within
my state. Anything short of that is hypocritical, and that
issue is something that is the jurisdiction of our Committee.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, governors.
Governor Baker. Thank you, I appreciate it.
The Chairman. And we very much appreciate it and thank you
for initiating this very important discussion and solution
seeking here in this Committee.
With that, let me invite the second panel up and we will
begin then. And I will begin the questioning with the Members
that didn't have an opportunity for the second panel. OK,
senior Members?
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Let me resume the meeting and welcome the
second panel. Let me introduce the second panel.
We have Ms. Elizabeth Yeampierre, the Executive Director of
UPROSE; Ms. Nadia Nazar, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director
of Zero Hour Movement; Dr. Kim Cobb, Professor of Earth &
Atmospheric Sciences and the Director of the Global Change
Program at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Ms. Paula
DiPerna, Special Advisor, CDP North America; Reverend Lennox
Yearwood, President and CEO of Hip Hop Caucus; Mr. Derrick
Hollie, President of Reaching America; and Dr. Judith Curry,
President of Climate Forecast Applications Network.
As with the first panel, all statements are limited to 5
minutes. Your entire statement will be part of the hearing
record.
I explained the lights. Yellow means you have 1 minute.
Red--for the sake of everybody having their questions and
additional time to engage with the witnesses today, we would
hope that you would stop at that point.
Let me begin with Ms. Nazar. Your 5 minutes--thank you for
being here. I appreciate it, and I am looking forward to your
comments and your perspective.
STATEMENT OF NADIA NAZAR, CO-FOUNDER, CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AND ART DIRECTOR, ZERO HOUR MOVEMENT; CO-ORGANIZER OF THE YOUTH
CLIMATE MARCH, PERRY HALL, MARYLAND
Ms. Nazar. Thank you for inviting me to be here today. I
would first like to acknowledge that we are on the land of the
Piscataway Indian Nation, an indigenous tribe. My name is Nadia
Nazar. I am 16 years old, and I am a junior in high school in
Baltimore, Maryland. I am an artist and environmentalist. I
have dedicated my time and efforts to the community and animals
on this planet since I was 12 years old. I am a founder of the
youth-led climate organization Zero Hour.
We say this is Zero Hour because this is zero hour to act
on climate change. In fact, Zero Hour will soon launch a
nationwide campaign for youth to educate their peers about
climate justice.
Climate change has already impacted my future. Scientists
say we will be at irreversible climate chaos by the year 2030
if we don't drastically reduce our emissions right now. I will
be 28 years old in 2030.
Our world is already experiencing the impacts of global
warming, and living conditions will only get closer and closer
to the extremes. Humanity has pushed this planet to the edge.
And, from my view, it seems that few in the policy and
political world are paying attention to the consequences of our
actions over the generations.
The climate crisis exasperates problems that are already
prevalent, especially in developing nations. Clean water, a
vital element to life, is becoming even more scarce. Extreme
weather and natural disasters are now the norm, creating new
crises against vulnerable populations.
The United States is historically the largest emitter of
greenhouse gases. But those who are facing the most severe
consequences are the people in developing countries and those
in lower-income communities. People in poverty have less access
to resources needed to survive when climate extremes take
place.
Marine life, such as sea turtles and whales and other
species are facing a mass extinction, because of the warmer
ocean waters that we humans have caused. My community in
Baltimore depends on the Chesapeake Bay. These warming waters
will not only harm future generations of my community, but it
will also harm generations around the world that rely on bodies
of water for their livelihoods.
It seems here in Washington the policy makers have for far
too long put the interests of fossil fuel corporations and
other carbon-emitting industries over the health and prosperity
of the people, the wildlife, and this planet. The lives of my
generation have been disregarded for far too long.
You should put the interests of your future generations
first, not just because it is the right thing to do, but
because many of us have the right to vote in just a couple of
years. We care about clean air and clean water, and we will be
voting for those who want to address climate change head on.
Some of my friends say they don't want to have children,
because they are worried about the kind of lives they would
have to live on a warming planet. In the future, asthma rates
will be higher, there will be less access to food, and more
extreme natural disasters in weather will occur, all due to
climate change.
Climate change not only threatens the future of my
generation, but it continues to displace and kill people. My
family in Kerala, India experienced the floods that occurred
there this past summer. These floods displaced approximately
800,000 people and killed 483 people. Around the same time my
friends in Ellicott City, Maryland experienced floods that
caused landslides and infrastructural damage in a historical
city.
Climate change has been happening. Climate change is
happening. Climate change will continue to happen. Climate
change is my future, unless you do something about it right
now. My generation includes your children and your
grandchildren.
I see climate change as an issue that connects everyone and
everything on our planet. This is not just about changes in the
weather. It is about these changes that will impact and harm
populations all around the world. If there is no food because
plants can't grow due to extreme drought, that can cause war.
And the most vulnerable populations oppressed by racism, the
patriarchy, colonialism, and more will be the ones who suffer.
These are the people who are so often left out of
conversations, conversations about the quality of the air and
water, about energy, and about how we treat this land. We at
Zero Hour believe that not only have the voices of the Nation's
youth been ignored, but others, as well: women, people of
color, indigenous communities, and some of our most vulnerable
populations.
How can we progress toward an equal and equitable society
of justice if we can't listen to those who make up our country?
I believe that everyone must work together, united and with
compassion, on this issue. Those who hold the most power and
influence in our society should work with those working in our
local communities. I ask of you, Congress, to work with the
grass roots climate movement, including the youth, and listen
to them in order to bring sustainable change swiftly in time
for my generation and I to be able to enjoy life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nadia Nazar, Co-Founder, Zero Hour Movement
Hello, my name is Nadia Nazar. I am 16 years old and I am currently
a junior in high school. My SATs are in 2 months, and even though I'm
swamped with my academic studies and obligations, climate change is so
important to me that I'm here to talk to you about this crisis and the
impact it will have on me and my peers' future. I need your help to
solve this crisis that is taking away my future.
I live near Baltimore, Maryland. I was born and raised there. Both
of my parents are immigrants from Kerala, India. I have been surrounded
by nature for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure you have too. My
mother is a marine biologist and every year she would take me to the
National Aquarium. I would stare at the stingrays, sharks, turtles,
jellyfish, and seahorses as they swam by my tiny self. The beauty of
life in the ocean was absolutely mesmerizing. As I got older, people
would tell me about how humans kill these animals. I'd always wonder
why, and I still do.
I have been studying climate since I was in the 8th grade and I
have become increasingly troubled by the dangerous impact of climate
change to people, wildlife, and the planet.
That is why I co-founded Zero Hour, a youth-led organization, with
three friends online. We were youth who just wanted a livable planet.
This organization became Zero Hour, a youth led climate organization.
We organized the Youth Climate March on July 21, 2018. We had a Youth
Climate Lobby Day, where 180 youth from across the country lobbied for
the Zero Hour Platform and the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge. We also had
a Youth Climate Art Festival where we brought together art, music, and
climate action. I love my work with Zero Hour because we push for
change on all levels. Change starts from the ground up; we must work
locally, nationally, and globally. One of the key aspects of Zero
Hour's platform is that it provides a variety of solutions
systematically, and for individuals. Climate change is an issue that
needs to be fought on a global and at a household level in order to
achieve a livable planet.
Zero Hour will soon be launching a campaign that will educate youth
across the country about climate justice and how systems of oppression
intersect with the climate crisis.
I am the Co-Executive and Art Director of Zero Hour. I wake up
early to go to school. Send out e-mails on the school bus, during
lunch, and on the school bus home. I do my homework and then work for
Zero Hour for hours. I stay up till 1 a.m. almost every night, sometime
3 a.m., doing calls, e-mails, and homework for my AP classes. That's
how important this issue is to me.
This lifestyle is something I'd never imagine myself pursuing. I
always saw myself having a normal high school experience with my
friends. But I had to act on climate because it just didn't seem many
of the adults were. We are spending our teenage years, which you only
have once, are being spent organizing for something we didn't choose to
happen to us. None of us wanted this burden to be passed down onto us.
Why do we have to clean up the mess that past generations, and YOUR
GENERATION, has left us?
People always ask if I have hope. As a young climate activist,
people look to youth like me and see hope. Every time that happens I
lose hope, because the adults are looking for us to solve the problem.
But how can we solve it if many people doing nothing. My hope is equal
to the time we have left. We have such little time left, so we must act
upon that hope, not just stare at it ignorantly from a distance. Adults
are glad that we are taking action, but we need YOU adults to take
action too. We, the youth, need everyone to act in order to solve
climate change, before it is too late.
According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change report, that time is in 11 years. We have until 2030 to kick our
addiction to fossil fuels if we want to have a chance at keeping
warming below 1.5C. I will be 28 years old in 2030. The rest of my
life, then, will depend on the decisions we make today. As the latest
National Climate Assessment shows, I've already lived my whole life in
a changed climate.
My peers have similar worries.
Youth all over the world have held strikes from school to bring
attention to climate change, and its effect on my generation. On March
15, youth from all across the United States will be on strike to
protest and demand climate action. Specifically, Zero Hour and the
youth striking will be asking you, Members of Congress, to support the
Green New Deal and act on climate. Please, listen to the youth of this
country.
Climate change may not have affected you personally yet, but many
individuals all around the world are already coping with the effects
from the suffocating and deadly wildfires in California to the massive
flooding from the most vicious hurricanes our United States has ever
seen.
The magnitudes of natural disasters will only continue to increase
as climate change grows stronger. There will be more floods. Deserts
will be drier. This past summer's heatwave has already shown that
summer is getting hotter. These irregular weather patterns are from the
changing climate. Climate is different than weather, but climate has a
significant impact on the weather.
Here are some more natural disasters from just the past 3 years:
Nov. 8, 2018 Paradise, CA Camp Fire 79
Sept. 13, 2018 Carolinas Hurricane 42+
Florence
Sept. 9, 2018 Guam, Marshall Super Typhoon 69+
Islands, Mangkhut
Philippines, and
southern China
July 23, 2018 Redding California The Carr Fire 8/1,604 homes
destroyed
July, 2018 Japan Japan Flooding 122+
and Mudslides
May 2, 2018 Western and Northern India Dust Storms 125+
India
Jan. 9, 2018 Southern California Montecito 21/129 homes
Mudslides destroyed
Aug. 14, 2018 Sierra Leone, West Sierra Leone 1000+
Africa floods and
landslides
Aug. 17, 2017 Houston, Texas Hurricane Harvey 68
Aug. 30, 2017 Hurricane Irma 52
July 2017 Indian Subcontinent 2017 South Asian 1,300+
floods
Sept. 16, 2017 Puerto Rico and Hurricane Maria 2,975
Virgin Islands
Jan. 23, 2016 U.S. Northeast Winter Storm 49
Jonas
Sept. 28, 2016 Atlantic Ocean Hurricane Matthew 603
Systems of oppression have magnified the effects of climate change.
Systems including--racism, patriarchy, colonialism, homophobia,
ableism--have made the effects of climate change disproportionately
affect certain groups of people.
People of color are disproportionately incarcerated, with black
people incarcerated at more than five times the rate of white people.
Prisoners were forced to clean up toxic areas after the BP oil spill.
They're also fighting wildfires, and cleaning up after hurricanes and
floods. In the event of a natural disaster, prison protocol (in some
prisons) is to lock prisoners in their cells while the staff evacuates
the building, leaving prisoners to die if the prison is hit. Example,
when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. This past weekend, the inmates
at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn were left without heat
during the frigid temperatures of the polar vortex, that was linked to
climate change.
Often, the majority of industrial fossil fuel projects are
constructed around or near minority neighborhoods, impacting the health
of those peoples.
And climate change's impacts are even more dire in developing
countries.
Colonialism refers to control over a piece of land and its people
by a more dominant power. One example on the negative impact climate
change has with colonialism, patriarchy, and racism is the impact on
girls of color in the United States who are the missing and murdered
Indigenous girls. Fossil fuel companies hire land men to build
pipelines carrying crude oil through Indigenous lands. Some of these
men rape native girls on their land. Monica Jack, Aielah Saric-Auger,
and Cheyenne Begay are some of the Indigenous women that have been
assaulted on their land. These are just a few of the girls that were
endangered. And trans-native girls are more likely to be victim to
sexual assault by some of these men that build the pipelines. Sometimes
pipelines leak crude oil into the water source. This pollutes drinking
water for the Indigenous people.
Homophobia, the hate against the LGBTQIA community, has led
transgender people to be two times more likely to be homeless. Just
last week, many homeless people passed away due to the extremely cold
temperatures. Many homeless people don't have access to the resources
to survive when climate extremes take place.
Many people's voices in the climate crisis who make up our country
have been ignored. The Indigenous communities have been ignored. People
of color have been ignored. Women have been ignored. The LGBTQIA
community have been ignored. Disabled people have been ignored. The
Youth have been ignored. To solve climate change, we must work with the
people, the wildlife, and nature.
I was given the honor and opportunity to speak at the United
Nations for International Day of the Girl last October 11. I spoke
about climate change's effect on girls around the world. Climate
change's effects are intruding on a successful life filled with
happiness for many girls in developing countries. After natural
disasters, sexual violence in the area increase. Girls are more likely
to be raped in disaster struck areas.
I stood next to a girl from the Philippines at the International
Day of the Girl event. I will never forget her story. Her name was
Hani. Her community in the Philippines was hit with a typhoon. She lost
many things including important legal documents and more. But she also
lost her best friend.
I don't want to lose my best friend.
I don't want to lose my brother.
I don't want to lose my family in India.
I don't want to lose myself.
The youth who fight day and night for you to take action on climate
change don't want to lose out on their future. That is why we fight,
and why we will continue to fight.
One cause of climate change that many people overlook is industrial
animal agriculture. This industry has contributed to between 14.5 and
18 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.
What disappoints many other youth and I, is that there are elected
officials prioritizing money from fossil fuel corporations over the
lives of my generation. I hope you aren't one of them.
Our relentless greed, our relentless thirst for things that don't
make us happy, has taken away our connection from earth. Basic
necessities--food, shelter, air, water--have been critically endangered
because we are in a mass extinction. It is surreal that profit is being
put above the people. Adults have been compromised by greed.
Not only are these actions of these corporations hurting people,
but it is also harming the wildlife of this planet. Earth is now in the
6th mass extinction in all of history. More species are reaching
extinction. The last mass extinction was the one that killed all the
dinosaurs. Humanity's legacy on earth will be that we killed a
significant amount of species on this planet. As Elizabeth Kolbert
said, if you look closely in your backyard you can see species going
extinct at this moment. Humanity cannot survive without the
biodiversity of the environment.
I have to take an inhaler multiple times a week, sometimes multiple
times a day. Clean air is a necessity of life. How can ``Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit of Happiness'' be pursued when clean air and clean
water is harder to have?
The United States' inaction on climate change is violating my right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a citizen of the
United States.
I ask that you push your efforts into climate legislation, for the
sake of my generation. I ask that you believe in science. I ask that
you make sure the sacrificed time and efforts of the youth are not
ignored. I ask that you recognize climate justice.
I ask that you listen to my voice.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Yeampierre, Executive Director, UPROSE, the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH YEAMPIERRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPROSE,
CO-CHAIR OF THE CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
Ms. Yeampierre. Buenos dias. My name is Elizabeth
Yeampierre. I am the Co-Chair of the Climate Justice Alliance,
an inter-generational alliance of more than 68 front-line
community organizations, movement networks, and movement
support groups rooted in Indigenous, African-American, Latinx,
Asian-Pacific Islander, and poor white communities living on
the front lines of climate change, as well as the dig, burn,
drive, dump industries causing the climate crisis.
I am also Executive Director of UPROSE. It is a woman-of-
color-led inter-generational organization founded in 1966
dedicated to environmental and social justice. We are home to
the largest gathering of young people of color and climate
justice, the Climate Justice Youth Summit. We are located in
Sunset Park, Brooklyn, a diverse community of color made up
predominantly of people of color and immigrants. We have a
poverty rate of nearly 26 percent above the city average, and
far above the national average.
From a climate perspective, we are an industrial waterfront
community exposed to flooding from hurricanes and storm surges,
as was the case in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy hit.
Like climate change, the conditions of our communities are
the consequence of a long history of extraction. We share
legacies of fighting colonialism, as well as race, class, and
gender oppression, while advocating for environmental justice.
Our communities are the first and most impacted by the storms,
fires, floods, and droughts, and are disproportionately
burdened by the pollution, poverty, and systemic violence
associated with the multi-national corporations driving these
ecological crises.
Puerto Rico is the most recent and drastic example of a
land ravaged by corporate extraction, with people left to fend
for themselves after years of colonialism, austerity, and
neglect. The double disasters of Hurricanes Maria and Irma
created an opportunity for disaster capitalists to profit from
people's suffering in a time of social and economic
devastation. The same thing took place in the Gulf South for
black and indigenous communities after Hurricane Katrina.
Climate change solutions must honor human rights and
respect front-line leadership through the solutions that are
proposed.
Elsewhere, the extractive economy continues to harm entire
communities, as is the case with uranium mining in New Mexico,
which affects over 60 indigenous nations. The southwest United
States was declared a national sacrifice zone in the Federal
energy policy of the 1970s.
This means that environmental safeguards were not enforced,
thus endangering human life. Drinking water is tainted with
uranium and arsenic, and there is a high rate of cancer, heart
disease, and lung disease. Uranium mining is a key element of
nuclear energy, which is considered renewable energy in most
Federal clean energy policy initiatives.
You can understand why we do not support the use of large-
scale bio-fuel, bio-mass, mega-hydro dams, nuclear energy, or
energy derived from burning waste. They are usually developed
in our backyards, where we live, work, play, and pray, and they
do not reduce emissions at the source of extraction, only
prolonging any real solutions to the climate crisis.
To effectively tackle climate change, we must invest in a
just transition. A just transition will not be smooth, but must
be just, leaving no worker or community behind. Front-line
communities and an economic framework that moves us away from
extraction must be at the center of any effort to address
climate change.
All around the country there are examples of front-line
communities developing projects that engage in innovative
infrastructure, further control, and create jobs. Some are at
the early stages, while others are ready to be scaled up and
replicated. They will benefit more people and communities if
there is political will, public investment, and incentives to
do so.
The fossil fuel industry receives millions in subsidies.
Imagine what communities are already forging comprehensive
solutions to the climate crisis could do with a reallocation of
these subsidies. My organization, UPROSE, just recently
partnered with the New York City Economic Development
Corporation, Solar One, and Co-Op Power, to create the first
community-owned solar cooperative in the state of New York.
On a larger scale, we advocate for turning the area's
industrial sector into an economic engine able to build for the
region's climate adaptation future. Offshore wind alone can
deliver power to New York City, displacing the need for dirty
power plants. But just as importantly, it would position the
city at the center of this emerging industry, driving local
economic development.
For years in another part of the country, the residents of
Highland Park, Michigan suffered high energy costs and
blackouts, along with massive flooding. When the municipality
was in a financial crisis, the local energy company repossessed
1,000 street lights, leaving the residents in the dark.
Soulardarity, a local environmental justice group and a CJA
member stepped in and designed a system for installing solar
power lights.
Soulardarity created a bulk purchasing program that is
training residents in the solar installation and
weatherization, readying them to step into clean energy jobs.
They are using education and organizing to literally make light
of a dark situation.
Front-line communities know what is at stake. The question
is, will legislation aid our communities' future survival, or
hinder it? I hope, for all of our sakes, it will be the former.
The bottom line is that our communities are not sacrifice
zones, and they have been for too many years. Gracias.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Yeampierre follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Yeampierre, Executive Director, UPROSE;
Co-Chair, Climate Justice Alliance
My name is Elizabeth Yeampierre. I am Co-Chair of the Climate
Justice Alliance, a national organization that links 68 organizations
across the United States and Puerto Rico. I am also Executive Director
of UPROSE, Brooklyn's oldest Latinx organization. Founded in 1966,
UPROSE is dedicated to environmental and social justice and part of the
national frontline climate justice movement representing those most
impacted by climate change.
UPROSE is located in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. It is a diverse
working-class community where over half of the residents are People of
color/immigrants, mostly of Latinx descent. We have a poverty rate of
nearly 26 percent, above the city average and far above the national
average. Housing affordability is a major crisis, with nearly half of
my neighbors being rent-burdened and the city undergoing extreme
gentrification that will only worsen with the expansion of Opportunity
Zones.
From a climate perspective, we are an industrial waterfront
community exposed to flooding from hurricanes and storm surges, as was
the case in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy hit. As a poor and working-class
community, housing displacement and disruption of services due to
storms and other severe weather affect our people much more acutely
compared to residents of affluent communities with more resources.
Further, on a day-to-day basis, disproportionate exposure to fossil
fuel pollution and other climate change impacts, such as extreme heat,
is built into New York City's policy fabric, transportation planning,
and economic development, all arising from racism that compounds the
pollution impacts with socioeconomic inequities. The oppression of low
wages and underfunded schools in our community is exacerbated by high
rates of asthma and other pulmonary diseases, heart disease, and lung
cancer, which further restrict my neighbors' economic and educational
potential.
the climate justice alliance
The Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) is an alliance of more than 68
frontline community organizations, movement networks, and movement
support groups rooted in Indigenous, African American, Latinx, Asian
Pacific Islander, and poor white communities living on the frontlines
of climate change, as well as the ``dig, burn, drive, dump'' industries
causing this crisis.
Like climate change, the conditions of our communities are the
consequence of a long history of extraction. We share legacies of
fighting colonialism, as well as race, class and gender oppression,
while advocating for environmental justice. And we share vision, values
and principles that guide our environmental, economic, and social
justice organizing. Our communities are the first and most impacted by
the storms, fires, floods and droughts, and are disproportionately
burdened by the pollution, poverty and systemic violence associated
with the multi-national corporations driving these ecological crises.
Puerto Rico is the most recent and drastic example of a land
ravaged by corporate extraction, with people left to fend for
themselves after years of colonialism, austerity and neglect. The
double disaster of Hurricanes Irma and Maria created an opportunity for
``disaster capitalists'' to profit from people's suffering in a time of
social and economic devastation. The same thing took place in the Gulf
South for Black and Indigenous communities after Hurricane Katrina.
Climate change solutions must honor human rights and respect frontline
leadership through the solutions that are proposed.
Elsewhere, the extractive economy continues to harm entire
communities, as is the case with uranium mining in New Mexico, which
affects over 60 Indigenous nations. The southwest United States was
declared a ``National Sacrifice Zone'' in the Federal Energy Policy of
the 1970s. This means that environmental safeguards were not enforced,
thus endangering human life. Drinking water is tainted with uranium and
arsenic and there is a high rate of cancer, heart disease, and lung
disease. Uranium mining is a key element of nuclear energy which is
considered renewable in most Federal clean energy policy initiatives.
You can understand why we do not support the use of large-scale
biofuel, biomass, mega-hydro dams, nuclear energy, or energy derived
from burning waste. They are usually developed in our backyards, where
we live, work, play and pray and they do not reduce emissions at the
source of extraction, only prolonging any real solutions to the climate
crisis.
toward a just transition
To effectively tackle climate change, we must invest in a Just
Transition toward specifically local, living economies of scale.
Just Transition is a vision-led, unifying and place-based set of
principles, processes and practices that build economic and political
power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy--
not just for workers but for whole communities. This means approaching
production and consumption cycles holistically and waste-free.
This transition away from fossil fuels itself must be just and
equitable, redressing past harms and creating new relationships of
power for the future through reparations, living wage jobs and economic
and social development that aims to address historical harm and
discrimination. If the process of transition is not just, the outcome
will never be.
It is clear from the scientific data that we must move away from
fossil fuels. It will not be smooth but the transition must be just,
leaving no worker or community behind. Frontline communities and an
economic framework that moves us away from extraction must be at the
center of any effort to address climate change.
Climate change demands that we live with what we need instead of
what we want. Everywhere people are learning to do this, and frontline
communities are leading the way and reclaiming their traditions.
new york's first solar cooperative is community owned
All around the country there are examples of frontline communities
developing projects that engage innovative infrastructure, further
local control, and create jobs. Some of these projects are in the early
stages. Others are ready to be scaled up and replicated in ways that
will benefit more people and communities if there is public investment
and incentives to do so. The fossil fuel industry receives millions in
subsidies. Imagine what communities already forging comprehensive
solutions to the climate crises could do with the reallocation of those
subsidies.
My organization, UPROSE, partnered with the NYC Economic
Development Corporation, Solar One and Co-op Power to create the first
community-owned solar cooperative in New York State.
On a larger scale, we advocate for turning the area's industrial
sector into an economic engine able to build for the region's climate-
adaptable future. Offshore wind alone can deliver power directly to New
York City, displacing the need for dirty power plants. But just as
importantly, it would position the city at the center of this emerging
industry, driving local economic development.
This industry will revitalize our working waterfront and create
thousands of blue-collar industrial jobs. The Department of Energy
expects 40,000 new jobs in the sector by 2030. Those jobs will be
located wherever the ports and the work force are. This could move our
region away from the fossil fuels that threaten our climate while
blunting the forces of real estate speculation that are disrupting our
communities. An offshore wind hub in Sunset Park would serve as an
innovative model of economic development that would transform our
energy system and provide pathways to a middle class income for
workers. It would act as a bulwark against extractive real estate
interests and position the city as a leader on climate change solutions
at the national level. From the very local to a much larger scale,
frontline communities like ours are working to operationalize creative
solutions that address local needs.
educating for the future, solving problems now
For years, in another part of the country, the residents of
Highland Park, Michigan suffered high energy costs and energy blackouts
along with massive flooding. When the municipality was in financial
crisis, the local energy company repossessed 1,000 streetlights,
leaving the residents in the dark. Soulardarity, a local environmental
justice group and a CJA member, stepped in and designed a system for
installing solar-powered street lights. They have installed 7 solar-
powered streetlights and created a proposal for the City to finance and
install a full 1,000, re-lighting the streets and providing affordable
internet and civic engagement tools. Building on its commitment to
energy democracy and community empowerment, Soulardarity created a bulk
purchasing program that is training residents in solar installation and
weatherization, readying them to step into clean energy jobs as they
become available, and has deployed $30,000 of solar lighting and other
products in Highland Park and neighboring communities. They are using
education and organizing to literally make light of a dark situation.
The group is shortly releasing a Blueprint for Energy Democracy, a plan
to make Highland Park a global model of sustainability and democracy,
and collaborating with a diverse array of stakeholders to advance the
plan, and advocating for state and Federal actors to provide financial
resources and technical assistance to bolster community plans.
expanding solar while growing community jobs
In Chicago, CJA member Little Village Environmental Justice
Organization (LVEJO), which is based in a low-income, mainly Latinx
immigrant neighborhood, worked hard to directly represent environmental
justice communities in the state of Illinois' Future Energy Jobs Act
(FEJA) by insisting that it focus on health, environmental justice, and
economic justice opportunities. With unprecedented funds directed to
low-income environmental justice communities, LVEJO developed access to
a solar panel training program delivered in communities across the
state that prioritizes community members that were formerly
incarcerated or had aged out of the foster care system. FEJA programs
were designed to bring the benefits of solar energy to low-income
communities, whether or not they are able to install the panels on
their homes, including energy sovereignty opportunities for low-income
communities to build ownership of solar systems. The group is also at
the center of a plan to repurpose a closed down coal-fired power plant,
with the goal of using it for community-run projects.
These are but a few examples of how our communities are developing
concrete projects to address the climate crisis. There are many more
that look at the different tipping points and sectors needed to halt
the climate crisis and if we want to ensure a healthy future for future
generations we must start prioritizing and scaling them now.
following the lead of the frontlines and acting now
Today, we are at the tipping point with little time to waste. We
urgently need a Just Transition to be centered in community-driven
Climate Action Bills, coupled with a commitment to Just Recovery and
Rebuilding Infrastructure. Simply put, we must have legislation that
clearly prioritizes investments in scalable projects like those
mentioned today that reduce emissions at the source and address the
historical harm and discrimination communities like mine have faced for
centuries.
Investment in just development plans around the Nation through
block grants earmarked for community-based organizations and community
development funds would go even further to repair historical harm and
center community innovation for water, land, air, and energy resources,
in both urban and rural areas, as well as Indian Country.
Frontline communities know what is at stake, the question is: will
legislation aid our communities' future survival or hinder it. I hope
for all our sakes it will be the former.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Haaland to Ms. Elizabeth
Yeampierre, Executive Director, UPROSE
Ms. Yeampierre did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. Can you share with us some of the disproportionate
impacts climate change has on underserved and underrepresented
communities? Are there ways that climate change impacts indigenous
peoples to an even greater extent?
Question 2. The Tohono O'odham Nation is having an especially
difficult time securing the Federal funding it needs to respond to the
devastation of Hurricane Rosa. This systemic breakdown follows a
pattern set by Hurricanes Katrina, Maria, and so many others, in which
underrepresented groups bear the brunt of natural disasters.
2a. Can you speak to the financial burden climate change puts on
underserved communities?
2b. Why it is so important that the government work to fund
adaptation, mitigation, and response efforts in these areas?
Question 3. We've seen the dire reports from the international
scientific community, and even from the current Administration about
the need to act on climate to avoid disastrous long-term outcomes.
However, it's important we recognize that some communities are reliant
on fossil fuel investments as a revenue base for their schools,
hospitals and other essential services. How can we invest in those
communities to ensure they are not left behind in a clean energy
transition?
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
We will turn Kim Cobb.
STATEMENT OF KIM COBB, GEORGIA POWER CHAIR, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL
CHANGE PROGRAM, ADVANCE PROFESSOR, EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC
SCIENCES, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Dr. Cobb. Thank you. I thank Chairman Grijalva and Ranking
Member Bishop for allowing me to contribute to this important
conversation about our Nation's future. My message today is
simple: the data and the science could not be more clear. It is
time to act.
There are many no-regrets, win-win actions to reduce the
growing cost of climate change. But we are going to have to
come together to form new alliances in our home communities,
across our states, and, yes, even in Washington.
I know I speak for thousands of my colleagues when I say
that scientists all over the country are willing and eager to
assist policy makers and the design of data-driven defenses
against both current and future climate change impacts.
As a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology for
the last 15 years, my research uses samples collected from the
remote Pacific to reconstruct past climate variations. Our
records are consistent with countless other records indicating
that the rate in magnitude of recent climate change dwarf
natural climate variability over the last millennium.
I love my work, but 3 years ago, I witnessed something that
would change my life forever. In 2015, we received funding from
the National Science Foundation for a series of field
expeditions to document the evolution of a strong El Nino event
projected that winter. I had waited 15 years for this
scientific opportunity. However, little did I know that warming
ocean temperatures 6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than average
would kill up to 90 percent of the coral at our study site. And
I had a front-row seat to that carnage.
And 2016 would go on to become the worst global-scale coral
bleaching and mortality event on record, and the warmest year
on our planet since records began. Personally, 2016 was my
wake-up call. Unfortunately, the last years brought a number of
devastating wake-up calls much closer to home. Hurricanes
Harvey, Lane, and Florence decimated entire communities,
delivered record-breaking rainfall, while Hurricanes Maria and
Michael decimated entire communities with their force,
including many in my home state of Georgia.
The National Climate Assessment, released this last
November by a consortium of 13 Federal agencies, documents how
climate change loads the dice in favor of extreme precipitation
events, and how warmer oceans fuel larger tropical storms. On
the other side of the country, record-breaking wildfires raged
across California, linked to prolonged drought and warmer
temperatures.
The economic toll of these disasters can be measured in the
hundreds of billions of dollars. However, their real toll, the
vast human suffering left in their wake, is immeasurable. And
beyond these deadly extremes, a host of additional climate
change impacts represent a growing threat to ecosystems and
communities alike. Sea levels are rising with up to 6 feet of
global sea level rise projected this century. Drought threatens
water supplies across the western United States with no end in
sight. The oceans are becoming more acidic, as excess carbon
dioxide reacts with sea water. And, as of today, 2018 will
officially take its place as the fourth warmest year on record
behind 2016, 2017, and 2015.
Climate change impacts are now detectable all across
America, and they will get worse. That is the bad news. I am
sure you are ready for some good news, and there is plenty to
go around.
The good news is that science can help inform measures to
help protect communities, as well as our oceans, forests,
parks, waterways, and wildlife from the most devastating
impacts of climate change. Here, early action is essential to
the success of these approaches delivering vast returns on
investment.
Many jurisdictions, from the local to the Federal, have
developed a suite of climate adaptation measures informed by
rigorous science, stakeholder engagement, and cost benefit
analysis. But we must accelerate these efforts. Toward that
end, a national climate assessment provides an actionable
blueprint for such adaptive measures, including an in-depth
assessment of climate impacts on ecosystem structure, function,
and services.
The other good news is that it is not too late to avoid the
most damaging impacts of future climate change. We have the
tools we need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And in doing so, we will enjoy cleaner water, cleaner air, and
healthier communities.
The rapid expansion of renewable energy across the Nation
demonstrates a strong appetite for carbon-free, clean power.
Even so, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were up 3 percent last
year.
The bottom line is that we are running out of time.
Comprehensive Federal policies are needed to speed the
transition to low-carbon energy sources. Top on the list must
be a price on carbon to reflect the true cost of continued
fossil fuel emissions and to incentivize consumers, companies,
and the market to find the cheapest, most effective means of
reducing emissions.
With or without a price on carbon, increased energy
efficiency is a win-win strategy that can deliver energy cost
savings, while reducing harmful air pollution.
Last, there is a strong case you made that we can deploy
our vast forests, grasslands, and coastal marshes in service to
natural carbon sequestration. At its most basic level, this
means designing strategies to safeguard these environments with
their rich carbon reserves in the face of continued climate
change.
As a climate scientist, I have to wonder how bad will it
have to get for us to recognize that climate change represents
a clear and present threat, and to act decisively to protect
ourselves. I am heartened by recent polls showing that nearly
three in four Americans are concerned about global warming and
support a range of policy options to address it. As a mother to
four young children, I am inspired by the sea of young people
demanding that we not squander their chances for climate
stability.
I urge this Committee to capitalize on the vast trove of
climate science findings by: (1) protecting our natural
resources and the communities that depend on them from known
climate change impacts; and (2) using Federal lands to advance
climate solutions, rather than expanding the scope of the
climate change problem. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cobb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kim Cobb, Professor, Earth & Atmospheric
Sciences; Director, Global Change Program, Georgia Institute of
Technology
I thank Chairman Grijalva and the rest of the Committee for
allowing me to contribute to this important conversation about our
Nation's climate future. My message today is simple: there are many no-
regrets, win-win actions to reduce the growing costs of climate change,
but we're going to have to come together to form new alliances, in our
home communities, across our states, and yes, even in Washington. I
know I speak for thousands of my colleagues when I say that scientists
all over the country are willing and eager to assist policy makers in
the design of data-driven defenses against both current and future
climate impacts. It is not too late to alter the damaging trajectory of
inaction. There are plenty of prizes for early, meaningful action.
These include cleaner air and water, healthier, more resilient
communities, a competitive edge in the low-carbon 21st century global
economy, and the mantle of global leadership on the challenge of our
time. I'm confident that through respectful discourse, we will
recognize that our shared values unite us in seeking a better tomorrow
for all Americans.
My own journey began 20 years ago, at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, where my research focused on extracting records of past
climate variability and change from far-flung, remote islands in the
deep tropics. At the time, I never thought that I would ever find
myself testifying to Congress about climate change. I was a passionate
and dedicated student of our earth system, eventually settling into a
rewarding academic career at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where
I teach courses on energy and climate change, and manage a lab full of
instruments and student research assistants. Over the last 15 years, I
have published over 60 peer-reviewed articles, been awarded a
Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, and am
currently a Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Together with my students
and collaborators, I work to advance the tools and approaches of in my
chosen field of paleoclimatology, in part by generating more and better
records of past climate change. Such records help us peer into the
distant future by quantifying the response of the climate system to
past climate forcings, including greenhouse gases. I've led over 20
expeditions to the middle of the Pacific, SCUBA-diving on abundant,
diverse reefs where the largest corals are 10-ft tall and contain 100
or more years of past climate data.
But 3 years ago, I witnessed something that would change my
personal and professional life forever.
In 2015, we received funding from the National Science Foundation
for a series of field expeditions to document the evolution of a strong
El Nino event projected that winter. I was giddy with the expectation
of scientific discovery. After all, I had waited 15 years for this
opportunity. What I could not have predicted was that ocean
temperatures 6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than usual would kill up to 90
percent of the coral at our study site over 9 months. And I got a
front-row seat to the carnage. By early 2016, even the largest corals
would succumb--corals that had lived through record-breaking El Nino's
in 1983 and 1998. And the carnage was global--scientists report that by
2017, up to 75 percent of global reefs had experienced bleaching-level
heat stress and for up to 30 percent of reefs, heat stress reached
lethal levels (Eakin et al., 2018). Reefs in Hawaii and Florida were
not spared. It will take decades for our study site to recover, but
with ocean warming accelerating (Cheng et al., 2019), we know that the
next ocean heat wave is lurking around the corner. 2016 was my wake-up
call.
Unfortunately, 2017 and 2018 brought a number of devastating wake-
up calls much closer to home. As a physical climate scientist, I am
trained to focus on data, and their uncertainties, but let me cut to
the chase: many of the natural disasters in past years bear the
unmistakable signature of climate change. Hurricanes Harvey, Lane, and
Florence delivered record-breaking rainfall (National Weather Service)
while Hurricanes Maria and Michael decimated entire communities with
their force, including many in my home state of Georgia. The National
Climate Assessment (hereafter NCA, 2018)--released this last November--
documents how climate change loads the dice in favor of extreme
precipitation events, and how warmer oceans fuel larger tropical
storms. On the other side of the country, record-breaking wildfires
raged across California, linked to prolonged drought and warmer
temperatures (Abatzoglou and Williams, 2016). The economic toll of
these disasters can be measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
However, their real toll--the vast human suffering left in their wake--
is immeasurable.
And beyond these deadly extremes, a host of additional climate
change impacts represent a growing threat to ecosystems and communities
alike. Sea levels are rising, with 6-ft of global sea level rise
projected this century (Sweet et al., 2017; NCA, 2018). Drought
threatens water supplies across the western United States (NCA, 2018),
with no end in sight. The oceans are becoming more acidic as excess
atmospheric carbon dioxide reacts with seawater (NCA, 2018). A warming
ocean holds less oxygen, increasing the risk for deadly coastal hypoxia
events (NCA, 2018). All of these trends are expected consequences of
climate change--most through fairly straightforward physics and
chemistry--and all have been borne out by repeated sets of
observations.
The National Climate Assessment outlines the region-by-region and
sector-by-sector impacts of ongoing climate change. The report makes
clear that climate change is already impacting the lives of many
Americans, with outsize impacts to those who can least afford it. The
report singles out indigenous communities as uniquely vulnerable, given
their economic and cultural dependence on natural resources. But
there's plenty of threats to go around--America's farmers, fishermen,
coastal residents, children, the elderly, and low-income families sit
squarely in the crosshairs of climate change. As a resident of the
southeastern United States, I am particularly concerned about the high
concentration of vulnerable populations in our region, given that
studies predict a pile-on of escalating climate impacts in our region
(e.g. Hsiang et al., 2017).
Climate change also represents a major threat to national security,
a ``threat multiplier,'' in the words of a 2015 Department of Defense
report (DOD report Ref ID 8-6475571). In the last month, a new
Department of Defense report highlights the risk that current and
future climate change poses to its infrastructure (DOD report Ref ID 9-
D30BE5A). It notes that 53 installations are currently subject to
recurrent flooding, growing to 60 at risk over the next 20 years.
Climate change impacts are now detectable all across America. And
they will get worse. That's the bad news. I'm sure you're ready for
some good news, and there is plenty to go around.
The good news is that science can help inform measures to protect
communities, as well as our oceans, forests, parks, waterways, and
wildlife, from the most devastating impacts of climate change. Here,
early action is essential to success, delivering vast returns on
investment.
Many jurisdictions--from the local to the Federal level--have
developed a range of adaptation measures informed by the best science,
stakeholder engagement, and rigorous cost-benefit analysis. But the
adaptation portfolio is still spotty, and nowhere near the scale
justified by the set of well-established climate impacts. Toward that
end, The National Climate Assessment provides an actionable blueprint
for such adaptive measures, including an in-depth analysis of climate
impacts on ecosystem structure, function, and services. For example,
the report highlights a key role that our Nation's natural resources,
such as coastal wetlands, which can protect communities from rising
seas while delivering a range of other valuable ecosystem services. The
National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (https://
casc.usgs.gov) provide a mechanism to accelerate adaptation planning
and implementation to protect our Nation's natural resources and
safeguard the critical services that they provide.
And there is plenty of room for innovation and advanced technology
to assist communities in quantifying their unique risks and
vulnerabilities to specific climate-related threats. At Georgia Tech,
teams of scientists and engineers are teaming up with city and county
officials in and around Savannah, Georgia to design and deploy sensors
for monitoring water levels and air temperatures in real time, from
neighborhood to neighborhood (see https://www.sealevelsensors.org).
The other good news is that it's not too late to avoid the most
damaging impacts of future climate change. We have the tools we need to
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And in doing so, we will
enjoy cleaner water, cleaner air, and healthier communities.
The rapid expansion of renewable energy across the Nation
demonstrates a strong appetite for carbon-free, clean power on the part
of private homeowners and large utilities alike. Even so, U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions were up 3 percent last year (Rhodium Group,
2019). The bottom line is that we are running out of time.
Comprehensive Federal policies are needed to speed the transition to
low-carbon energy sources. Top on the list must be a price on carbon,
to reflect the true costs of continued fossil fuel emissions, and to
incentivize consumers, companies, and the market to find the cheapest,
most effective means of reducing emissions.
As much as we need to ramp up low-carbon energy production, we also
have a huge opportunity to dramatically reduce emissions in the near
term through energy efficiency, while delivering energy cost savings to
consumers and corporations alike. It's worth noting that efficiency
gains come with significant health benefits, largely from reduced air
pollution, and are effective even without a price on carbon. A 2018
energy efficiency scorecard by the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy (ACEEE) reports state-by-state gains in energy
efficiency, with the winners providing a wide range of policy
instruments to achieve large-scale gains. In general, southeastern
states like Georgia rank near the bottom of the list, despite high
energy burdens that leave many low-income families struggling to afford
their monthly energy bills (ACEEE, 2017). In this case, policies that
promote energy efficiency will improve living conditions for many of
the most vulnerable members of society. And of course, improved energy
efficiency will be critically important going forward, as demand for
cooling increases across many areas of the country.
I became a passionate spokesperson for energy efficiency after
Georgia Tech undergraduates showed me what could be achieved by
partnering with local businesses as part of the ``Carbon Reduction
Challenge'' (http://carbonreduction.gatech.edu). In one semester, 30
students routinely design and implement strategies to save their
organizational partners energy, simultaneously banking carbon
reductions and cost savings. During one Challenge, student teams
brought 12 million lbs of CO2 reductions to fruition, simply
by identifying low-hanging interventions to champion with their large
partner organizations. That's the CO2 equivalent of 20 homes
going 100 percent solar for 20 years, except this CO2
savings didn't cost money. It made money.
Last, there is a strong case to be made that we can deploy our vast
forests, grasslands, and coastal marshes in service to natural carbon
sequestration, in a variety of forms. At its most basic level, this
means designing strategies to preserve our mature forests, grasslands,
and wetlands, with their rich soil carbon reserves, in the face of
continued climate change.
Listening to the stories of those whose lives have already been
destroyed by climate change I have to wonder: How bad will it have to
get for us to recognize that climate change represents a clear and
present threat, and to act decisively to protect ourselves and the
natural resources that we all depend on?
As a climate scientist, I'm heartened by recent polls showing that
nearly 3 in 4 Americans are concerned about global warming, and support
a range of policy options to address it (Leiserowitz et al., 2018). 72
percent of Americans think that global warming is happening, 62 percent
understand that it is mostly human-caused, and 72 percent of Americans
think that global warming is important to them personally. On policy
options, 68 percent of Americans support a carbon tax, and 82 percent
support tax rebates for energy efficiency and solar panels. The path
forward is clear.
And as a mother to four young children, I'm heartened by the sea of
young people demanding that we not squander their chances for climate
stability.
I urge this Committee to center the robust findings of climate
science in making critical policy decisions about our Nation's natural
resources by:
1) moving to protect these resources, and the communities that
depend on them, from the suite of ongoing, well-established
climate change impacts; and
2) ensuring that our use of Federal lands is geared toward advancing
climate solutions, rather than expanding the scope of the
climate change problem.
references and resources (listed in the order that they appear)
2014-2017 coral bleaching event:
Eakin, C.M., et al., Unprecedented three years of global coral
bleaching 2014-17. Sidebar 3.1. [in State of the Climate in 2017].
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(8), S74-S75, 2018.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/analyses_guidance/
global_coral_bleaching_ 2014-17_status.php
Hughes, T.P. et al., Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of
corals in the Anthropocene. Science, 2018.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/
unprecedented-3-years -global-coral-bleaching-2014-2017
Ocean warming:
Cheng, L., et al., How fast are the oceans warming? Observational
records of ocean heat content show that ocean warming is accelerating.
Science, 363. doi: 10.1126/science.aav7619, 2019.
Hurricane records:
https://www.weather.gov/lch/2017harvey
https://www.weather.gov/mhx/Florence2018
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2018-08-28-lane-hawaii-
tropical-cyclone-rainfall-record-one-year-after-harvey
Fourth National Climate Assessment:
USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States:
Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Report-in-Brief
[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M.
Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 186 pp.
On wildfires and climate change:
Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams, Impact of anthropogenic climate
change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 2016.
Sea level rise:
Sweet, W.V., R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, J. Obeysekera, R.M. Horton, E.R.
Thieler, and C. Zervas, 2017: Global and Regional Sea Level Rise
Scenarios for the United States. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083.
NOAA/NOS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services.
Regional impacts of climate change:
Hsiang, S., et al., Estimating economic damages from climate change in
the United States. Science, 2017.
Climate Impact Lab (http://www.impactlab.org/research/estimating-
economic-damage-from-climate-change-in-the-united-states/)
DOD reports on climate change:
https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-
national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery
https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/
1547826612.pdf
Energy efficiency scorecards by state:
https://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/
u1808.pdf
Energy burdens in the low-income southeastern U.S. households:
https://aceee.org/fact-sheet/southeast-low-income-series
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for 2018:
https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018/
Climate polling results:
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-
the-american-mind-december-2018/
Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate change in the American mind: December
2018. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale
Program on Climate Change Communication, 2018.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Haaland to Dr. Kim Cobb,
Professor, School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of
Technology
Question 1. This Committee has frequently discussed and will
continue to discuss wildfire safety and forest management. Can you
please explain the role that climate change plays in altering wildfire
patterns?
Answer. Data are now clear--the frequency and extent of western
U.S. wildfires are increasing. The U.S. National Climate Assessment
(specifically Chapter 6: Forests; https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
chapter/6/) lays out the compound hazards that climate change poses to
our nations forests, particularly in the vulnerable western United
States. Most of these risks are directly associated with increased fuel
loading linked to warmer temperatures, either directly or indirectly.
For one, pine bark beetles have increased their geographic range as
winters have become more mild, killing hundreds of millions of trees in
the last decade, and creating an abundance of dead trees to fuel
wildfires. Prolonged drought has also played a key role, weakening
forest resistance to the pine bark beetles and drying out the landscape
to add to the available fuel load. Severe drought in the western United
States is directly linked to climate change, as warmer soil
temperatures drive evaporation while decreased snow pack leaves mess
water available for summer streamflow. These trends are expected to
continue to exacerbate the risk of wildfires across the western United
States. Regionally specific trends in wildfires call out the extreme
vulnerability of the southwestern United States to wildfire, noting
impacts to water quality and quantity that have profound societal
impacts (Chapter 25: Southwest; https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
chapter/25/). The National Climate Assessment notes a number of
potential mitigation strategies to minimize the losses associated with
wildfires, including maintaining the health of forest ecosystems by
minimizing habitat fragmentation by human land use decisions. The
report also highlights the role for data-driven forest wilderness
management strategies such as allowing naturally ignited fires to burn
where safe to do so, as well as pre-emptively setting low-intensity
prescribed burns in reducing wildfire risk.
Question 2. For over a decade, Congress has struggled to extend
meaningful protections to important American landscapes--landscapes
that protect wildlife habitat and provide valuable economic,
ecological, and recreational benefits.
2a. Do protected landscapes play any role in helping humans and
wildlife adapt to climate change?
2b. What do we risk when we fail to extend these protections?
2c. How do policies that encourage energy extraction on public
lands impact the climate?
Answer. Protected landscapes play a vital role in increasing the
``adaptive capacity'' of natural systems, the communities that live in
them and/or depend on them for a variety of ecosystem services. The
2018 National Climate Assessment defines ``adaptive capacity'' as ``the
ability of human and natural systems to prepare for, adjust to, respond
to, and recover from experienced or anticipated climate impacts''
(Chapter 28: Adaptation; https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/28/).
This is perhaps most clear along the coasts, where salt marshes and
mangroves serve as important natural barriers to reduce the risks of
coastal flooding while delivering a range of additional ecosystem
services to support local fisheries, tourism, and recreational
activities. However, protected corridors across the nation's interior
are cited as a critical mechanism to allow wildlife to migrate to more
hospitable climatic zones as temperature and rainfall patterns shift.
Most obviously, continued warming will place acute stress on
temperature-sensitive species that might be mitigated by a northward or
upslope shift in the range of those species to cooler temperatures.
Habitat fragmentation represents a significant barrier to such natural
redistributions of terrestrial species as they adapt to climate change.
In the previous answer, I referred to the importance of maintaining
forest health through habitat protection in bolstering our defenses
against wildfires fueled by weakened forests. Wherever possible, data-
driven forest management practices are also effective tools to aid
local communities in reducing the risk of wildfires under continued
climate change.
The National Climate Assessment outlines a number of specific
threats to ecosystems, ecosystem services, and biodiversity in Chapter
7 (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/7) for your further review.
The health of our nation's ecosystems is inextricably tied to human
welfare in the following areas, especially through freshwater quality
and availability, and economic and cultural dependence on specific
species. When we fail to deploy data-driven defenses to protect
ecosystems, we are putting American health, welfare, and prosperity at
risk by reducing our capacity to adapt as a society to continued
climate change. At the same time, we would be forsaking the important
role that our ecological systems are playing in sequestering carbon--a
critical climate service.
Continued expansion of fossil fuel extraction across our nation's
public lands represents a serious risk to current and future
generations of Americans, who will face a warmer world characterized by
increasingly severe climate change impacts. Increased fossil fuel
production drives increased consumption, increasing emissions during a
time when we must move aggressively to stem the most dangerous impacts
of climate change. The National Climate Assessment details the dozens
of specific risks that are now detectable across every community in
America, and highlights the compounding risk of unmitigated climate
change for every year that we fail to curb our emissions growth. The
data could not be more clear. The many benefits of early action could
not be more clear. Instead of using our precious public lands to
compound the climate change problem, we should be using these precious
national resources in the design of data-driven strategies to protect
communities from climate change, assist key species in their efforts to
adapt to climate change, expand our portfolio of low-carbon energy, and
enhance our nation's natural carbon sinks.
______
The Chairman. Ms. DiPerna?
STATEMENT OF PAULA DiPERNA, SPECIAL ADVISOR, CDP NORTH AMERICA,
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. DiPerna. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here
today. And no doubt disclosure information on our CDP platform
touches all the states represented on the Committee, and I
thank you for your service to the Nation.
CDP North America, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure
Project, is a non-profit that operates for the public good.
Today, roughly 500 companies in the United States, including 70
percent of the S&P 500, disclosed to us and through us their
quantitative and qualitative information about their
environmental performance, and the imperatives they perceive.
Our standardized annual information request is signed off
on by roughly 500 investor enterprises, represent over $94
trillion in cumulative assets and most of the financial service
sector of the world. Our signatories use disclosure as a gauge
on corporate strategic advantages and vulnerabilities, and a
reference for making investment decisions.
If you stroll through our data, you would find there more
than 15 years of evidence of the doability, desirability, and
necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to address
climate change expressed voluntarily by companies themselves,
many of whose shareholders are public pension funds, and thus
relevant to much of the American people.
As for me, you have my full resume. But suffice it to say
here that I have seen the climate change issue from 360
degrees, from coral reefs to carbon markets, literally, working
closely with both economist Richard Sandor to help him design
the world's first integrated cap and trade, the pioneering
Chicago Climate Exchange, and with oceans explorer Jacques-Yves
Cousteau, seeing the first President Bush twice at the Oval
Office to discuss climate change.
President Bush signed the United States to the landmark
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which
the United States remains a signatory, even if the United
States has pulled out of the Paris Agreement. And we now stand
alone among nations outside the global consensus, and also
likely missing out on opportunities to use coherent policy,
state and local and Federal, to maximize jobs creation and
future-proof our crumbling infrastructure.
Sometimes it is said that American companies are concerned
that strong policies will hurt business. On the contrary,
companies are quite concerned about climate change itself. And
following I will share with you a few examples from almost all
of your districts and states--probably all--and refer you to my
written testimony and other materials of CDP for further
details.
In Arizona and Colorado, for example, Arizona Public
Services, 6,300 new employees serving 1.2 million customers,
has said, ``Risks associated with forest fires are not new. But
scientists have indicated that as the global temperatures
increase, there is a greater risk of drought and a correlated
increase in risk and intensity of forest fires. Potential
threat is very real.''
Of course, we have heard very much today about the burning
in California. It is not only the trees. The downgrade of most
of the utilities in California directly affects American
people. The credit rating downgrade is very, very significant,
rating companies from stable to negative by Moody's and S&P and
Fitch's.
In Connecticut, Stanley Black and Decker, an employer of
nearly 60,000 Americans, has stated, ``Climate change can have
potentially devastating impacts on our supply chain, should
drought or flood occur.''
In Ohio, American Electric Power, which has 17,500
employees and 5 million customers across 11 states, including
Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, in their SEC
filing has said, ``Climate change risk is considered a major
and material issue for AEP.''
And on the issue of regulatory uncertainty, AEP is on the
record as saying, ``Additionally, in recent years legal
challenges to almost every major EPA rulemaking have added
additional uncertainty and cost. While environmental
regulations mentioned will have a large impact on our
operations, the uncertainty regarding climate change regulation
or legislation is a more challenging risk to manage.''
In Texas, companies such as Chevron, Dupont, and Total have
described risks in their disclosure pertinent to the need for
storm barrier protection for oil facilities.
Florida, Harris Corporation, with close to 17,000
employees, is worried that their data centers will be affected
as temperatures rise and they lose ``ambient cooling
potential.''
On the supply chain front, Johnson and Johnson, based in
New Jersey with 134,000 global employees, is worried about
climate change, extreme weather disrupting not only demand for
products, but disruptions in manufacturing and distribution
networks of vital medicines, and afraid that it will affect the
overall design and integrity of our products and operations.
Atlanta, Coca Cola, 90,000 companies, is worried about
agricultural products, including sugar cane, corn, and citrus.
Coca Cola has said, ``The affordability of our products and,
ultimately, our business could be negatively impacted.''
In Nevada, even Caesar's Palace is not immune from climate
change. Its parent has said they are virtually certain to see
short-term increase in cost, due to a shortage of
precipitation.
Even before the Paris Agreement, we were getting risks on
supply chain. And if it wasn't from soup to nuts, it is soup to
tomatoes. For example, Campbell's Soup cited water risks and
climate change as very significant and of concern. And ConAgra
has said, ``they have seen delayed tomato harvesting due to
unseasonably cool weather.''
Dr. Pepper, of course, is worried about water. It is one of
their main ingredients, and has said, ``A portion of our cost
of sales, or $2.5 billion, could be at risk through increased
costs to our supply chain.''
I could go on and on. I will not. I know my time is up, and
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DiPerna follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paula DiPerna, Special Advisor, CDP North America
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on climate
change and the recognition of its economic importance among businesses,
investors, and consumers--all, of course, constituents. No doubt the
CDP Platform has a touch point with all the states represented here on
the Committee and I thank you for your service to the Nation.
A word about CDP: CDP-North America, formerly known as the Carbon
Disclosure Project, is a non-profit organization that operates for the
public good. Today, roughly 500 companies in the United States disclose
to us and through us quantitative and qualitative information about
their environmental performance and imperatives they perceive. Our
annual request for this information is standardized and signed by
roughly 550 institutional investors, asset owners and asset managers,
our signatories, who represent over $94 trillion in cumulative assets,
and most of the financial services sector of the world. They use our
disclosure as a reference on corporate environmental performance,
strategic advantages and vulnerabilities, and a gauge for making
investment decisions.
The CDP disclosure platform also provides companies with
information needed to benchmark to their peers, and we make this
information available to the general public.
If you took a stroll through our data, in sum, you would find more
than 15 years of evidence of the do-ability, desirability and necessity
of addressing climate change, expressed by companies themselves, as
well as evolving corporate, investor and consumer attitudes on the
topic.
In short, we are the ``go to'' platform for companies to disclose
how climate change is affecting their businesses. And what affects
business affects average Americans directly--floods, power outages and
disrupted supply chains means people can't get to work--who pays them
for that time missed? Climate change is, in sum, a here and now issue
that will hurt the poor and disenfranchised most of all.
A word about me: My resume is part of my written testimony but
suffice it to say here that I have seen the climate change issue from
360 degrees, from coral reefs to carbon markets, literally, having
helped spearhead, with renowned economist Richard Sandor, the world's
first integrated cap-and-trade system, the pioneering Chicago Climate
Exchange, also known globally as CCX; as well as with oceans pioneer
Jacques-Yves Cousteau to visit the first President Bush in the Oval
Office and his Cabinet to discuss these issues, resulting in the United
States signing the landmark Framework Convention on Climate Change, to
which the United States remains a signatory even if the United States
has pulled out of the Paris Agreement. This withdrawal has left the
United States the only nation on Earth to stand outside the circle of
consensus that climate change must be addressed, not only because of
the risks it poses, but the extraordinary opportunities that addressing
it represents as we redesign, retool, rebuild and refit almost all our
critical infrastructure, generating jobs and helping the United States
regain dominance of 21st century technological innovation and
manufacturing. For example, in Maryland, Lockheed Martin Corporation,
which has more than 590 facilities in 50 U.S. states and employs
approximately 100,000 people worldwide, in our disclosure identified
the use of lower-emission energy sources as a $21 billion opportunity.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) forecasts that ``24
million new posts will be created globally by 2030,'' with the caveat
that, ``the right policies to promote a greener economy must also be in
place for this to happen, along with better social safety nets for
workers.
Sometimes it is said that American companies are worried about
regulation on climate change hurting business. On the contrary,
companies are quite concerned about climate change itself, and what
they do need, above all is the certainty level playing field
established by public policy, especially as all the other nations in
the world enact rules that could hamper the ability of a U.S. company
to compete as they struggle to smooth out uneven legal and operational
requirements across global operations.
I will share with you here a few examples of what key companies are
doing or have disclosed about risks they face, and climate change
related losses and costs they have incurred already. I refer you to my
written testimony and CDP itself for further details and examples.
In Arizona and the Colorado River Basin, Arizona Pinnacle West
Capital Corporation, which owns Arizona Public Services, with 6,300
employees and serving 1.2 million customers, identified catastrophic
fires as an enterprise top risk in 2017-2018, with a potential
financial risk of over $50 million. The company said ``Risks associated
with forest fires are not new, but scientists have indicated that as
the global temperatures increase, there is a greater risk of drought
and a correlated increase in risk and intensity of forest fires,'' they
state. ``Forest fires could threaten not only communities that APS
serves, but also our vast network (35,000+ miles) of electric
transmission lines and facilities . . .. The potential threat is very
real.''
In Connecticut: Stanley Black and Decker, employer of nearly 60,000
Americans, stated, ``Climate change can have potentially devastating
impacts on our supply chain should drought or flood occur.'' It
estimated a potential loss of $118 million associated with supply chain
disruption of primary materials and minerals used in their products
from droughts in Chile and droughts and floods in Western Australia
alone. SBD lists suppliers in USA, Israel, Brazin and Mexico as being
potentially affected by drought.
In Ohio, American Electric Power Company, responsible for employing
17,500 people, and serving 5 million customers across 11 states,
including Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Kentucky, has disclosed:
``Climate change risk is considered a major and material issue
for AEP,'' adding ``AEP has invested to ensure its system is
reliable and resilient over more than a century. However, as
the generation fleet transitions to lower carbon and
intermittent resources and other infrastructure ages,
additional capital investment is needed for resiliency.
Additionally, public discourse about climate-related weather
events has also prompted public interest in resiliency
investment.'' And in 2017, about regulatory uncertainty, AEP
said, ``Additionally, in recent years, legal challenges to
almost every major EPA rulemaking have added additional
uncertainty and cost. This uncertainty can lead to uneconomic
decisions being made during the planning process as the
ultimate goals are subject to change. These uneconomic
decisions will lead to increased capital and operating costs.
While general environmental regulations mentioned above will
have a large impact on AEP operations, the uncertainty
regarding climate regulation or legislation is a more
challenging risk to manage.''
In Texas, companies such as Chevron, Dupont, and Total described
risks in their CDP disclosure pertinent to the need for storm barrier
protection for oil facilities.
In Florida, Jacksonville-based Harris Corporation, with close to
17,000 employees, identifies increased severity of extreme weather
events such as storms, cyclones and floods risks as a current and
direct risk to its operations. Their disclosure states, ``For data
centers, reduction in operational efficiency and increased component
failure rates as increases in average temperatures and associated
humidity will affect baseline design parameters. For example, the loss
of ambient cooling potential. Changes in humidity may also lead to
changes in patterns and rates of equipment corrosion. Higher humidity
levels may also lead to new requirements to maintain internal
environments within system tolerance ranges, as excess condensation can
cause short-circuiting or water ingress.'' Harris also said it will,
``expand the scope of events we consider in our planning to include
more frequent and unusually disruptive storms in these locations, as
well as the impacts of increased/more severe winter storms on our
operations in the Midwest and Northeast.''
Also of general interest, in 2017, 96 companies disclosing to CDP
disclosed that they have set an internal carbon price, indicating that
they accept and understand that greenhouse gas emissions carry a hidden
cost to their business which they seek to make visible using a
projected surrogate cost, an internal carbon price. 245 companies have
stated they would disclose their internal carbon pricing by 2019. And
many companies using this internal mechanism indicate they do so
because they wish to be better prepared for eventual regulation and/or
are operating in a jurisdiction where they already face mandatory
requirements, such as in the EU or in China.
Among the companies using an internal carbon is Oklahoma Gas and
Electric, which employs 2,500 people and serves more than 800,000
electricity customers. Citing opportunities ahead, OG&E also disclosed
that it ``has leveraged its advantageous geographic position to develop
renewable energy resources and completed transmission investments to
deliver the renewable energy. The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) has begun
to consider and authorize the construction of transmission lines
capable of bringing renewable energy out of the wind resource area in
western Oklahoma, the Texas Panhandle and western Kansas to load
centers by planning for more transmission to be built in these areas.''
In fact, given the links between drought and water availability,
and anticipated scarcities in predictable water supply, 88 companies
have also begun using internal water prices to better gauge rising
costs and risk.
Also, of general interest, far from denying the science of climate
change, companies are bending over backward to establish reduction
targets that are in line with the demand of climate change science on
the scope and rate of emissions reductions, known as Science Based
Targets or SBTIs. As of the end of 2018, 150 disclosing companies
disclosed they had or were in the process of setting SBTs, as compared
to 128 companies in 2017 and 88 in 2016.
With regard to disruption of supply chains due to extreme and
unpredictable weather, some may question whether there is a direct link
between changing climate and the increases in extreme or unpredictable
weather we have been experiencing of late, but the preponderance of
scientific evidence establishes a strong likelihood. Some examples of
what companies anticipate follow:
Johnson and Johnson, headquartered in New Jersey and employing
134,000 people, states ``changes to global climate, extreme weather and
natural disasters could affect demand for our products and services,
cause disruptions in manufacturing and distribution networks, alter the
availability of goods and services within the supply chain, and affect
the overall design and integrity of our products and operations.''
Michigan based GM, employing 180,000 people, has an ``active''
crisis center that ``watches the weather 24/7'' and begins contacting
suppliers when extreme weather events are forecasted, the system was
partly developed in reaction to the Tohoku earthquake and the Thai
floods in 2011. ``People felt pretty good because none of our
production or manufacturing facilities were in the way,'' but those
events impacted both GM's direct suppliers and the suppliers of its
suppliers.
In Georgia, Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Company employs over 90,000
Americans. Coke and its bottling partners use many key ingredients in
the manufacture and packaging of their beverage products. that are
derived from agricultural commodities such as sugarcane, corn, sugar
beets, citrus, coffee and tea. Coca-Cola has stated, ``Increased demand
for food products and decreased agricultural productivity in certain
regions of the world as a result of changing weather patterns may limit
the availability or increase the cost of such agricultural commodities
and could impact the food security of communities around the world . .
. the affordability of our products and ultimately our business and
results of operations could be negatively impacted.''
In Nevada, even Caesar's Palace is not immune from climate change
impacts. Its parent company, Caesar's Entertainment in Las Vegas,
foresees increased operating costs as ``virtually certain'' in the
short-term due to increasing temperatures and reduced precipitation in
areas where water resources are more limited such as the U.S. southwest
and their properties in Southern Africa and Egypt. Caesar spends
``approximately $15 million per year on water utilities, a 10 percent
increase in water prices due to increasing temperature causing water
supply issues would represent a cost increase of up to $1.5m.'' Rising
mean average temperature will impact Caesars supply chain. ``Caesars
requires a steady stream of fresh produce and other food sources to
stock our restaurants and kitchens. Our supply chain has been impacted
by temperature fluctuations that have cause us to source from
alternative suppliers. The relative magnitude has thus far been low on
our total business operations. However, if enough suppliers face major
climate related impacts the future magnitude could be substantial.''
In fact, this very day in Las Vegas, we are conveying a conference
on protecting supply chains and other related issues in Las Vegas co-
sponsored by Caesar's, to be attended by concerned large procurement
entities as Walmart, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Johnson
& Johnson and JBS, a $28 billion meat packaging and distribution
company with 78,000 employees or so.
With regard to supply chain disruption, the source of risk is
eclectic and widespread, and many U.S. companies have acknowledged this
likelihood as credible for some time.
For example, as early as 2014, the year before the Paris Agreement
was signed, we issued a report specifically focused on these
disruptions and risks cited literally ranged if not from soup to nuts,
soup to tomatoes.
For example, Campbell's Soup cited water risks and climate change
for all its products due to threats to agriculture and Con Agra told us
literally, ``we have experienced weather-related sourcing challenges,
such as delayed tomato harvesting due to unseasonably cool weather.''
Gap and the VF Corporation told us that both drought and its
opposite, increased precipitation, had reduced cotton production in
India and China, and were contributing factors in the rise of global
product prices.
Sears, ill-fated, told us as early as 2011 that it faced more than
$14 million in expenses just from repairing and replacing buildings and
goods that were the direct or indirect result of extreme weather, as
well as another $8.7 million due to flood damage that year alone.
Dr. Pepper Snapple Group said, ``water is the main ingredient in
substantially all of our products and climate change may cause water
scarcity and a deterioration of water in areas where we maintain
operations . . . a portion of our cost of sales, or $2.5 billion, could
be at risk through increased costs to our supply chain.'' Concerns
about water issues laced through the disclosures of Pepsi Co and other
beverage companies as well.
And, after Superstorm Sandy in the New York area, the venerable
utility Con Edison reported that the costs of restoration in just two
counties, Orange and Rockland, were $431 million and $90 million
respectively.
Obviously, events such as these affect the lives of people directly
in myriad ways we have seen, from blackouts to hospital patients having
to be evacuated in their beds to costs passed on to consumers, loss of
work days, etc.
As to investors and the capital markets, of substantial recent
note, Moody's, which by its own wording ``strives to be the rating
agency of choice,'' issued just recently in January this year its
General Principles for Assessing Environmental, Social and Governance
Risks, to better inform its users in this evolving field cited the
bankruptcy filing by PG&E, which employs 20,000 people, related to the
catastrophic forest fires in California. Moody's said ``. . .From a
climate-related time horizon perspective, it could [also] be argued
that the effects of climate change crystallized into event risk more
rapidly than PG&E expected, adding, ``We highlighted this in 2018, when
we noted that `long term climate change risks like droughts and
wildfires are manifesting faster than regulators and legislators can
react to protect [PG&E] from exposure.' ''
Also just last month, Standard and Poor's ratings stated, ``we
lowered our credit rating on Edison International and its subsidiary
Southern California Edison . . . and placed all of our ratings on the
companies on Creditwatch with negative implications'' which ``reflects
the increased likelihood that Edison will continue to experience
catastrophic wildfires due to climate change.'' S&P similarly
downgraded San Diego Gas and Electric Company, for the same reasons.
Subsequently, Fitch Ratings also revised its rating outlook for Edison
International, from stable to negative adding ``given the unprecedented
size of recent wildfires, future multi-notch downgrades cannot be ruled
out.''
These credit ratings changes may seem far from the American people,
but in fact they reflect a drain on financial stability and borrowing
power of key employers and infrastructure providers, not so much linked
to the longer term impact climate change but the here and now impact of
related unpredictable and extreme weather events--causing hardship and
heartbreak for the ordinary Americans who suffer loss of life and
property.
Yet, on the other hand, recognizing that addressing climate change
is essential to long term financial value creation, mainstream
investors are also recognizing the significant upside of shifting
capital to companies that take environmental and social factors into
strategic account in their business management. According to the
Sustainable Investment Forum of the United States, for example, which
tracks relevant data:
``Sustainable, responsible and impact (SRI) investing in the
United States continues to expand at a healthy pace. The total
U.S.-domiciled assets under management using SRI strategies
grew from $8.7 trillion at the start of 2016 to $12.0 trillion
at the start of 2018, an increase of 38 percent. This
represents 26 percent--or 1 in 4 dollars--of the $46.6 trillion
in total U.S. assets under professional management.''
And, in a basic core indication of how integrated low carbon
efficiency has become, the S&P 500 carbon efficient index, which
overweights carbon efficient companies and underweights carbon
intensive companies, is now tracking virtually to a T with the
venerable classic S&P500, an alignment that indicates if nothing else
that it does not cost mainstream companies or their shareholders, if
low carbon intensity and energy efficiency are prioritized. On the
contrary.
And as for constituents and consumer preferences, CDP disclosure
can also shed light.
Minnesota headquartered Best Buy reported that by promoting ENERGY
STAR certified products, Best Buy U.S. helped its customers realize
utility bill savings of more than U.S. $45 million in 2018. ENERGY STAR
is a response to the increased demand for low-carbon products.
And Ohio-based American Electric Power Company states: ``AEP has
increasingly seen customers look to deploy low or no-carbon generation
resources as a means of supplanting, replacing, or offsetting
electricity provided by AEP. AEP is actively pursuing deploying
utility-scale and community scale distributed resources which provide
our customers with a more cost-effective solution in utilizing low and
no-carbon energy.''
PepsiCo says: ``Any negative perception (whether valid or not) of
PepsiCo's response to climate change or water scarcity could result in
adverse publicity and could adversely affect PepsiCo's business,
financial condition or results of operations. Changes in consumer
preference, for example, due to a negative reaction to PepsiCo's
reputation relative to the environment could adversely affect PepsiCo's
business, for example, a 1-percent impact on PEP's market value
(defined as our market capitalization) would equate to $1.6 billion.''
I could go on and on, but will not. In sum, climate change is
present and costly to companies and average Americans, and the United
States has made itself more vulnerable, not less. Thank you and I will
be glad to answer any questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Reverend Yearwood, the floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR., PRESIDENT AND CEO, HIP HOP
CAUCUS, WASHINGTON, DC
Rev. Yearwood. Thank you to Chairman Grijalva and the
entire Committee for having me here today. And thank you to the
other panelists for your commitment to solving climate change.
I especially love Zero Hour and UPROSE.
My name is Reverend Lennox Yearwood, Jr. I am the President
and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus. And all of you, Republicans and
Democrats, are invited to be part of the Hip Hop Caucus--a
little joke there to start off the testimony.
[Laughter.]
Rev. Yearwood. But let me get right to it. As Americans, we
face challenges head on. Climate change is not a Democrat issue
or a Republican issue; it is a human issue. This crisis is
complex. It impacts all of us and future generations, and those
with the least resources are impacted first and worst. But we
know how to solve this crisis. We must make a just transition
off of fossil fuels to a 100 percent clean, renewable energy
economy that works for all.
Many communities, cities and states across our country, are
leading the way on climate solutions. I urge every member of
this Committee to visit places and people who have gone through
climate disasters, and visit communities, projects, and
businesses that are implementing clean energy and climate
solutions. When you visit these communities, it will become
very clear that climate change is a civil and human rights
issue.
In 1960, four African-American college students sat at the
Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina to
desegregate the South. They were courageous beyond belief in
standing up for equality. Today, young people like Nadia across
the table from me and across this country are courageously
standing up not only for equality, but for our existence.
Climate change is our lunch counter moment for the 21st
century.
Young people are organizing, marching, and coalition-
building, and they are leading the call for solutions like a
Green New Deal. They are doing it because they know that the
science on climate change is undeniable. But also because, like
all of us here today, they have watched as people have died in
Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, Irma, Katrina, and Superstorm Sandy.
They have seen the families who have lost everything to fires
that have ripped across the West. They have been part of
peaceful movements opposing fossil fuel developments led by
Lakota people at Standing Rock and the Gwich'in people in the
Arctic Refuge.
So, the question is what are you, as members of this
Committee, going to do? It is my prayer that you call up at
least as much courage as young people standing up around the
country, and that you act now, and you act boldly and
courageously. If this Committee and bold chambers of Congress
don't urgently come together, put the people of this country
first, put God first, and put your political party to the side
to solve climate change, we don't make it beyond 12 years from
now without huge amounts of death, destruction, and suffering.
As an officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve Chaplain Corps,
I had to ponder the unique relationship between military and
faith. In the military we need our faith, not only to
strengthen us in battle, but we need our faith to guide us to
do what is right. We need you to use your faith to guide you to
do what is right.
If you are approaching climate change as a partisan,
political issue, your faith is leading you astray. We, the
American people, need you to have courage to do what is right.
It is your courage that can put our country and the world on
the path of solving climate change.
In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``We must
learn to live together as brothers or perish together as
fools.''
Thank you, and may God be with you and with us all.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Yearwood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., President & CEO, Hip
Hop Caucus
Thank you to Chairman Grijalva and the entire Committee for having
me here today.
And thank you to the other panelists for your commitment to solving
climate change.
My name is Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. I am the President and CEO of
Hip Hop Caucus.
As Americans we face challenges head on. Climate change is not a
Democrat issue or a Republican issue. It is a human issue, and
therefore, we must look to God and our faith to guide us.
This crisis is complex. It impacts all of us and future
generations, and it's those with the least resources that are and will
continue to be impacted first and worst.
But we know how to solve this crisis. We must transition off of
fossil fuels to a just 100 percent clean energy economy that works for
all.
Many communities, cities, and states across our country are leading
the way on climate solutions. I urge every member of this Committee, if
you have not yet, to visit places and people who have gone through
climate disasters, and to visit communities, projects, and businesses
that are implementing clean energy and climate solutions.
The fossil fuel industry receives billions of dollars of taxpayer
subsidies. You are subsidizing an industry that is killing Americans
with their pollution and climate disasters. Further, the Trump
administration's attacks on basic public health and environmental
safeguards mean even more death sentences, particularly for the poor.
Clean air, clean water, and solving climate change are inextricably
linked.
In 1960 four college students sat at the Woolworth's lunch counter
in Greensboro, North Carolina to desegregate the south. They were
courageous beyond belief in standing up for equality.
Climate Change is our lunch counter moment for the 21st century.
Today, like those brave students, young people across this country
are courageously standing up not only for equality, but for our
existence. Young people are organizing, marching, and coalition
building, and they are calling for a Green New Deal.
And they are doing it because they know that the science on climate
change is undeniable. But also because, like all of us here today, they
have watched as people died in Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, Irma, Katrina,
and in Superstorm Sandy. They have seen the families who have lost
everything to fires that have ripped across the West. They have been a
part of the peaceful movements opposing fossil fuel developments led by
the Lakota people at Standing Rock and the Gwich'in people in the
Arctic Refuge.
The question is, what are you, as members of this Committee, going
to do? It is my prayer that you call-up at least as much courage as the
young people standing up around the country, and that you act, you act
now, and you act boldly and courageously.
We do not make it beyond 12 years from now without huge amounts of
death, destruction, and suffering, if this Committee, and both chambers
of Congress don't urgently come together, putting the people of this
country first, putting God first, and putting your political party to
the side, to solve climate change.
As an officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve Chaplain Corps, I had
to ponder the unique the relationship between military and faith. What
I realized is that in the military we need our faith not only to
strengthen us in battle, but we need our faith to guide us to always do
what is right.
We need you to use your faith to guide you to do what is right. If
you are approaching climate change as a partisan, political issue, your
faith is leading you astray. We, the American people, need you to have
the courage to do what is right. It is your courage that can put our
country and the world on the path to solving climate change.
May God be with you. Thank you and God bless.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hollie, the floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF DERRICK HOLLIE, PRESIDENT, REACHING AMERICA,
BENNSVILLE, MARYLAND
Mr. Hollie. Greetings, Chairman and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is
Derrick Hollie, President of Reaching America, an organization
I developed to address complex social issues that are impacting
the African-American community.
We are focused on solutions not based on right- or left-
wing views, but what makes sense for a more united America. One
of the issues that we do the most work on is addressing and
reducing energy poverty.
What is energy poverty? Energy poverty exists when low-
income families or individuals spend upwards of 30 percent of
their total income on their electric bill. And when that
happens, it puts people in tough situations and having to make
tough choices, like do I eat today, or do I pay the electric
bill? Do I get this prescription filled, or do I fill up my gas
tank? I can't even give the kids a couple of dollars today
because I have to pay the electric bill.
And for many Americans, particularly in the minority
community, we face these challenges every single day. And the
African-American community, we don't have the luxury to pay
more for green technologies. We need access to affordable
energy to help heat our homes, power our stoves, and get back
and forth to work.
And through Reaching America, I have had the opportunity to
reach and talk to thousands of African-Americans who all talk
about one thing: the question of rising costs of energy, along
with the fees and subsidies that they have to pay that they
don't benefit from, and how they struggle to keep up with it.
My passion for energy is deeply rooted. When I first
graduated from college, I worked for Norfolk Southern Railroad
as a brakeman. And I can couple the cars, I could switch the
tracks, I knew how to tighten up the brakes and everything. I
worked at Lamberts Point in Norfolk, Virginia. Our job and
responsibility was loading coal ships that transported coal all
around the world. So, I have always asked myself the question.
If our natural resources are good enough for other countries,
then why is it not good enough for us right here at home?
And in addition to that, my grandfather was a black coal
miner in southwest Virginia. So, it is safe to say if it wasn't
for the energy industry, I wouldn't be here to talk to you all
today.
When the government creates policies, its first priority
should be the welfare of the people, especially those impacted
the hardest, rather than big business and special interest
groups looking for a handout.
I am also a member of Project 21, a national black
leadership organization. And in our blueprint for A Better Deal
for Black America, we focus on 10 key areas for reform,
including minority impact assessments for new regulations. This
would be a major step toward increasing economic opportunities
and having input from governors and community leaders, much the
same way that qualified opportunity zones were developed and
will create a level of trust in communities that never existed
before.
After all, the government requires environmental impact
studies and statements to estimate the effects of projects like
roads and buildings on nature. Shouldn't the government act
similarly when it comes to how regulations impact the
population, or a particular market segment?
A minority impact assessment would create a list of all
positive, all negative impacts a proposed regulation would
have, and the factors including employment, wages, consumer
prices, home ownership, job creation, et cetera. The regulatory
impact would then be analyzed for its effect on minorities, in
contrast to the general population.
The bottom line: any policy that contributes to energy
poverty is a bad one for low income and minority communities.
Fortunately, our Nation has an abundant supply of natural
gas that is the solution to our Nation's energy questions.
Recent polar vortex temperatures last week dropped so low
in some areas that windmills couldn't even turn. We have to
have a Plan B. Natural gas is clean. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration reports that almost two-thirds of
the CO2 emissions from 2006 through 2014 came from
the fuel shifting toward natural gas.
Natural gas is reliable. It is efficient. And it meets the
needs of our Nation's grid. And natural gas is also affordable.
And for many Americans, this allows them not to have to choose
to keep the lights on or feed their families.
In closing, I am all for protecting the environment. I am a
licensed captain, had the opportunity to take my boat to
Florida and back, and the coastal waterways are beautiful. So,
I am all for the environment. However, until we figure out a
way to harness the sun and the wind to sustain ourselves, we
need to use what we have, especially if it could lower energy
costs, create jobs, and boost the economy.
That is my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hollie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Derrick Hollie, President, Reaching America
Greetings Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and members of
the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
I'm Derrick Hollie, president of Reaching America, an education and
policy organization I developed to address complex social issues
impacting African American communities.
We're focused on solutions not based on right- or left-wing views
but what makes sense for a more united America.
One of the issues Reaching America does the most work on is
reducing energy poverty across the board.
Energy Poverty exists when low income families or individuals spend
up to 30 percent of their total income on their electric bill. And when
this happens, people have to make tough choices like, do I eat today or
pay the electric bill? Do I get this prescription filled or fill up my
car with gas? We all know someone who faces these choices every month.
For members of the African American community, Energy Poverty is a
reality. Members of our community don't have the luxury to pay more for
green technologies. We need access to affordable energy to help heat
our homes, power our stoves and get back and forth to work each day.
Through Reaching America I've had the opportunity to speak with
thousands of African Americans in several states who question the
rising cost of energy along with fees and subsidies they don't benefit
from and how they struggle to keep up.
My passion for energy is deeply rooted, after graduating from
college I worked as brakeman for Norfolk Southern Railways at Lambert's
Point in Norfolk, Virginia. Our job and responsibilities was loading
coal ships that transported coal all around the world and I constantly
ask the question, ``If our coal and natural resources are good enough
for other countries--why is not good enough for us here at home. My
grandfather was also a black coal miner in southwest Virginia. It's
safe to say if it weren't for the energy industry, I wouldn't be here
to speak with all of you today.
When the government creates policy, its first priority should be
the welfare of the people, especially those impacted the hardest,
rather than big businesses and special interests looking for a handout.
I'm also a member of Project 21, a National Black Leadership
Organization. In our Blueprint for A Better Deal for Black America we
focus on 10 key areas for reform including ``Minority Impact
Assessments'' for new regulations. This would be a major step toward
increasing economic opportunities. And having input from governors and
community leaders the same way ``Qualified Opportunity Zones'' were
created will establish a level of trust in communities that never
existed before.
After all, the government requires environmental impact statements
to estimate the effects of projects like roads and buildings on nature.
Shouldn't the government act similarly when it comes to how regulations
impact the population?
A minority impact assessment would create a list of all the
positive and negative impacts a proposed regulation would have on
factors including employment, wages, consumer prices and homeownership.
This regulatory impact would then be analyzed for its effect on
minorities in contrast to the general population.
The bottom line: any policy that contributes to energy poverty is a
bad one for low income families and minority communities.
Fortunately, our Nation has an abundant supply of natural gas that
is a solution to our Nation's energy questions. Recent polar vortex
temperatures dropped so low in some areas that windmills couldn't turn.
We need a plan B.
Natural gas is clean. The U.S. Energy Information Administration
reports that almost two-thirds of the CO2 emission
reductions from 2006-2014 came from the fuel shifting toward natural
gas.
Natural gas is also reliable. Natural gas generation efficiently
meets the needs of our Nation's energy grid.
And natural gas is affordable. For many Americans, this allows them
to not have to choose whether to keep the lights on or feed their
families.
In closing, I'm all for protecting the environment and clean energy
however until we have figure out a way to harness the sun, wind and
water to sustain ourselves, we need to use what we have especially if
it can lower energy cost, create jobs and boost the economy.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Hice to Mr. Derrick Hollie,
President, Reaching America
Question 1. Mr. Hollie, I represent the 10th District of Georgia,
much of which is extremely rural. Now when I say ``rural'' different
people get different things in their heads, so let me explain. When I
say ``rural'' that means that in some parts of my district my
constituents have to park at the Chick-fil-A to let the kids sit in the
car to get WiFi to do their homework. When I say ``rural'' that means
in other parts of my district my constituents have to drive to an
entirely different county to get to a grocery store.
So, I was struck by a remark you made in your testimony that,
``When the government creates policy, its first priority should be the
welfare of the people, especially those impacted the hardest . . .''
You would agree then that if policies like the Green New Deal
encourage energy poverty for rural, low income, and minority
communities that we need to immediately hit the pause button on those
ideas? And why would that be a prudent step?
Answer. That's the essence of the Minority Impact Assessment.
Before a regulation is enacted, it should go through a process to see
how it might specifically impact certain populations. Before a Green
New Deal proposal to phase out the combustion engine in favor of
electric vehicles is enacted, for example, it should be seen if this is
feasible for specific communities. Can people in GA 10 afford a Telsa?
What costs will come to the district to put electric car charging
stations ``everywhere'' as prescribed by the Green New Deal FAQ? Can an
electric car do the things that people in GA 10 need a vehicle to do
(i.e. rural jobs)? The Minority Impact Assessment acts as a ``cooling
saucer'' to prevent regulations from imposing unrealistic expectations
on specific people and communities.
Question 2. One of the main reasons many of our founders supported
federalism was because it provided for ``laboratories of
experimentation'' \1\ and regulatory diversity. What works best for
some parts of the country does not necessarily work best for other
areas. In my home state, we have almost completed two of the first
nuclear reactors to be built in roughly 50 years at Plant Vogtle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, SCOTUS, 1932.
Georgia has also been a leader in other clean energy sources like
solar and hydro energy production. Plant Vogtle works hand in glove
with other clean energy technologies. And nuclear will continue to
provide cheap, clean energy when the sun is not shining or to refill
the reservoir overnight at clean pumped-storage hydroelectric plants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
like our Rocky Mountain facility.
But the Green New Deal would ban nuclear energy--which would
effectively harm rural and low-income communities in my district and
state. Mr. Hollie, how might your proposed Minority Impact Assessment
prevent laws or regulations from banning affordable energy solutions
for these communities?
Answer. The Minority Impact Assessment would look at proposed
regulation to ensure that it does not have a disparate impact on
minority communities by affecting factors such as income, home prices,
access to jobs and quality of life issues. Losing affordable, reliable
and efficient power for a source that increases energy costs and breeds
energy poverty does not make sense. The Minority Impact Assessment will
identify these disparities--if Congress acts to instate Minority Impact
Assessment requirements.
Question 3. Mr. Hollie, one last question for you. The Green New
Deal would ban most private cars to be replaced with ``high-quality and
modern mass transit.'' Mr. Hollie, if you lived in a county that didn't
even have a grocery store and you needed your personal transportation
to get food for your family, does it sound like the Green New Deal is a
policy designed to help rural, low income, and minority communities, or
a policy designed for the milieu--the wealthy and cultural elite?
Answer. I can't image using public transit to do the grocery
shopping for my family in the bustling suburbs of Washington, DC area
much less rural Georgia. For many people, a car or truck is freedom.
Freedom to pursue the employment best for them. Freedom to associate
with family, friends and like-minded people. Freedom to shop next door,
across town or across county or state lines. There is also a potential
limitation on freedom that comes with relying on a government entity to
take you from point A to point B. Too often policy is presented that
does not represent what's best for the people who are impact the
hardest. The Green New Deal calls for environmental impact studies and
I would highly urge Congress to also include Minority Impact
Assessments.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Curry.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. CURRY, PRESIDENT, CLIMATE FORECAST
APPLICATIONS NETWORK, RENO, NEVADA
Dr. Curry. I thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and
the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.
I am concerned that both the climate change problem and its
solution have been vastly over-simplified. This over-
simplification has led to politicized scientific debates and
policy gridlock. My testimony is presented today in the spirit
of acknowledging the complexity of the problem, and proposing
pragmatic ideas that can break the gridlock.
Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a
future threat from climate change. Man-made climate change is a
theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but the
potential magnitude is highly uncertain.
If climate change were a simple, tame problem, everyone
would agree on the solution. Because of the complexities of the
climate system and its societal impacts, solutions may have
surprising unintended consequences that generate new
vulnerabilities. In short, the cure could be worse than the
disease. Given these complexities, there is plenty of scope for
reasonable and intelligent people to disagree.
Based on current assessments of the science, man-made
climate change is not an existential threat on the timescale of
the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation.
However, the perception of a near-term apocalypse and alignment
with a range of other social objectives has narrowed the policy
options that we are willing to consider.
In evaluating the urgency of emissions reductions, we need
to be realistic about what this will actually accomplish.
Global CO2 concentrations will not be reduced if
emissions in China and India continue to increase. If we
believe the climate models, any changes in extreme weather
events would not be evident until late in the 21st century. And
the greatest impacts will be felt in the 22nd century and
beyond.
People prefer clean over dirty energy, provided that the
energy source is reliable, secure, and economical. However, it
is misguided to assume that current wind and solar technologies
are adequate for powering an advanced economy. The recent
record-breaking cold outbreak in the Midwest is a stark
reminder of the challenges of providing a reliable power supply
in the face of extreme weather events.
With regards to energy policy and its role in reducing
emissions, there are currently two options in play. Option
Number 1: do nothing, continue with the status quo. Or, Option
Number 2: rapidly deploy wind and solar power plants with the
goal of eliminating fossil fuels in one to two decades.
Apart from the gridlock engendered by considering only
these two options, in my opinion, neither gets us where we want
to go. A third option is to re-imagine the 21st century
electric power systems with new technologies that improve
energy security, reliability, and cost, while at the same time
minimizing environmental impacts.
However, this strategy requires substantial research
development and experimentation. Acting urgently on emissions
reduction by deploying 20th century technologies could turn out
to be the enemy of a better long-term solution.
Since reducing emissions is not expected to change the
climate in a meaningful way until late in the 21st century,
adaptation strategies are receiving increasing attention. The
extreme damages from recent hurricanes, plus the billion-dollar
losses from floods, droughts, and wildfires emphasize the
vulnerability of the United States to extreme events. But it is
easy to forget that U.S. extreme weather events were actually
worse in the 1930s and 1950s.
Regions that find solutions to current impacts of extreme
weather and climate events will be better prepared to cope with
any additional stresses from climate change, and to address
near-term social justice objectives.
The industry leaders that I engage with seem hungry for a
bipartisan, pragmatic approach to climate policy. I see a
window of opportunity to change the framework for how we
approach this. Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic
efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to
extreme weather events, pursue no-regrets pollution reduction
measures, and better land use practices.
Each of these efforts has justifications independent of
their benefits for climate change. These efforts provide the
basis of a climate policy that addresses both near term
economic and social justice concerns, and also the longer term
goals of mitigation.
This ends my testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Curry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judith A. Curry, President, Climate Forecast
Applications Network
I thank the Chairman, Ranking Member and the Committee for the
opportunity to offer testimony today on `Climate Change: The Impacts
and the Need to Act.' I am President of Climate Forecast Applications
Network (CFAN) and Professor Emerita and former Chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
I have devoted four decades to conducting research on a variety of
topics related to weather and climate.
By engaging with decision makers in both the private and public
sectors on issues related to weather and climate, I have learned about
the complexity of different decisions that depend, at least in part, on
weather and climate information. I have learned the importance of
careful determination and conveyance of the uncertainty associated with
our scientific understanding and particularly for predictions. I have
found that the worst outcome for decision makers is a scientific
conclusion or forecast issued with a high level of confidence that
turns out to be wrong.
I am increasingly concerned that both the climate change problem
and its solution have been vastly oversimplified.\1\ For the past
decade, I have been promoting dialogue across the full spectrum of
understanding and opinion on the climate debate through my blog Climate
Etc. (judithcurry.com). I have learned about the complex reasons that
intelligent, educated and well-informed people disagree on the subject
of climate change, as well as tactics used by both sides to try to gain
a political advantage in the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Curry, JA and Webster PJ, 2011: Climate science and the
uncertainty monster. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1667-1682. http://
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1.
With this perspective, my testimony focuses on the following issues
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of central relevance to climate change, its impacts and need to act:
The climate knowledge gap
The climate change response challenge
The urgency (?) of CO2 emissions reductions
Resilience, anti-fragility and thrivability
Moving forward with pragmatic climate change policies
the climate knowledge gap
Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a future
threat from man-made climate change. Man-made climate change is a
theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but the
potential magnitude is highly uncertain. Scientists agree that surface
temperatures have increased overall since 1880, humans are adding
carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.
However, there is considerable disagreement about the most
consequential issues: whether the recent warming has been dominated by
human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm
in the 21st century, whether warming is `dangerous', and whether
radically reducing carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions will
improve the climate and human well-being in the 21st century.
The scientific conflict regarding the theory of man-made climate
change is over the level of our ignorance regarding what is unknown
about natural climate variability. Why do climate scientists disagree
on the relative importance of natural versus man-made climate change?
The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement
about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of
global climate model simulations and paleoclimate reconstructions from
geologic data. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical
framework for linking and assessing the evidence in this complex
problem.\2\ Further, politicization of the science and the consensus
building process itself can be a source of bias.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Curry, JA, (2011). Reasoning about climate uncertainty, https:/
/link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0180-z.
Apart from these broad sources of disagreement, there are two
sources of misconception and uncertainty that are of particular
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
relevance to climate policy making:
Projections of 21st century climate change
Linking extreme weather events to man-made climate change
With regards to projections of 21st century climate change,
Sections 11.3.1.1 and 12.2.3 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5) describe uncertainties in the
climate model-based projections. Climate models consistently indicate
that the mean global temperature of the planet will rise with
increasing CO2 emissions. However, these models show
systematic errors in the simulated global mean temperature that are
similar in magnitude to the size of the historical change we are
seeking to understand.\3\ The likely \4\ range of estimates of the
sensitivity of global warming to doubling of CO2 as reported
by the IPCC AR5 varies by a factor of 3, from 1.5 to 4.5+C.\5\ Apart
from uncertainties in climate model projections that focus primarily on
the impact of increases in greenhouse gases, we do not have sufficient
understanding to project future solar variations, future volcanic
eruptions, and decadal to century variations in ocean circulations.
Finally, existing climate models are unable to simulate realistically
possible extreme outcomes, such as abrupt climate change or a rapid
disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Hence global climate
models provide little relevant information regarding very unlikely but
potentially catastrophic impacts--whether caused by man-made climate
forcing or natural processes or some combination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mauritsen et al., (2012). Tuning the climate of a global model,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012MS000154.
\4\ >66% probability.
\5\ IPCC AR5 WG1 Report, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
Among the greatest concerns about climate change are its impacts on
extreme events such floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires and
hurricanes. However, there is little evidence that the recent warming
has worsened such events. The IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events \6\
acknowledges that there is not yet evidence of changes in the global
frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.
The recent Climate Science Special Report from the Fourth National
Climate Assessment (NCA4) \7\ reported the following conclusions abut
extreme events and climate change:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, http://www.ipcc.ch/
report/srex/.
\7\ 4th National Climate Assessment, Vol 1, https://
www.globalchange.gov/nca4.
``Recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached
record intensity in some regions of the United States;
however, the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the
benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
record.'' [Ch. 6]
``Detectable changes in some classes of flood frequency
have occurred in parts of the United States and are a mix
of increases and decreases. Extreme precipitation is
observed to have generally increased. However, formal
attribution approaches have not established a significant
connection of increased riverine flooding to human-induced
climate change.'' [Ch. 8]
``State-level fire data over the 20th century indicates
that area burned in the western United States decreased
from 1916 to about 1940, was at low levels until the 1970s,
then increased into the more recent period.'' [Ch. 8]
``[T]here is still low confidence that any reported long-
term increases in [hurricane] activity are robust, after
accounting for past changes in observing capabilities'' [Ch
9]
With regards to the perception (and damage statistics) that severe
weather events seem more frequent and more severe over the past decade,
there are several factors in play. The first is the increasing
vulnerability and exposure associated with increasing concentration of
wealth in coastal and other disaster-prone regions. The second factor
is natural climate variability. Many extreme weather events have
documented relationships with natural climate variability; in the
United States, extreme weather events (e.g. droughts, heat waves and
hurricanes) were significantly worse in the 1930s and 1950s.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Curry, JA, 2014. Senate EPW testimony, http://judithcurry.com/
2014/01/16/senate-epw-hearing-on-the-presidents-climate-action-plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While climate models predict changes in extreme weather events with
future warming, the time of emergence of any man-made signal relative
to the large natural variability in extreme weather events is not
expected to be evident until late in the 21st century, even for the
most aggressive scenarios of future warming.
When considering the predictions of additional climate change
impacts in the NCA4, pay attention to the confidence level ascribed to
their conclusions. The NCA4 defines the confidence levels as follows:
``Low: Inconclusive evidence (limited sources
extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor documentation
and/or methods not tested, etc.), disagreement or lack of
opinions among experts.''
``Medium: Suggestive evidence (a few sources, limited
consistency, models incomplete, methods emerging, etc.),
competing schools of thought.''
``High: Moderate evidence (several sources, some
consistency, methods vary and/or documentation limited,
etc.), medium consensus.''
``Very high: Strong evidence (established theory, multiple
sources, consistent results well documented and accepted
methods, etc.), high consensus.''
These categories defy the common understanding of the words used to
describe them.\9\ The words used to describe `High confidence' include
`Moderate evidence, medium consensus,' which are more descriptive of
the common understanding of medium confidence. The words used to
describe `Medium confidence' include: `a few sources, limited
consistency, models incomplete, methods emerging; competing schools of
thought,' that are more descriptive of the common understanding of low
confidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/02/national-climate-assessment-
a-crisis-of-epistemic-overconfidence/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from these semantic issues, there are very few conclusions of
meaningful impacts in the NCA4 that are associated with `very high'
confidence or even `high' confidence. For conclusions associated with
low, medium and even high confidence, there is substantial room for
scientific disagreement.
the climate change response challenge
In response to the threat of man-made climate change, the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has established
an international goal of stabilization of the concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
This framing of the climate change problem and its solution has led
to the dilemma of climate response policy that is aptly described by
Obersteiner et al: \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Obersteiner, et al. (2001). Managing Climate Risk, http://
www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/IR-01-051.pdf.
The key issue is whether ``betting big today'' with a
comprehensive global climate policy targeted at stabilization
``will fundamentally reshape our common future on a global
scale to our advantage, or quickly produce losses that can
throw mankind into economic, social, and environmental
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bankruptcy.''
In their `Wrong Trousers' essay,\11\ Prins and Rayner argue that we
have made the wrong choices in our attempts to define the problem of
climate change and its solution, by relying on strategies that worked
previously for `tame' problems. A tame problem is well defined, well
understood, and the appropriate solutions are agreed upon. Cost-benefit
analyses are appropriate for tame problems, and the potential harm from
miscalculation is bounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Prins and Rayner, 2007. The wrong trousers: radically
rethinking climate policy, http://eureka.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/66/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, climate change is better characterized as a `wicked'
problem, which is a complex tangle characterized by multiple problem
definitions, methods of understanding that are open to contention,
'unknown unknowns' that suggest chronic conditions of ignorance, and
lack of capacity to imagine future eventualities of both the problem
and the proposed solutions. The complex web of causality may result in
surprising unintended consequences to attempted solutions, that
generate new vulnerabilities or exacerbate the original harm. Further,
the wickedness of the climate change problem makes it difficult to
identify points of irrefutable failure or success in either the
scientific predictions or the policies.
Overreaction to a possible catastrophic threat may cause more harm
than benefits and introduce new systemic risks, which are difficult to
foresee for a wicked problem. The known risks to human well-being
associated with constraining fossil fuels may be worse than the
eventual risks from climate change, and there are undoubtedly some
risks from both that we currently do not foresee.
The wickedness of the climate change problem is further manifested
in the regional variability of the risks. Balancing the risks of
climate change and the policy response is very difficult across
different regions and countries that face varying risks from climate
change, energy poverty and challenges to economic development. Some
regions may actually benefit from a warmer climate. Regional
perceptions of a preferred climate or `dangerous' climate change depend
on societal values and vulnerability/resilience, which vary regionally
and culturally. Climate has always changed, independently of human
activity, so climate change is nothing new. Further, our current
preferences for avoiding a particular climate of the future fail to
account for human creativity and ingenuity in creating new technologies
and social and political structures that will condition our perceptions
and the consequences of climate change.
Climate-related decisions involve incomplete information from a
fast-moving and irreducibly uncertain science. There are many different
interests and values in play, the relevant timescales are long and
there is near certainty of surprise. In the context of decision making,
`deep uncertainty' \12\ refers to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Walker et al. (2016): Deep Uncertainty. doi:10.1007/978-1-
4419-1153-7_1140.
situations in which the phenomena are still only poorly
understood and experts do not know or cannot agree on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
models that relate key forces that shape the future;
modeling and subjective judgments are used rather than
estimates based upon previous experience of actual events
and outcomes; and
experts cannot agree on the value of alternative outcomes.
The climate change problem arguably meets all three of these
criteria for `deep uncertainty'.\13\ Acknowledgement of deep
uncertainty surrounding a problem and its solutions does not imply that
`no action' is needed. Rather, it implies that decision-analytic
frameworks should be selected that are consistent with deep
uncertainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Curry (2018). Climate uncertainty and risk. https://
indd.adobe.com/view/da3d0bde-1848-474d-b080-f07200293f91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robust and flexible policy strategies can be designed that account
for uncertainty, ignorance and dissent. Robust strategies formally
consider uncertainty, whereby decision makers seek to reduce the range
of possible scenarios over which the strategy performs poorly. Flexible
strategies can be quickly adjusted to advancing scientific insights and
new conditions that arise.
Justification for addressing the climate change problem is
transitioning away from precaution to a risk management approach that
addresses the economics of preventing losses from climate change. The
World Bank has a recent paper entitled Investment decision making under
deep uncertainty--application to climate change \14\ that summarizes
decision-making methodologies that are able to deal with the deep
uncertainty associated with climate change, including robust decision
making and Climate Informed Decision Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://elibrary.worldbank.org/content/workingpaper/10.1596/
1813-9450-6193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartwell Paper,\15\ published by the London School of Economics
in cooperation with the University of Oxford, argues that:
``decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit
contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and
relentlessly pragmatic.'' The Hartwell Paper analyzes many alternative
policy approaches to decarbonization. The authors remind us that: ``it
is not just that science does not dictate climate policy; it is that
climate policy alone does not dictate environmental or development or
energy policies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Hartwell Paper, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Breakthrough Institute has proposed Climate Pragmatism,\16\ a
pluralistic approach based on innovation, resilience and no regrets.
This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy
innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets
pollution reduction measures. Each of these three efforts has
justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and
adaptation. Further, this framework does not depend on any agreement
about climate science or the risks posed by CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Climate_Pragmatism_web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the urgency (?) of co2 emissions reductions
In the decades since the 1992 UNFCCC Treaty, global CO2
emissions have continued to increase, especially in developing
countries. In 2010, the world's governments agreed that emissions need
to be reduced so that global temperature increases are limited to below
2+C.\17\ The target of 2+C (and increasingly 1.5+C) \18\ remains the
focal point of international climate agreements and negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php.
\18\ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original rationale for the 2+C target is the idea that `tipping
points'--abrupt or nonlinear transition to a different climate state--
become likely to occur once this threshold has been crossed, with
consequences that are largely uncontrollable and beyond our management.
The IPCC AR5 considered a number of potential tipping points, including
ice sheet collapse, collapse of the Atlantic overturning circulation,
and permafrost carbon release. Every single catastrophic scenario
considered by the IPCC AR5 (WGII, Table 12.4) has a rating of very
unlikely or exceptionally unlikely and/or has low confidence. The only
tipping point that the IPCC considers likely in the 21st century is
disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice (which is fairly reversible,
since sea ice freezes every winter).
In the absence of tipping points on the timescale of the 21st
century, the 2+C limit is more usefully considered by analogy to a
highway speed limit: \19\ driving at 10 mph under the speed limit is
not automatically safe, and exceeding the limit by 10 mph is not
automatically dangerous, although the faster one travels the greater
the danger from an accident. Analogously, the 2+C (or 1.5+C) limit
should not be taken literally as a real danger threshold. An analogy
for considering the urgency of emissions reductions is your 401K
account: if you begin making contributions early, it will be easier to
meet your retirement goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/two-degrees-a-
selected-history-of-climate-change-speed-limit/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the 2+C and 1.5+C limits are used to motivate the
urgency of action to reduce CO2 emissions. At a recent U.N.
Climate Summit, (former) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that:
``Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key
sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees
[of warming] will soon close forever.'' \20\ Actually, this window of
opportunity may remain open for quite some time. The implications of
the lower values of climate sensitivity found by Lewis and Curry \21\
and other recent studies is that human-caused warming is not expected
to exceed the 2+C `danger' level in the 21st century. Further, there is
growing evidence that the RCP8.5 scenario for future greenhouse gas
concentrations, which drives the largest amount of warming in climate
model simulations, is impossibly high, requiring a combination of
numerous borderline impossible socioeconomic scenarios.\22\ A slower
rate of warming means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas
emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy
affordably and with a minimum of unintended consequences. It also
allows for the flexibility to revise our policies as further
information becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ http://unfccc.int/un-climate-summit-ban-ki-moon-final-
summary/.
\21\ Lewis and Curry (2018), https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/
10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1.
\22\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0360544217314597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible that something truly dangerous and unforeseen could
happen to Earth's climate during the 21st century? Yes it is possible,
but natural climate variability (including geologic processes) may be a
more likely source of possible undesirable change than man-made
warming. In any event, attempting to avoid such a dangerous and
unforeseen climate by reducing fossil fuel emissions will be futile if
natural climate and geologic processes are dominant factors. Geologic
processes are an important factor in the potential instability of the
West Antarctic ice sheet that could contribute to substantial sea level
rise in the 21st century.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Curry (2018). Sea level and climate change. https://
curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/special-report-sea-level-rise3.pdf
(section 4.2.2). Whitehouse et al. (2019) https://www.nature.com/
articles/s41467-018-08068-y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Paris Agreement, individual countries have submitted to
the UNFCCC their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Under the
Obama administration, the U.S. NDC had a goal of reducing emissions by
28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Apart from considerations of
feasibility and cost, it has been estimated \24\ using the EPA MAGICC
model that this commitment will prevent 0.03+C in warming by 2100. When
combined with current commitments from other nations, only a small
fraction of the projected future warming will be ameliorated by these
commitments. If climate models are indeed running too hot,\25\ then the
amount of warming prevented would be even smaller. Even if emissions
immediately went to zero and the projections of climate models are to
be believed, the impact on the climate would not be noticeable until
the 2nd half of the 21st century. Most of the expected benefits to the
climate from the UNFCCC emissions reductions policy will be realized in
the 22nd century and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Lomborg (2015), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/
10.1111/1758-5899.12295.
\25\ Curry (2017). Climate models for laypersons, https://
www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attempting to use carbon dioxide as a control knob to regulate
climate on decadal to century timescales is arguably futile. The UNFCCC
emissions reductions policies have brought us to a point between a rock
and a hard place, whereby the emissions reduction policy with its
extensive costs and questions of feasibility are inadequate for making
a meaningful dent in slowing down the expected warming in the 21st
century. And the real societal consequences of climate change and
extreme weather events (whether caused by man-made climate change or
natural variability) remain largely unaddressed.
This is not to say that a transition away from burning fossil fuels
doesn't make sense over the course of the 21st century. People prefer
`clean' over `dirty' energy--provided that all other things are equal,
such as reliability, security, and economy. However, assuming that
current wind and solar technologies are adequate for providing the
required amount and density of electric power for an advanced economy
is misguided.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Clack et al. (2017), https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent record-breaking cold outbreak in the Midwest is a stark
reminder of the challenges of providing a reliable power supply in the
face of extreme weather events, where an inadequate power supply not
only harms the economy, but jeopardizes lives and public safety. Last
week, central Minnesota experienced a natural gas `brownout,' as Xcel
Energy advised customers to turn thermostats down to 60 degrees and
avoid using hot water.\27\ Why? Because the wind wasn't blowing during
an exceptionally cold period. Utilities pair natural gas plants with
wind farms, where the gas plants can be ramped up and down quickly when
the wind isn't blowing. With bitter cold temperatures and no wind,
there wasn't enough natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/why-green-
energy-is-futile-in-one-lesson.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A transition to an electric power system driven solely by wind and
solar would require a massive amount of energy storage. While energy
storage technologies are advancing, massive deployment of cost
effective energy storage technologies is well beyond current
capabilities.\28\ An unintended consequence of rapid deployment of wind
and solar energy farms may be that natural gas power plants become
increasingly entrenched in the power supply system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://webstore.iea.org/technology-roadmap-energy-storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from energy policy, there are a number of land use practices
related to croplands, grazing lands, forests and wetlands that could
increase the natural sequestration of carbon and have ancillary
economic and ecosystem benefits.\29\ These co-benefits include improved
biodiversity, soil quality, agricultural productivity and wildfire
behavior modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/
ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the urgency of CO2 emissions reductions,
we need to be realistic about what reducing emissions will actually
accomplish. Drastic reductions of emissions in the United States will
not reduce global CO2 concentrations if emissions in the
developing world, particularly China and India, continue to increase.
If we believe the climate model simulations, we would not expect to see
any changes in extreme weather/climate events until late in the 21st
century. The greatest impacts will be felt in the 22nd century and
beyond, in terms of reducing sea level rise and ocean acidification.
resilience, anti-fragility and thrivability
Given that emissions reductions policies are very costly,
politically contentious and are not expected to change the climate in a
meaningful way in the 21st century, adaptation strategies are receiving
increasing attention in formulating responses to climate change.
The extreme damages from recent hurricanes plus the recent billion
dollar disasters from floods, droughts and wildfires, emphasize that
the United States is highly vulnerable to current weather and climate
disasters. Even worse disasters were encountered in the United States
during the 1930s and 1950s. Possible scenarios of incremental worsening
of weather and climate extremes over the course of the 21st century
don't change the fundamental storyline that many regions of the United
States are not well adapted to the current weather and climate
variability, let alone the range that has been experienced over the
past two centuries.
As a practical matter, adaptation has been driven by local crises
associated with extreme weather and climate events, emphasizing the
role of `surprises' in shaping responses. Advocates of adaptation to
climate change are not arguing for simply responding to events and
changes after they occur; they are arguing for anticipatory adaptation.
However, in adapting to climate change, we need to acknowledge that we
cannot know how the climate will evolve in the 21st century, we are
certain to be surprised and we will make mistakes along the way.
`Resilience' is the ability to `bounce back' in the face of
unexpected events. Resilience carries a connotation of returning to the
original state as quickly as possible. The difference in impact and
recovery from Hurricane Sandy striking New York City in 2012 versus the
impact of Tropical Cyclone Nargis striking Myanmar in 2008 \30\
reflects very different vulnerabilities and capacities for bouncing
back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Webster, (2008). Myanmar's Deadly Daffodil. http://
webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/Webster2008c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To increase our resilience to extreme weather and climate events,
we can `bounce forward' to reduce future vulnerability by evolving our
infrastructures, institutions and practices. Nicholas Taleb's concept
of antifragility \31\ focuses on learning from adversity, and
developing approaches that enable us to thrive from high levels of
volatility, particularly unexpected extreme events. Anti-fragility goes
beyond `bouncing back' to becoming even better as a result of
encountering and overcoming challenges. Anti-fragile systems are
dynamic rather than static, thriving and growing in new directions
rather than simply maintaining the status quo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Taleb, (2012). Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder.
Random House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategies to increase antifragility include: economic development,
reducing the downside from volatility, developing a range of options,
tinkering with small experiments, and developing and testing
transformative ideas. Antifragility is consistent with decentralized
models of policy innovation that create flexibility and redundance in
the face of volatility. This `innovation dividend' is analogous to
biodiversity in the natural world, enhancing resilience in the face of
future shocks.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Lynch: Policy Diversity: Creative Potential or Wasteful
Redundancy? https://slideplayer.com/slide/6265255/.
Similar to anti-fragility, the concept of `thrivability' has been
articulated by Jean Russell: \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Russell, (2013). https://www.amazon.com/Thrivability-Breaking-
through-World-Works/dp/1909470287.
``It isn't enough to repair the damage our progress has
brought. It is also not enough to manage our risks and be more
shock-resistant. Now is not only the time to course correct and
be more resilient. It is a time to imagine what we can generate
for the world. Not only can we work to minimize our footprint
but we can also create positive handprints. It is time to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
strive for a world that thrives.''
A focus on policies that support resilience, anti-fragility and
thrivability avoids the hubris of thinking we can predict the future
climate. The relevant questions then become:
How can we best promote the development of transformative
ideas and technologies?
How much resilience can we afford?
The threats from climate change (whether natural or human caused)
are fundamentally regional, associated not only with regional changes
to the weather/climate, but with local vulnerabilities and cultural
values and perceptions. In the least developed countries, energy
poverty and survivability is of overwhelming concern, where there are
severe challenges to meeting basic needs and their idea of clean energy
is something other than burning dung inside their dwelling for cooking
and heating. In many less developed countries, particularly in South
Asia, an overwhelming concern is vulnerability to extreme weather
events such as floods and hurricanes that can set back the local
economies for a generation. In the developed world, countries are
relatively less vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather events
and have the luxury of experimenting with new ideas: entrepreneurs not
only want to make money, but also to strive for greatness and transform
the infrastructure for society.
Extreme weather/climate events such as landfalling major
hurricanes, floods, extreme heat waves and droughts become catastrophes
through a combination of large populations, large and exposed
infrastructure in vulnerable locations, and human modification of
natural systems that can provide a natural safety barrier (e.g.
deforestation, draining wetlands). Addressing current adaptive deficits
and planning for climate compatible development will increase societal
resilience to future extreme events that may possibly be more frequent
or severe in the future.
ways forward
Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a future
threat from man-made climate change. Based upon our current assessment
of the science, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on
the timescale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming
incarnation. However, the perception of man-made climate change as a
near-term apocalypse and alignment with range of other social
objectives has narrowed the policy options that we're willing to
consider.
Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer
climate is challenging because of the deep uncertainties surrounding
the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions. The
wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for
disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people.
With regards to energy policy and its role in reducing emissions,
consider the following three options:
1. Do nothing, continue with the status quo.
2. Rapidly deploy wind and solar power plants, with the goal of
eliminating fossil fuels on the timescale of 1-2 decades.
3. Re-imagine 21st century electric power generation and
transmission systems with new technologies that improve
energy security, reliability and cost while at the same
time minimizing environmental impacts.
The current climate/energy policy debate seems to be #1 versus #2;
in my opinion, neither of these options gets us where we want to be in
terms of thriving economically and minimizing the environmental impact
of energy generation. #3 in principle can usher in a new era of
abundant, clean energy, but we can't put an arbitrary timetable/
deadline on this; it will require substantial research, development and
experimentation. In the meantime, muddling along with some combination
of #1 and #2 can improve the situation somewhat. Ironically, acting
urgently on emissions reduction by massively deploying solar and wind
power could entrench natural gas in the power system and turn out to be
the enemy of a better long-term solution. Focusing on #3 has the
potential to eliminate the current gridlock of debating #1 versus #2,
and provides the best option for a long-term solution.
A regional focus on adapting to the risks of climate change allows
for a range of bottom-up strategies to be integrated with other
societal challenges, including growing population, environmental
degradation, poorly planned land-use and over-exploitation of natural
resources. Even if the threat from global warming turns out to be
small, near-term benefits to the region can be realized in terms of
reduced vulnerability to a broad range of threats, improved resource
management, and improved environmental quality. Securing the common
interest on local and regional scales provides a basis for the
successful implementation of climate adaptation strategies and
addressing near-term social justice objectives.
Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic efforts to:
accelerate energy innovation
build resilience to extreme events
pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures
Each of these three efforts has justifications independent of their
benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. These three efforts
provide the basis for a climate policy that addresses near-term
economic and social justice concerns and the longer-term goals of
mitigation.
The role for climate science and climate scientists in the policy
process has been complex. In the past 20 years, dominated by the IPCC/
UNFCCC paradigm, scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious
scientific and political debate, where the issues in each have become
confounded. This has generated much polarization in the scientific
community and has resulted in political attacks on scientists on both
sides of the debate. A scientist's `side' is often defined by factors
that are exogenous to the actual scientific debate. Debates over
relatively arcane aspects of the scientific argument have become a
substitute for what should be a real debate about politics and values.
Scientific progress is driven by uncertainty and disagreement;
working to resolve these uncertainties and disagreements drives the
knowledge frontier forward. Attempts by government policy makers to
intimidate climate scientists \34\ whose research or public statements
are perceived to be in opposition to preferred policy narrative are
enormously detrimental to scientific progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2015/02/24/rep-grijalva-asks-
for-conflict-of-interest-disclosures-from-gops-go-to-climate-science-
witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am making one `ask' today: please allow climate science and the
research process to proceed unfettered by political attacks on
scientists. We need to acknowledge that climate-related decisions
involve incomplete information from a fast-moving and irreducibly
uncertain science. Uncertainty and disagreement is what drives the
knowledge frontier forward; please help that process to flourish. Only
in the most simple-minded policy making frameworks does scientific
uncertainty and disagreement prescribe `no action.'
It is up to the political process (international, national, and
local) to decide how to contend with the climate problem, with all of
its uncertainties, complexity and wickedness. The challenge is to open
up the decision-making processes in a way that is more honestly
political and economic, while giving proper weight to scientific
reason, evidence and uncertainty.
______
Question Submitted for the Record by Rep. Hice to Dr. Judith A. Curry,
President, Climate Forecast Applications Network
Question 1. Dr. Curry, as you are probably aware, Dr. William
Happer, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Princeton University,
suggests that climate modeling is an extremely difficult problem
because the climate involves the interaction between the atmosphere and
the oceans, which are both extremely turbulent fluids. He notes that it
is not difficult to write the partial differential equations that
describe our climate, but that even our most powerful supercomputers
cannot solve these equations leading scientists to replace them with
simplified computer models that toss out much of the detail of the real
atmosphere and oceans leading us to less robust data and conclusions.
How would you respond to that?
Answer. To answer questionssuch asthe oneput forward by
Representative Hice, in 2017 I wrote a report entitled ``Climate models
for the layman'' that explains how climate models work and their
limitations. An online link to the report: https://www.thegwpf.org/
content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf.
With regards to Representative Hice's specific question regarding a
statement by Dr. William Happer, I regard Dr. Happer's statement to be
correct. Thejustification for my conclusion is summarized in the report
linked to in the previous paragraph.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and to the whole panel,
our appreciation for your valuable and important testimony.
Let me turn to my colleague, Mr. Neguse, for questions.
Mr. Neguse. First, I want to thank the Chairman for holding
this hearing. It is a breath of fresh air, particularly for us
new Members who have just joined the Congress, that the Natural
Resources Committee is undertaking this important work, and
that its first hearing is on such an important topic.
I would respectfully disagree with Dr. Curry, in terms of
your framing around the existential nature of this issue. I
think climate change is an existential threat.
I think of this in the context of being a new, young
father. I am 34 years old. My wife and I just had our first
child, a daughter, Natalie. She is 5 months old. Much of our
work here in the Congress is ultimately making sure that the
world she inherits is a better one than perhaps the world that
we inherited. And one need look no further than the IPCC report
and a variety of other studies to see just how catastrophic the
consequences of climate change will be for her generation if we
don't take decisive action, and if we don't do so now.
And I can tell you that, certainly in my community in
Colorado, we are feeling the impacts of climate change already.
I have a report here that I will respectfully ask be submitted
into the record, the most recent report from the Department of
the Interior with respect to the impacts of climate change in
Rocky Mountain National Park.
I represent Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, Northern
Colorado. Fifty-two percent of my district is Federal public
land, and we see very clearly the impacts of climate change in
Rocky Mountain National Park and elsewhere. My constituents see
it every day. Rising temperatures have led to snow melting
faster, which causes increased flooding and erosion, and
negatively impacts Colorado's fresh water supply, 70 percent of
which comes from our snow. At Rocky Mountain National Park, the
studies have shown that temperatures have risen 3 to 4 degrees,
significantly affecting the plants and animals that call the
park home.
I am very excited about the opportunity to take
comprehensive, holistic, and significant action to solve this
issue, actions like the Green New Deal, which I support, along
with several of my colleagues. I have introduced legislation to
protect over 400,000 acres of public lands in my state, in
Colorado, so that we can ensure that those lands are not sold
to the highest bidder and opened up to oil and gas development
and the rest.
So, at the end of the day, I think this was the defining
issue of our time. And I thank the witnesses, with respect to
their activism, in trying to push for common-sense solutions
that will ultimately protect the planet for all of our
children.
My question goes to Mr. Hollie. I heard your testimony with
respect to energy poverty, I think, as you described it, and
the issues around affordability. I don't know if you are aware
of this--I think you referenced natural gas as being ``clean.''
According to the NAACP's Clean Air Task Force report,
African-American communities face an elevated risk of cancer
due to air toxic emissions from natural gas development, and
over 1 million African-Americans live in counties that face a
cancer risk above the EPA's level of concern from toxins
emitted by natural gas facilities. I am curious how you would
respond to that statistic.
Mr. Hollie. My response would be all of our energy sources
have some type of downside to them, even coal. We look at the
wind turbine----
Mr. Neguse. Well, I would agree with you there, Mr. Hollie.
Mr. Hollie. Right, right.
Mr. Neguse. Coal certainly has a negative impact, as does
natural gas----
Mr. Hollie. If I could finish, sir.
Mr. Neguse. Proceed.
Mr. Hollie. Even the wind turbines this winter, a couple
weeks ago, couldn't operate. The downside. But we know for a
fact that liquid gas, natural gas, is the cleanest way and the
most affordable way right now for people in this country.
Mr. Neguse. Well, I am not sure I understand your
comparison of windmills to the toxins and potential cancer
risks associated with natural gas emissions.
But nonetheless, I will say, I understand that you have
written a number of editorials. And obviously, from your
testimony today, support the development of fossil fuels, coal,
and natural gas.
Mr. Hollie. Energy exploration.
Mr. Neguse. And I understand that your organization,
Reaching America, that you have utilized that organization to
make those views known. Is that a fair----
Mr. Hollie. That is a fair assessment.
Mr. Neguse. I also understand that your organization is a
partner with a group called Explore Offshore. Is that correct?
Mr. Hollie. We are a member of that organization, yes.
Mr. Neguse. OK, and that is a project of the American
Petroleum Institute.
Mr. Hollie. They are associated with them, yes.
Mr. Neguse. OK. Does your organization receive any funding
from fossil fuel companies or corporations?
Mr. Hollie. No, we do not.
Mr. Neguse. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am curious, Reverend Yearwood. From your testimony it
sounds like you support the Green New Deal. Is that fair?
Rev. Yearwood. That is correct.
Mr. Gohmert. You had mentioned your position as a chaplain
in the military. And some of us have real concerns about
closing every base and cutting our military by 50 percent, but
that is interesting that you support those.
Rev. Yearwood. Well, the military was one of the key
institutions of our government that actually has spoken about
the threats of climate change.
Mr. Gohmert. Right. And Green New Deal is going to take
care of that by making us basically indefensible. With a 50
percent cut, we will not be able to protect ourselves properly
from the threat of Russia, China, or even ISIS from there, and
closing all bases overseas, but that is interesting.
Also, I couldn't help think back as I listened to Mr.
Hollie, your testimony, to the giant here in the U.S. Congress
named John Dingell. He was chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee when Democrats took the majority back in January 2007
through January 2011. For 50 years he and, as I understand, his
father had wanted some kind of universal health care, and he
was thrilled that he was going to get to chair that into being.
But my understanding was the Speaker of the House, now
Speaker again, wanted two things out of his Committee. They
wanted the universal health care bill, Obamacare, and cap and
trade. And he made the public statement, because that jacks up
the cost of energy, like you have been talking about. And, as
you know, the people that are impacted, it isn't the rich, they
can afford it.
So, he made the statement the cap and trade bill is not
only a tax, it is a great big tax. And, of course, the Nation's
poor were the ones that would be most impacted. But because of
his comment he was fired as chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee. Mr. Waxman was made chairman. And, as he famously
said, ``We not only don't want your input, we don't need your
votes.'' So, he pushed it through, and it never became law.
But as you testified, that does come back to mind. And I
had an 80-year-old lady say, ``I am scared. My cost of energy
to heat my home is going up. And I was born in a home that only
had a wood-burning stove, and I am afraid I am going to die in
a home that can only afford a wood-burning stove.''
And I said, ``I am really sorry to be the bearer of bad
tidings, but probably your wood-burning stove is going to end
up being illegal.''
But it is tragic. And it is the poor that suck it up, when
we push these kinds of things. So, I appreciate your
perspective very much.
Dr. Curry, let me ask you very quickly. Has there ever been
any climate change more dramatically than what killed off the
dinosaurs?
Dr. Curry. Climate has always varied. Sometimes there are
extreme events that maybe get an asteroid or comet impact, or
something like that. But the ocean, volcanic eruptions, there
are many sources of natural variability on all timescales.
So, when you see the climate changing, you can't
immediately assume that it is all caused by humans. There is a
strong natural----
Mr. Gohmert. Do you think we are causing the polar ice caps
on Mars to melt?
Dr. Curry. No.
Mr. Gohmert. That is probably the sun, apparently.
But let me--my time is running out, but I appreciate all
our witnesses. But the comparison of the civil rights effort, I
mean, that was unconstitutional activity by the government, and
it just strikes me so ironic that if the climate change and the
Green New Deal comes into law, it is saying we are giving up
our freedom and putting all our faith in the government because
of the civil rights violations to begin with. It is just rather
ironic.
But my time has expired, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity to
finally, after many years, have a hearing on climate change.
And I want to thank our witnesses, along with our governors,
who signaled a bipartisan desire to see strong Federal action.
Let's cut to the chase. The overwhelming scientific
consensus has left no doubt--no doubt--that we are facing a
climate crisis. And it is long past time to stop undermining
science and evidence. The report that we saw this morning from
NOAA and NASA shows that the 5 warmest years recorded since
1880 are the last 5 years. This isn't that hard to figure out.
Now must be the time to accept reality. This is reality. And we
have to begin focusing on solutions.
And I want to thank the young people who are here for
leading the way on initiatives like the Green New Deal.
We must not wait to accelerate the deployment of renewable
energy or energy-efficient buildings or electrify our
transportation infrastructure.
I am from the great state of California, where I have been
involved in climate and energy policy for a long time, and I
have heard the nay-sayers every step of the way. But what we
have done is we have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt
that, if you protect the environment and innovate with the
clean energy jobs of the future, you will grow the economy at
the same time. And our solar industry in California is a clear
example of that.
We must also not advocate our global leadership on the
issue of climate change, or subcontract our energy and
environmental policies to a handful of big polluters who ignore
science and common sense. And we must not sit by as
unprecedented climate change impacts the health and safety and
the economy of our communities.
I am confident that a strong majority of the American
people are with us, and even a strong majority of my colleagues
in the House and Senate. The question is whether we have the
courage to act on climate. And this hearing is just one step of
many that we are going to need to take in that direction.
The transition to a more sustainable future has been my
life's work, and will be a critical aspect of my service in
Congress. I hope that we can put politics aside, if even for
just a moment, and focus instead on science and evidence and
our future.
And like my friend, Mr. Neguse, I have two young children
at home, and this is about leaving the planet better for them
than how I found it.
With that, I actually do have a couple of questions for Dr.
Cobb.
Dr. Cobb, I want to thank you for your work. We have seen
numerous studies over the past few months that climate change
is wreaking havoc on ecosystems, and that we have potentially
lost two-thirds of all species that were on the planet before
the Industrial Revolution. Why is the preservation of
biodiversity so important for resiliency to climate change, and
what steps can we take to preserve biodiversity, particularly
as the Natural Resources Committee?
Dr. Cobb. Thank you for that question, the opportunity to
address that.
I think I made clear in the testimony that I provided that
any number of indicators of our ecosystem's health are already
showing steady declines with respect to climate change impacts.
The National Climate Assessment lays that out item by item.
But to your question about biodiversity. Diversity of
species is critical to the function of ecosystems, and, in
turn, those ecosystem services that we rely on. We might turn
to the functioning of coastal ecosystems and recognize the
importance of functioning ecosystems that provide fishermen
with livelihoods and many other kinds of tourist-related
services, as well.
So, this has a distinct value to Americans that has been
shown again and again and again. And certainly science tells us
some of the ways that this Committee can help to promote
biodiversity and increase ecosystem resilience and, therefore,
support the communities that depend on these services. Some of
those ways include, as I mentioned, protecting the lands that
these species depend on, and using the best science and
evidence to inform the support of these ecosystems and the
critical species that support their function. So, that is just
one way.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Levin. I represent a district, California's 49th
District, with over 50 miles of coastline. And my friends at
the Scripps Institute of Oceanography agree with you, Dr. Cobb,
that we absolutely must face the reality, the changing
temperature of our oceans, the obvious coastal erosion,
unprecedented. And if we don't act, future generations will
regret our lack of action. Now is our moment to lead. This
should not be a partisan issue; this should be based on science
and evidence. And if we can actually focus on facts for a
change, maybe we will get somewhere. I yield back.
Ms. Yeampierre. I would like to, if possible, make a
comment, as one of two women of color that is on this panel,
particularly because climate change is going to impact front-
line communities more than any other. And the people who are
leading the women of color in these communities, their children
are the ones that are going to be impacted.
We can't talk about these ecosystems devoid of talking
about the impact on human rights and on the people affected.
More than 5,000 Puerto Ricans died. That is not nothing. That
is not just an ecosystem. That was an entire island that was
affected.
In the Philippines around 2012, 10,000 Filipinos died. We
have had Superstorm Sandy that affected life all over New York
City and New Jersey, and the infrastructure was destroyed.
So, I just really don't want to talk about this in silos,
we are not talking about whole communities, and not treating
this issue in a way that is holistic. If we don't lead with how
this is going to impact the people least responsible for
creating climate change, the people who live within their
carbon footprint, the people who are engaged in urban forestry,
doubling the amount of open space, stopping the siting of power
plants, then we will----
Mr. Grijalva. I am not cutting you off----
Ms. Yeampierre [continuing]. Miss the reason why we have
this panel.
The Chairman. The time is up, and we want to stay within
the protocol.
Ms. Yeampierre. All right. Thank you, I appreciate it, but
I just want to make sure----
The Chairman. With all due respect. Thank you.
Ms. Yeampierre [continuing]. That folks address those
things.
The Chairman. Mr. McClintock, please.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to talk
about science and evidence.
Professor Curry, are we experiencing the highest
temperatures in the planet's history.
Dr. Curry. No.
Mr. McClintock. When have we seen higher temperatures?
Dr. Curry. Oh, a very long time ago, and at least in some
regions, they may be equally as high about 1,000 years ago,
during the Medieval warm period.
Mr. McClintock. So, long before the Industrial Revolution?
Dr. Curry. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. Are we experiencing the highest levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the planet's history?
Dr. Curry. No. Historically, we are a little bit on the low
side, actually, in the current era.
Mr. McClintock. Are we experiencing the worst droughts in
recorded history?
Dr. Curry. Definitely not.
Mr. McClintock. Are we experiencing the most ferocious
hurricanes in recorded history?
Dr. Curry. No. In recent history, in the 1950s in the
Atlantic, the land-falling hurricanes were actually worse than
what we have seen in recent decades.
Mr. McClintock. I am reminded of a poem by Ogden Nash, who
wrote, ``The ass was born in March, the rains came in November.
`Such a flood as this,' he said, `I scarcely can remember'.''
But our recorded history, as well as our paleoclimatology
informs us that there have been periods where carbon dioxide
levels have been much higher than they are today, temperatures
have been much higher and lower than they are today, and long
before the significant carbon dioxide emissions of human
civilization. Is that correct?
Dr. Curry. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. A study published in Lancet a few years ago
noted that cold weather kills far more people than warm
weather. What do you see as the greater threat?
Dr. Curry. Well, obviously, it depends on the location. But
I think the statistics, overall, across a wide variety of
locations do support that cold weather kills more than hot
weather.
Mr. McClintock. During the recent cold wave, those states
that relied excessively on wind and solar saw electricity
outages. Would you say that the greatest single threat in
extreme weather, either hot or cold, is a lack of electricity?
Dr. Curry. Yes. Even during hurricanes, what kills a lot of
people is the lack of electricity, which has all sorts of
trickle-down effects on other things that are needed to save
lives during those experiences.
Mr. McClintock. How does an over-reliance on wind and solar
generation affect our ability to provide abundant, reliable,
and affordable electricity?
Dr. Curry. Well, it doesn't work without natural gas.
Natural gas is the perfect partner for wind and solar, because
of the intermittency, because you can fire up a gas burner and
fire it back down. And energy trading, natural gas trading, is
what has, I think, stabilized the price of natural gas that
actually helps make wind and solar be affordable.
So, until such time as there are advanced storage
technologies, we are going to rely on natural gas as a partner.
Mr. McClintock. Let me get to that, if I can.
Mr. Hollie, we heard earlier from the governor of
Massachusetts about all of their green energy policies, also
the governor of North Carolina. My home state of California has
adopted even more radical policies. They say they are helping
the poor, but I just checked. In Massachusetts, those policies
have produced the 11th highest gasoline prices in the country.
California now has, as a result of these policies, the 2nd
highest gasoline prices in the country. Massachusetts and
California are tied for the 6th highest electricity prices in
the country.
How are poor people helped by paying needlessly sky-high
prices for gasoline and electricity?
Mr. Hollie. Sir, I don't have a lot of research to point
to. All I have is my anecdotal research. The thousands of
people that I speak to struggle every single day to pay their
electric bill. And the one thing that they talk about is just
the need for affordable, reliable energy that we have here in
this country. So, if we can find a way to reduce the
regulations that allow people access to that energy, I think it
would go a long way in helping them to reduce the cost of
energy for them.
Mr. McClintock. Dr. Curry, a gridlocked car creates twice
the NOx contaminants and six times the carbon contaminants per
mile traveled as a car moving at peak efficiency. Doesn't it
make more sense to add highway capacity to resolve our chronic
traffic congestion if carbon emissions are the goal of
reducing?
Dr. Curry. A transportation policy is much tougher to
figure out than power production. It is a very complex issue,
and I would like to see us re-envision what that should be for
the 21st century, rather than adding patches to our current
system.
Mr. McClintock. If we are going to be able to store less
moisture in the mountains as snow, does it make sense to build
more dams, so that we can store surplus water from wet years so
that we have it in dry years?
Dr. Curry. It certainly does. Water resource management is
a big issue, but there are environmental challenges associated
with dams and reservoirs, also. So, it needs a lot of planning
to make all this do what you really want it to do.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Haaland.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome to all of you and
thank you so much for taking time to be with us today. I would
like to take this opportunity to thank you and my colleagues
for entrusting me with the responsibilities of Vice Chair of
this Committee and the chairship for the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. I look forward to
working with you and my colleagues to protect our public lands
and to meet our obligations to our indigenous communities.
To that point, this hearing is important and an appropriate
place to begin this Congress. As we heard from all our
witnesses, climate change poses an unprecedented threat to our
communities and our environment.
Last year, in my state of New Mexico, the Ute Park Fire
burned tens of thousands of drought-stricken acres, while the
city of Santa Fe experienced a once in 1,000-year flood.
Meanwhile, a vast methane cloud hovers over the northwest
corner of New Mexico, and this Administration has worked to
weaken the rules on methane emissions from oil and gas
operations.
Methane is more than 80 times more powerful than carbon
dioxide at trapping heat, and is responsible for about a
quarter of the warming we are experiencing today.
Nearby in Arizona, Hurricane Rosa inundated the Tohono
O'odham Nation, nearly overtopping their dam, trapping
residents behind impassible roads, and forcing evacuations.
Hurricanes have almost never reached this part of Arizona
before.
Climate change has forced us to live in a new normal, in
which fires, floods, droughts, and hurricanes wreck our
communities and our national heritage. And it is now time for
us to act.
I first would like to just thank Ms. Nazar for your
commitment and your sacrifice to the things you believe in. I
almost want to apologize to you and the youth of this world,
who go to bed every night worrying about what will happen to
our communities because of climate change. And I just want to
recognize your presence here. It means a great deal to me and
to many of us. So, thank you very much.
Ms. Yeampierre, I think you are best equipped to answer
this question, so I will ask it to you.
Right now, the EPA and Interior Department are run by
former lobbyists for coal and oil companies. The New York Times
reported last year that a coal magnate was essentially getting
his entire wish list of energy de-regulations approved by this
Administration.
What role do you believe this corporate capture of the
Administration will play in being able to address the climate
crisis?
Ms. Yeampierre. I think that the de-regulation is
exacerbating the climate crisis, particularly in front-line
communities and in indigenous communities.
You are from New Mexico, where you have nuclear energy and
uranium in the lungs and the water and people. It is affecting
60 nations and tribes. The decisions that are being made to
support an old-school way of thinking about energy are really
racing us toward extreme catastrophic events.
The truth is that even in places like Kentucky, people are
moving away from coal. One of our organizations, which is with
the Climate Justice Alliance, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth,
are working at operationalizing just transitions that move
people away from having to depend on an economic system that
has destroyed their lives and limited their livability.
So, while people in communities are doing that, you have an
EPA that is racing toward, actually moving policies that are
basically taking us back in time. It is really dangerous, and
it is a contribution to actually making us look like the day
after tomorrow.
And it is unfortunate that this old-school, dated way of
thinking about how we basically consume and use energy is
really creating more problems for our communities. I think
that, honestly, people in different parts of the world are way
ahead of us, and that the United States is really looking like
this clunky old-school machine that can't keep up, not only
with the technology, but the science. So, it is frightening.
EPA has always had people in there that are in the pockets
of the lobbyists, really slowing down the cogs and making it
impossible for us to move as fast as the climate is changing.
So, now what we are seeing is really dangerous. That is what I
would contribute.
Ms. Haaland. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will submit other
questions in writing. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hern.
Mr. Hern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
testifying today as expert witnesses on climate change. Each of
you has spent your careers involved in climate policy and have
helped to generate various solutions to the problem of climate
change.
Mr. Hollie, your work to reduce energy poverty has been
truly remarkable, and your testimony today reflects your well-
versed stances on climate change issues. One part of your
testimony that interests me a lot was where you wrote, ``The
government requires environmental impact studies to estimate
the effects of projects like roads and buildings on nature.
Shouldn't the government act similarly when it comes to how
regulations impact the population?''
Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hern. Would it surprise you that we tried to put that
into a rule last week and it was voted down by our friends
across the aisle? So, we would evaluate the impact of our
policies on a cost benefit analysis.
Mr. Hollie. Sure. No, I did not know that, sir.
Mr. Hern. Thank you.
Dr. Curry, your testimony reflects your wealth of knowledge
on these issues, and gives great insight into the climate
change debate. In particular, you discuss the increasing
concern you have that the climate change problem has been over-
simplified. I agree with this statement, as I feel that an
overly simple, one-size-fits-all--we are smarter than everybody
else in Washington, DC--as we heard our opening statements
today from our Ranking Member--approach to climate change
should lead to serious issues, as what may work for one state
may not work for another.
Would you please elaborate on the problems that an
expensive, one-size-fits-all, top-down solution might cause, if
implemented?
Dr. Curry. Well, a whole host of unintended consequences,
some of which we can't even imagine right now. And because of
that, we need to avoid the hubris of thinking that we can
predict what the future climate will do, and that we can
actually control the climate.
If we were somehow successful in putting all these policies
into place and getting CO2 emissions down to zero, I
think we would be unpleasantly surprised at how little impact
this actually has on the things that worry us most about
extreme weather events, and things like that.
Sea level rise is not--we are not going to turn that one on
a dime, things like that. It is very tough to change the
climate, has a whole lot of inertia in the system. Many
timescales. The Pacific responds very slowly. So, even with
success in reducing the CO2 emissions down to zero,
it would be a long time to turn the corner on having that
actually impact the climate.
So, we need to do some of the more bottom-up type things.
And the states are wonderful laboratories for trying out all
these adaptation resilience kind of policies, and I think we
should try to figure out how to help that flourish, the so-
called innovation dividend.
Mr. Hern. Since you brought that up, last week I had the
fortunate opportunity--we have an organization called Grand
River Dam Authority that is a public-private partnership in our
state of Oklahoma that has been around since the 1930s that was
formed originally by the government through some grants to
build some dams to lock up energy so that we could use that to
handle flooding on the Arkansas River, the McClellan-Kerr
Navigation System, as it came to be in the 1960s.
We also have in our industrial park in Pryor, Oklahoma, the
largest Google server farm in their company. It relocated there
to take over a Gatorade plant with the qualification that they
would only use renewable power. We had a conscious decision,
even though it is not in my district--the state, the GRDA had a
conscious decision to make on free-market enterprise. Do we
want that there? Do we want to go through the cost of upgrading
the grid, upgrading the technology to conform to the purchase
of Google's 100 megawatts? And we felt like the cost benefit
analysis of that made sense.
It was a small plant at that time. It has since quadrupled
in size. And, from all the Google people that I have talked to,
they are so proud of the relationship in a free-market
environment, working with renewable credits to get to where
they are at so that, on the grid, GRDA has a great mixture of
hydro, solar, wind, coal, and natural gas.
To the testimony from Mr. Hollie earlier, that you have to
have backups on this, so that the cost of having a battery-type
environment when you don't have solar and you don't have wind,
that you can actually have power to fuel and to warm our homes
and businesses around our particular districts and our states
and our country.
Thank you for your time. Thank you for testimony. I yield
back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. McEachin.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, thank you for your leadership on the most
urgent threat facing our planet: climate change.
I want to thank the panelists for being here today. And in
particular, I am very happy to see my good friend, Reverend
Yearwood, here today.
Reverend, I have enjoyed working with you over the past 2
years, and I look forward to our continued partnership. In that
vein, Reverend, I want to start with you.
Amazingly, it has been articulated today that there is a
mistaken idea that moving toward a clean energy economy will
hurt low-income communities and communities of color. I need
you to speak to what the rising health and economic costs of
climate change would be for those communities, specifically if
we fail to move in that direction.
Rev. Yearwood. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
First, we can definitely fight poverty and pollution at the
same time. And let me say clearly that the assessment that Mr.
Hollie--respectfully, I disagree completely with what he put
forth as the idea that people of color are not concerned about
the climate, about climate change, about the environment, about
their health.
Mr. Hollie. I didn't say that.
Rev. Yearwood. We know that 200,000 Americans are dying
yearly because of air pollution. We know that we have millions
of children and millions of adults who have asthma, emphysema,
and are getting cancer. We know that 68 percent of people of
color, black people, are living within 30 miles of coal-fired
power plants. We know that the de-regulations or the mercury
rule and the car rule and many of the rules being rolled back
by EPA would hurt people of color.
So, one of the things here that I just want to say. And,
Mr. Hollie, please understand the reason why I was making this
assessment is this. For me, as a minister, having buried a
young girl because of asthma, that mother no longer cares about
how much that utility bill would have cost. That child I had to
bury because of asthma. She would have much more been concerned
about dealing with a particular matter in the atmosphere.
So, the health concerns are one of the key concerns that
are within the communities of color. The idea that we are not
also concerned about our future and the future generation is,
frankly, absurd. The idea that we don't care that we first and
worst will be hurt by climate change is outlandish.
The fact, for me, being from Louisiana and seeing what
happened with Hurricane Katrina, or Harvey in Houston, those
are the kind of things that have a huge impact on communities
of color. So, to sit up here honestly at this critical moment
and to then purport the idea that people of color are somehow
making the decision that they are more concerned about their
energy bill than their health, their energy bill than their
life, then that is literally ludicrous.
If you think anybody--and it was come to earlier about this
was Black History Month and civil rights. The idea that poverty
is also put upon with communities of color is also outlandish.
This is not about this poor people of color, but poor white
people also, as a matter of fact, want clean air and clean
water.
As I said earlier, climate change is a civil rights issue.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you very much, Reverend.
Am I pronouncing this correctly? Is it Yeampierre, Ms.
Yeampierre?
Ms. Yeampierre. It is Yeampierre, yes.
Mr. McEachin. How do we make sure that, as we move toward a
clean energy economy, that we invest greener technologies in
low-income communities and communities of color so they are not
left behind? How do we do that?
Ms. Yeampierre. Whether it is in Michigan, whether it is in
Detroit or in Brooklyn, New York, or Richmond, California,
whether it is fracking going on in people's backyards,
communities of color and front-line communities, whether they
are in Indian Country, are working on operationalizing just
transitions. They are looking at different economies of scale,
anything from community-owned solar to trying to figure out how
they can create food systems that will withstand the changes
that are coming.
And there has to be an investment in those communities. And
we also need to start thinking about governance differently.
Climate change is going to disrupt governance. The idea is that
we need to start creating transformational partnerships with
communities that are on the front line, and that are engaging
in this kind of transformation.
The other thing is that the needs are different everywhere
in the country. So, the needs of a rural community are not the
same as an urban community. Folks that are dealing with
mountain-top removal in Appalachia are dealing with different
kinds of challenges. So, it isn't cookie-cutter, but it is a
commitment to try to work with people on the ground, and being
led by the ground in partnership, because that is what it is
going to take.
Climate change is not going to--top-down solutions are not
going to be sustained over time. They just don't work. People
on the ground are going to have to lead. And we are going to
have to be partners in those kinds of decisions, and sharing
and creating a space where we share expertise and information
with each other.
When the Reverend is talking about Louisiana, in my mind
all I am thinking about was those floating black bodies. As
people of African ancestry, that is the truth for all of us all
over the United States, right? I think about Puerto Rico, I
think about Louisiana. So, I think that it is really important
that those communities that are leading and are doing the work,
that they not be marginalized, and that they be supported and
invested in.
The Chairman. Thank you----
Mr. McEachin. Thank you so much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
concentrate with my questions and comments on the proposals
that are out there to deal with climate change. I don't want to
talk about climate change, the science behind it, the man-made
role. I want to talk about the proposals that are on the table
to deal with it.
And the main proposal that I have seen so far is the Green
New Deal. I hear that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle may have some proposals coming forward to flesh this out,
but right now, all we have is the Green New Deal, and we
already have presidential contenders endorsing it.
We have the Green Party, that has talked a lot about it. I
am going to use a few of their facts and figures. They say--and
if you go to GP.org--that the transition to a Green New Deal
will cost $13 trillion.
Right now, here is our dependence on hydrocarbons: 82
percent of U.S. electricity is generated from coal, natural
gas, and nuclear, leaving 18 percent from renewables and
hydropower.
When it comes to transportation, we have 30,000 commercial
air flights a day. I don't think a single one of those is
powered by renewables. We have 250 million cars and trucks on
the road. People in the United States travel 11 billion miles a
day, and the vast majority of that is hydrocarbon powered. Some
electric vehicles, some alternatives like propane and bio-fuel.
The Department of Defense, in particular--I am also on the
Armed Services Committee--they spend a lot of money on energy,
$13 billion a year. Much of that, if not most of that, is
hydrocarbon-based.
According to the Green Party, in their plan for the Green
New Deal, we would have to close all overseas bases and we
would lay off 1.4 million people, both military and civilian.
To me that is very extreme. And this has to do something
with the goal of no hydrocarbons by the year 2030, 11 years
from now. So, I am going to just ask--I will start with you,
Dr. Hollie. Is that realistic?
Mr. Hollie. No, sir. And you actually mentioned that 80
percent of our total energy sources come from fossil fuels. I
know that it has been that way since the turn of the century.
It was that way when my grandfather was a black coal miner in
southwest Virginia. It was that way when I was working for
Norfolk Southern. And even the last EPA Director, Gina McCarthy
under the Obama administration, stated that we were going to
need fossil fuels at least through 2050.
Mr. Lamborn. And Dr. Curry?
Dr. Curry. The problem that I see with a massively
ambitious top-down policy like the Green New Deal is: (a) what
if we can't do it? What if we are wrong? And there are all
sorts of things. It is not a problem that is amenable to that
kind of a solution. That is why I propose more of a bottom-up
kind of approach, the so-called innovation dividend, so we can
try lots of different things, lots of solutions, and see what
works.
Mr. Lamborn. I have to really agree with you. I think that
the ingenuity and hard work and creativity of the American
people is a real solution here, and should not be left out. We
shouldn't--like you said, top-down from government coercion,
government control, that sounds too much like a Soviet, 5-year
plan, or something like that, which is simply not going to
work.
I understand that if someone comes into Congress--you only
have to be 25 years old to be a Member of Congress, and we have
young people that bring a lot of great qualities, but maybe
they don't bring a lot of life experience. So, I guess I can
understand if someone hasn't a lot of life experience, and they
are proposing something that is extremely unrealistic. Well,
impossible, impossible.
But what I don't understand is if adults and grown-ups, who
are older and more mature, are also advocating something that
is impossible. And I see that with some of the presidential
contenders who are throwing their names out there. They are
plugging for something that is literally impossible.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. Well, let me put a pitch in for myself.
Ms. Yeampierre. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I just
want to say----
The Chairman. No, we have to follow----
Ms. Yeampierre [continuing]. Our movements have been led by
young people.
The Chairman. We have to follow the protocol.
Ms. Yeampierre. Our movements of civil rights divestment in
South Africa, all led by young people. Let's not try to put
them in a box.
The Chairman. Ma'am, the protocol and decorum for this,
with all due respect, please. I mean we are trying to run this
meeting in the way that is orderly. And while you might have an
opinion and want to interject it at that moment, unless you are
recognized, you can't. I appreciate that.
Let me put in a plug for myself, Mr. Lamborn. As an old-
timer, I happen to agree with some of what our colleagues are
saying here today, and some of our witnesses have said today. I
don't know if that puts me out of step with my age group, but I
would suggest that the vast majority of Americans feel the way
I do.
But anyway, Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
I am very proud to be the Representative of a leading
voice, an activist on climate change, Ms. Elizabeth Yeampierre.
Thank you for your service and for your activism. I would
like to ask you the first question. As an advocate for climate
justice with its ethical and political implications, what would
you say to someone who thinks we should ignore climate change,
despite low-income communities being disproportionately at risk
from its impact?
Ms. Yeampierre. Congresswoman, it is wonderful to see you.
You have been a champion for environmental justice for years,
since even before it became a sexy thing. You have been doing
it for all of your districts for so many years that I am
honored to be speaking in front of you.
I don't engage climate deniers. I think it slows us down
and wastes our time. I engage people who are at the margins,
who don't know that they are living at the intersection of
injustice and climate change. And I try to inspire and provide
information to those people, so that they know that their lives
are at risk and the future of their children is at risk.
I want folks in our communities to know that things like
power plants that are run by gas produce NOx, SOx, PM2.5 and
all of those particulates that get trapped in the air passages
of our children and our elders because our elders are going to
be tremendously vulnerable in the face of climate change.
So, that is what I do. I try to reach people's hearts and
minds. But first they need to have hearts and minds.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
Ms. DiPerna, in which countries do you see businesses
making the greatest efforts toward addressing climate change?
And why is that the case?
Ms. DiPerna. Thank you.
Ms. Velazquez. And I am sorry if this question has been
asked.
Ms. DiPerna. No, no.
Ms. Velazquez. I was absent from this important hearing
because I am the Chair of the Small Business Committee and we
were holding a hearing on the government's shutdown impact on
small businesses.
Ms. DiPerna. Well, first of all, the question wasn't asked.
And second, as a New Yorker, I am also delighted to see you.
And thank you for your decades, years of service.
With regard to companies in our country, it isn't that they
are not doing anything. On the contrary, they see the risks, as
I said earlier, and are being driven to take proactive measures
to protect their business supply chains, and so on.
But with regard to your question, these companies operate
in a global environment more and more. For example, you have
the European Union, which has instigated very, very strong
regulations, particularly looking at the fiduciary
responsibility of companies and are they operating within
parameters that recognize the risks they may face. And, of
course, shareholders are ordinary people very often. They are
not just rich people--401(k)s are involved.
With regard to some interesting things going on, for
example, China--I know there is lots of controversy about
China, but China has declared an ecological civilization. It is
built into their national program. They are making tremendous
investments in solar energy. Morocco has taken tremendous steps
to establish targets.
And with all due respect to all the debate, this is not an
either-or situation. Precisely, we need an energy mix.
Precisely, we have to use a bit of natural gas to make
renewables less expensive. I mean, this is definitely not an
either-or. And it is certainly not a choice between top-down or
bottom-up. This is a very complex problem, which has been
stated. Everybody has a stake in it. And companies are very
much benefiting and would benefit from a smoothing of the
requirements, so that they don't have to have different
operations, one country to the other. That is very expensive.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
Ms. DiPerna. Thank you.
Ms. Velazquez. Ms. Yeampierre, a huge barrier for
sustainable communities, whether large or small, seems to be
management, waste management. As a member of the Transform
Don't Trash campaign, how can we urge largely populated cities
to be aggressive when asking steps toward zero waste?
Ms. Yeampierre. I was invited to speak in Amsterdam by an
international organization that is trying to get businesses to
become more sustainable and take responsibility for their
practices. All over the world, businesses know that they will
suffer and they will lose income because of climate change.
And, then, locally, we have been working with small
businesses to become climate adaptable, because they are
literally the heart of, the economic driver in our community.
So, I think, going toward zero waste is really important.
When we started working with the small businesses, and we were
trying to get them to move away from Styrofoam, we also
presented them with alternatives that were affordable and the
idea of creating cooperatives, so that they could reduce the
cost. There are all kinds of things that we can do with
businesses so that we can move them away from using products
and working in a way that makes them unsustainable. So, that is
happening locally.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the Chairman. I just heard that we are
citing China as being a good actor. A net increase in new coal
plants were built in 2017 with China accounting for 34 of the
61 megawatts that were actually generated. Wow, China is the
biggest polluter in the world. India right behind them.
Mr. Hollie, I have to come back to you. I have heard
statements that climate impacts different communities.
Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. What communities are hit most by the policies
like the Green New Deal?
Mr. Hollie. Minority and low-income communities, just
because we cannot afford the rise in cost that will be
associated with these policies.
And, like I said, many people are struggling right now to
pay their energy bills.
Dr. Gosar. Well, this is interesting, because I keep
hearing this thing about energy. Are you familiar with baseload
energy versus intermittent energy?
Mr. Hollie. Somewhat.
Dr. Gosar. OK. So, I guess what we have to look at is
baseload energy happens all the time, 24/7. But intermittent,
like solar and wind, if the wind doesn't blow and the sun
doesn't shine, it isn't going to work.
Mr. Hollie. Right.
Dr. Gosar. OK? There is a very big difference along those
applications.
The problem that we have with baseload energy, with new
technology, is molten-salt batteries don't work real well. The
other side is not interested in rare earths, and the mining
capacities of those that actually help us with new technology
called battery capacity. So, we have a problem.
Because it is convenient in Phoenix, Arizona, when you need
energy at the middle of the day, when you don't get it, or at
night time, when temperatures are at 120. It is kind of hard to
tell minority groups, ``Just live with it.''
Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir. I would agree with that. And that is
one of the things that I would disagree with the Reverend here
is I never said that, we don't agree that climate change does
not exist. However, my point is until we find a way, a solution
to harness those renewables to sustain ourselves, then we have
to use what we've got. And we have an abundance of affordable
and reliable energy in this country, and we need to use it.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I agree. In fact, one of the companies in
northern Scottsdale in Arizona uses sun during the day and gas
at night, because it delivers uniform delivery on our grid. So,
very important to do that.
But I want to concentrate on something else. I am a
dentist, so science is a big deal to me. And if we are talking
about carbon sequestration, it seems to me like what we want to
have is a very dynamic, engaging forest.
Dr. Curry, would you agree?
Dr. Curry. I think land use is a very big deal, including--
--
Dr. Gosar. I want to get more specific: photosynthesis,
like plants take in clean oxygen, right, and produce carbon
dioxide. No, they take in carbon dioxide, produce oxygen. They
take in dirty water, produce clean water.
So, it seems to me, if we really want to address this, we
want to look at the best carbon trap we have, which is a
healthy, vibrant forest. And I have heard over and over again
that climate change is the problem with our forest burning up.
That is not the case.
I am from Arizona. Ponderosa forests are 40 to 60 trees per
acre. That is fact. That is what a healthy forest should look
like. But what we have, because of lawsuit after lawsuit after
lawsuit, we have 800 to 1,000 trees per acre. These starving
trees raise to the sunlight, and what ends up happening is when
we get these fires, they are no longer landscape fires on the
grasslands, they are treetop fires.
And I want to quote exactly what we saw last year.
Wildfires--this is PolitiFact: ``Wildfires produce more of one
key pollutant, particulate matter, than cars both in California
and nationwide. Particulate matter is a mixture of microscopic
particles and liquid droplets that, when inhaled, can affect
the heart and lungs and cause serious health problems.''
I heard this all along this panel right here, about asthma
and all that stuff. Listen to this: ``According to U.S.
Geological Survey, wildfires in California in 2018 released
enough--roughly equivalent of 86 million tons--of heat-trapping
carbon dioxide, the same amount of carbon emissions that are
produced in a year providing electricity for an entire state.''
So, if we are going to concentrate on this carbon
sequestration, I think we ought to be looking at our forests
being adaptive. I am part of the Western Caucus. We had a
number of different opportunities to look at good neighbor. In
fact, one of the most liberal bastions in my state, Coconino
County, passed a bond levy to actually start thinning the
forest so they had a dynamic interface to stop the fire, Number
1, and Number 2 is get it more dynamic for carbon
sequestration.
Would you agree with all those synopses, Dr. Curry?
Dr. Curry. Most of it. The life cycle of a forest is--it
has a complex interaction with CO2 . At some point it
becomes not so much of a sequestration. So, managing forests to
prevent wildfires and to maximize the CO2 uptake is
certainly a sensible policy.
Dr. Gosar. And one quick indulgence. A dynamic forest is
young trees, medium-growth trees, and old-growth trees, because
what we know is young and medium-growth trees produce more
oxygen than they do carbon, as the older the tree gets the less
they do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Horsford.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
excited that you have given us this opportunity to really have
a robust discussion around climate change. This is an issue
that is very important to each of us individually,
collectively, to the future of our children.
My oldest son, who is now a freshman in college, asks me
all the time, ``When is Congress going to act to address the
issues of climate change?''
As we have heard here today, the impacts of climate change
become greater every year. In my home state of Nevada, a desert
state, it is particularly vulnerable to the changing climate.
By 2050, it is projected that the city of Las Vegas will
experience 106 days per year with temperatures upwards of 105
degrees.
To provide context, Las Vegas currently averages 70 days
per year with temperatures more than 100 degrees. It is hot in
Vegas. But the fact that we are having those many days per year
over 100 degrees is just one example.
Even more concerning, by 2050 the typical number of heat-
wave days in Nevada is projected to increase from 15 days per
year to 55 days per year. According to the Ready Public Service
campaign of the Department of Homeland Security, extreme heat
results in the highest number of annual deaths among all
weather-related hazards.
Mr. Chairman, sadly, seniors and children are at greatest
risk of death during heat waves. Lake Mead, which supplies
water to more than 90 percent of Las Vegas, and roughly 25
million people throughout Nevada, California, and Arizona,
continued to deplete at an alarming rate, due to increasing
temperatures caused by climate change. And in 2016, Lake Mead,
which is fed by the Colorado River, reached its lowest level on
record, and now holds just 37 percent of its original capacity.
As occurrence of extreme heat rises, the depletion of the
Colorado River and Lake Mead is projected to worsen in the
future. Additionally, more than 1.2 million people living in
Nevada, or 46 percent of our state's population, live in areas
at elevated risk of wildfire. As extreme temperatures increase,
especially in drought years, the risk of wildfires will
continue to rise.
So, the people of Nevada, like people across the United
States, are looking for solutions. And they are looking for
this Congress to act.
Ms. DiPerna, I want to ask you whether your organization,
which works with businesses to understand the business investor
impacts, if you can talk to me about the heat waves and drought
and how they are a significant concern, and how water issues,
particularly around companies and investors, are dealing with
this particular issue, and if there are examples that you know
in our home state of Nevada.
Ms. DiPerna. Well, as a matter of fact, today we are having
our supply chain conference in Las Vegas. And, as I mentioned
in my testimony, Caesar's Entertainment is very concerned about
the cost of water. They have facilities in very dry areas,
southern Africa, and so on. Dr. Pepper, I mentioned, is also
concerned. Every company is worried about water.
And Dr. Cobb mentioned the carbon pricing. I think it would
be interesting for you all to know that most companies in the
country, including Oklahoma Gas and Electric, are using
internal carbon prices to gauge the potential cost of these
sort of hidden hitchhikers, which are these carbons that go up
into the atmosphere that we don't see, but which cost us
something. So, people are using an internal carbon price in
anticipation of regulation, or to deal with existing
regulations in the jurisdictions where they are covered by
regulation.
On the water matter, because of increasing water scarcity,
companies have begun to also set an internal water price,
because they need to begin to come to terms with the increase
in cost of water, the increasing scarcity. And even more to the
point, the increasing lack of usability. Water is potable or
usable. We are beginning to have less potable and certainly
less usable, unless we spend a lot of money to clean it.
Now, here is where the impact on the poor is potentially
catastrophic, because they will have to pass that cost on.
There will never be one other drop of water on this Earth. It
is all here. You can't make water, so we are into an ultimate
scarcity there. And I think that I can provide you with a lot
of information from our water disclosure. Company after company
is concerned about water. And the IT industry, in particular,
because they need to cool those data centers with water. So,
their energy costs are climbing. Cooling is becoming a very big
cost.
So, it is a complex system. You can't tease out one little
bit. But you are the government of the entire country, and so
we all look to you to put all the pieces together.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Cobb, I missed some of your comments earlier, but I
understand you had raised concerns about energy production and
fisheries, and I just wanted to make note that my home state of
Louisiana, we produce more offshore energy in the Federal
waters than any other state. In fact, I think we would take the
other five states that produce and multiply times four, that is
how much offshore energy we produce.
We are also the top fisheries producer, in terms of
commercial fisheries in the continental United States. There is
a habitat that is created by the energy infrastructure. I don't
think we have done a great job managing that, in regard to--I
think we can take advantage of rigs to reefs programs and
others. But I did just want to make note that that is really
the hotbed ecosystem or habitat for many of the fisheries in
Louisiana.
In the first panel, I brought up a letter from May 2018.
That letter was signed by Senators Schumer, Cantwell, Menendez,
and Markey. That letter was written to the President of the
United States, asking that the President work with our OPEC
allies to increase--to increase--global oil production.
I am going to say that again. Senators Menendez, Markey,
Cantwell, and Schumer, May 2018, asking the President to work
with OPEC to increase oil production, saying that increased
production will result in lower energy prices.
Yet, it was interesting in that the first panel, some of
the governors that were here, talked about how their efforts to
help to reduce emissions were benefiting everyone. But I
looked, for example, at the state of Massachusetts that was
represented here. Their kilowatt hour electricity cost was more
than twice that, more than 200 percent that of my home state of
Louisiana, which I just thought was interesting.
Mr. Hollie, I am just curious. Could you share any
reflections on just that balance of how do we pursue a climate
policy agenda legislation, while at the same time not adversely
affect our citizens? How do we strike that balance?
Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir. I actually had the chance to visit
your state over the summer.
Mr. Graves. Come back any time, any of you.
Mr. Hollie. Down to Port Fourchon, where we had the
opportunity to see where all the on-shore operations take place
for all the offshore.
And also when I took the tour of Port Fourchon, they talked
about how countries come from around the world to study the
Gulf because it is so rich in wildlife and the environment.
So, what that says to me is that energy exploration can co-
exist with wildlife and the environment. So, as long as we have
that to look at and use as a gauge, I think that is a great
place to start.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. And let me be clear, we have some
extraordinary coastal challenges.
Ms. Yeampierre--did I do that OK? We can engage. I am not a
climate denier, I just have really struggled with how we find
the right balance in sort of criteria that we use here to move
forward on legislation.
I am curious, Dr. Curry. One of the rule changes that I
tried to make in this Committee last week was a rule that would
cause us to evaluate the job impacts and economic impacts, and
try to quantify temperature and sea rise impacts and other
things on legislation we progressed.
Do you have any thoughts on how do we properly use criteria
or metrics to determine which legislation is actually going to
be helpful, in balance, in what may be weighted too hard toward
job losses, or too hard toward other things that is just not
really advancing a public win or a public goal? Does that make
sense?
Dr. Curry. Well, sort of. This is why I called climate
change a wicked problem, why myself and others refer to it as a
wicked problem. It is hard to even define the problem. The
boundaries just seem to ever expand. The impacts are very wide.
No matter what policy we propose, there is bound to be
unintended consequences. So, it is a big challenge to sort
through all that.
And the approach to me that seems to work the best is where
communities and states work to secure their common interests,
which are very specific to their location, their economy, their
population, their vulnerabilities, as we try to sort through
this, rather than a big, top-down mandate.
So, that is my thinking on the subject. I wish there was a
simple silver-bullet solution, but there isn't.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. And to comply with my commitment, I
am going to yield back my 8 seconds.
The Chairman. You are very kind, thank you.
The bell was about votes being called. Before adjourning
the meeting, let me thank the panel, the second panel. As many
of the questions, the perspectives my colleagues have brought
up when they asked you questions--and rather than repeat the
same ones over again, let me just thank Ms. Nazar. Thank you
very much. I think your presence here and your testimony talks
about us looking beyond our nose, as Members of Congress, to
think about the future, your generation, generations to follow.
And this issue of climate change, what I did learn today is
that maybe we are not in full-blown, full-throated denial as we
were. We are into a different phase, which is climate change
avoidance. And what can we do to stall, change, tinker with the
science, raise issues that are meant to slow any solution-
seeking or policies or legislative initiatives to deal with
this very urgent problem.
Ms. Yeampierre and Reverend, thank you very much. The
front-line communities and communities most impacted in a
disparate way by unabated climate change and no solution
seeking and an afterthought in the policy making, you made sure
that those are front and center in the discussion around issues
of justice, equity, access, and inclusion, and I want to thank
you for that. That is very, very important.
Too often, we make policies at this level, and then have to
backtrack because, obviously, the impact was never dealt with.
And as we seek solutions, that equity has to be part of the
discussion all the way down.
Dr. Cobb, thank you very much for bringing to bear what I
think is essential in the solution seeking, that is empirical
information and science, and we will go from there. That having
been absent in the last 2 years, that is no longer going to be
the case. Our guidepost needs to be science and facts and
empirical information. And if those are the guideposts, we can
move forward. And I have every intention of making sure that is
central to the discussion.
I also want to thank Ms. DiPerna for bringing to light
about businesses. And with or without regulations, that, in
anticipation of what is coming, they are preparing. And just as
the economic engines of this country of us in this world are
preparing for climate change, we should be preparing for
everyone else, to make sure that we confront this and deal with
it. So, I appreciate your information very much.
And on that note, let me thank you. It is the first
hearing. I appreciate your indulgence, as I failed to manage
the clock accurately, but it all worked out. And we will go
forward. Each Subcommittee will now take upon itself from this
Committee to have a similar hearing dealing with that
jurisdiction, as we go forward.
This Committee, as Mr. Bishop said, has a lot under the
jurisdiction. We feel we over 20 percent of the legislative
adaptation and solution--public lands, waters, oceans, and the
jurisdiction that is brought, and we intend to pursue it that
way. It is a task that we can't ignore, and your testimony
today made it abundantly clear that it is something we can't
ignore, and in urgency we must deal with it with haste, and not
stall, avoid, or ignore it.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, for
convening this hearing to discuss the threat of climate change and next
steps to address this issue.
As a Member of Congress from Michigan, the Great Lakes State, I
understand firsthand the importance of addressing climate change and
safeguarding our environment for future generations.
The Great Lakes are fundamental to our Nation's environmental and
economic well-being. As the single largest surface freshwater source on
Earth, the Great Lakes watershed supports countless wildlife and serves
as an important source of fresh drinking water to tens of millions of
Americans, whose health is directly tied to that of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Climate change threatens to destabilize this ecosystem, putting the
health and well-being of my constituents and millions of others at
risk.
Additionally, we have already seen the impact of climate change
through increased incidence of deadly wildfires in the western United
States, as well as stronger and more destructive hurricanes on the Gulf
and Atlantic Coasts.
The cause of these extreme events is indisputable. According to the
Trump administration's own National Climate Assessment released last
year, ``Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the
history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human
activities.''
Simply put, climate change is already threatening our public
health, our economy, and our national security.
The magnitude of this threat demands bold action, and we must work
to address this urgent issue without delay.
We must promote renewable energy, commit to investing in new
technology, and redouble our conservation efforts to mitigate, adapt,
and reverse the growing climate threat.
Additionally, we must rejoin our partners in the international
community by committing to the Paris Climate Accord and taking strong
action to limit future greenhouse gas emissions.
There is not a single American who will be unaffected by climate
change, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues,
regardless of background or party, to take serious action to address
climate change.
It is my hope that today's hearing underscores the need for bold
climate action. We must put our differences aside and take the
aggressive actions needed to safeguard our planet for future
generations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jody B. Hice, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Georgia
Look, everyone knows I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Georgia Bulldogs fan,
and it sure was fun seeing our two running backs face off in the Super
Bowl this past Sunday. However, I would be remiss if I did not thank
former Georgia Tech professor, Dr. Judith Curry and current Georgia
Tech professor, Dr. Kim Cobb for being with us today. The Georgia
Institute of Technology is one of the most important public research
universities in our Nation and the world, and we thank you both for
lending your expertise to us here today.
______
FACEBOOK,
Washington, DC
February 8, 2019
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
Hon. Rob Bishop, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and distinguished
members of the Committee:
We appreciate your leadership in convening the hearing, ``Climate
Change: Impacts and the Need to Act,'' and we thank you for the
opportunity to submit this statement. Climate change deserves close
attention and creative solutions by both policymakers and industry
leaders.
At Facebook, we are prioritizing our work to combat climate change,
especially as it relates to our own sustainability objectives. As you
know, sustainability within corporations is more than simply operating
responsibly. We are working to minimize the impact of our energy,
emissions, and water usage, protect workers and the environment in our
supply chain, and partner with others to develop and share solutions
for a more sustainable world. Our goal is to support the communities we
are a part of and to make a bigger positive impact on the world.
Creating and maintaining facilities that contribute positively to
our communities is a top priority for our company. Specifically,
Facebook has set a science-based target to reduce our emissions by 75
percent by 2020. Between 2011 and 2017, Facebook avoided emitting over
2 million metric tons of CO2 thanks to these efforts--the equivalent of
taking 266,000 vehicles off the road for a year.
Facebook was one of the first companies to commit to supporting our
facilities with 100 percent renewable energy in 2011, and our goal is
to hit that target by 2020. Our data centers are among the most energy
efficient in the world. For each new data center Facebook builds, we
add new renewable energy to the same electric grid as our facilities,
and we do it in a way that often increases options for other businesses
in those communities. We are proud that just last month, a report from
Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that Facebook was the largest
corporate purchaser of renewable energy last year worldwide.
Facebook embraces our responsibility and opportunity to impact the
world beyond our operations. For example, we use rigorous sustainable
design standards to ensure that our facilities are constructed with
responsible materials, utilize natural daylight, and are energy and
water conscious. All of our data centers have achieved LEED Gold
certification.
As the Committee continues its work on climate change, we look
forward to being part of the conversation on how companies like
Facebook can have an impact on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Kevin Martin,
Vice President, U.S. Public Policy.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
-- NOAA Report, U.S. and Global Climate for 2018.
Submission for the Record by Rep. Neguse
-- ``Climate Change in Rocky Mountain National Park,''
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, March 2014.
[all]
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.