<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:34910.wais]
REORIENTING THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE
RESEARCH PROGRAM TOWARD A USER-DRIVEN
RESEARCH ENDEAVOR: H.R. 906
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 3, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-910 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VACANCY
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARK UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS Democratic Professional Staff Member
AMY CARROLL Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
May 3, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Acting Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Member, Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Dr. Michael C. MacCracken, President, the International
Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences of the
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; Chief Scientist
for Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute, Washington, DC
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Biography.................................................... 25
Dr. Jack D. Fellows, Vice President, University Center for
Atmospheric Research
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 33
Dr. James R. Mahoney, Environmental Consultant; Former Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Deputy
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and Director of U.S. Climate Change Science
Program
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 36
Biography.................................................... 38
Mr. Franklin W. Nutter, President, The Reinsurance Association of
America; Member of UCAR's Board of Trustees
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 44
Dr. Philip W. Mote, Climate Impacts Group, University of
Washington; Office of Washington State Climatologist and
Affiliate Professor at the University of Washington
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Biography.................................................... 60
Ms. Sarah Bittleman, Director, Washington, D.C., Office of the
Governor of Oregon, Theodore R. Kulongoski, on behalf of the
Western Governors' Association
Oral Statement............................................... 60
Written Statement............................................ 62
Discussion
The USGCRP Budget Process...................................... 64
Assessment Timeline............................................ 66
Regional vs. National Assessments.............................. 68
The Insurance Industry's Perspective........................... 68
More on Regional vs. National Assessments...................... 68
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation....................... 69
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
H.R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of
2007........................................................... 74
REORIENTING THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM TOWARD A USER-
DRIVEN RESEARCH ENDEAVOR: H.R. 906
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gabrielle
Giffords [Acting Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Reorienting the U.S. Global Research
Program Toward a User-Driven
Research Endeavor: H.R. 906
thursday, may 3, 2007
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, May 3, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
of the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing to
receive testimony on H.R. 906, the Global Climate Change Research Data
and Management Act of 2007.
Introduced by Representative Mark Udall and Representative Robert
Inglis, H.R. 906 would replace the current law that formally
established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in 1990
and reorient the program to produce more user-friendly research and
information. The USGCRP has advanced our scientific knowledge of the
Earth's atmosphere and climate and has provided us with new data and
information on the planet. However, scientific knowledge about the
Earth's climate has expanded and improved since 1990. There is a need
to apply the improved knowledge we have gained about climate to produce
information that federal, State, and local officials, resource
managers, and businesses can use to develop response, adaptation, and
mitigation strategies to reduce their vulnerability to climate change.
The Global Change Research and Data Management Act would require
the Administration to identify and consult with members of the user
community in developing the USGCRP research plan. The bill would also
establish a new interagency working group to coordinate federal
policies on data management and archiving. The measure would also
retain language from the original statute that establishes the USGCRP
and call for the administration to produce a national assessment of
climate change every four years.
USGCRP Background
History of the Current Law
U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-606) was
signed into law by President Bush on November 16, 1990. However, prior
to passage of this legislation Congress and the Reagan and Bush
Administrations established programs, advisory bodies and mechanisms to
undertake climate change research and develop climate change policy.
The Climate Program preceded the USGCRP and was established by the
National Climate Program Act (P.L. 95-367) in 1978. The Climate Program
was intended to conduct climate research, provide climate information,
and to support policy decisions to ``assist the Nation and the world to
understand and respond to natural and human-induced climate processes
and their implications'' (P.L. 95-367, 3). It was established as an
interagency program coordinated through a National Climate Program
Office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). By the mid-1980s Congress began to consider expanding the
Climate Program. At the time, the program was thought to be producing
high quality science, but it was not providing information that would
lead to policy responses to threats from climate change.
In the 1980s, climate change policies were developed within the
White House although there were a number of climate change advisory
groups and other decision-making groups within individual federal
agencies. President Reagan established five Councils in the White
House. In 1985, these five Councils were consolidated within two--a
Domestic Policy Council and an Economic Policy Council.\1\ Climate
change policy was discussed within the Domestic Policy Council and
first came to the attention of this Council because of public attention
being paid to Congressional hearings being held to air concerns of the
scientific community about the potential consequences of increasing
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brownstein, R. and D. Kirschtien. 1986. Cabinet Power. National
Journal June 28 1582-1589. Referenced in: R.A. Pielke, Jr. 2001. The
Development of the U.S. Global Change Research Program: 1987-1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1987, White House Science Advisor William Graham formed the
Committee on Earth Sciences within the Federal Coordinating Council on
Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET). The purpose of this
Committee was to ``increase the overall effectiveness and productivity
of federal R&D efforts directed toward an understanding of the Earth as
a global system'' (CES 1987).
After several years of work, Congress passed, and President Bush
signed, The U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
606) which established the U.S. Global Change Research Program we have
today. The Program is aimed at understanding and responding to global
change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and
natural processes on the environment, and to promote discussions toward
international protocols in global change research. The law codified the
interagency structure put in place by the Reagan Administration and
defined the agencies that would participate in the program. The law
also requires development of a series of 10-year Plans for the conduct
of research on global change by the Federal Government to: ``advance
scientific understanding of global change and provide usable
information on which to base policy decisions related to global
change,'' an evaluation of the Plan by the National Research Council,
the coordination of agency budgets for global change research, and a
report to Congress every four years on the consequences of climate
change.
While research Plans have been produced periodically by the Program
and reviewed by the National Research Council as required by the law,
the production of periodic assessments of the findings of the global
change program and the effects of global change on natural systems and
sectors of the economy has been lacking. There has been only one
comprehensive report published since the beginning of the program
satisfying this requirement of the law--the National Assessment on
Climate Change published in 2001.
Current Administration Climate Change Initiatives
The current Administration has a number of initiatives that are
related to past efforts conducted under the Global Change Research Act.
The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is charged with integrating
science on global change produced by federal agencies. The Program is
producing a series of twenty one synthesis and assessment products on a
range of subjects (http://www.climatescience.gov/). The Administration
also has a Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and the Climate
Change Technology Program (CCTP), with NOAA and DOE designated as the
lead agencies, respectively. The role of the CCRI is to reduce the
significant remaining uncertainties associated with understanding
human-induced climate change and facilitate full use of scientific
information in policy and decision-making on possible response
strategies for adaptation and mitigation. The role of the CCTP is to
focus research and development efforts on the identification and
development of technologies that will achieve the Administration's
climate change goals.
This policy has three basic objectives: slowing the growth of
emissions, strengthening science, technology and institutions, and
enhancing international cooperation. However, in 1990, total U.S. GHG
emissions were 1,671 million metric tons in carbon equivalents (MMTCE).
In 2000, total U.S. GHG emissions were 14.1 percent above 1990 levels,
or 1,907 MMTCE. Even if the Administration's climate change goals are
met, U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to grow.
The requested budget for the major climate change programs in 2007
was estimated by the Congressional Research Service to be 4.9 billion
dollars.\2\ The participating agencies include virtually every
department in the Federal Government: NASA, NSF, NOAA, DOE, USDA, DOI,
HHS, EPA, the Smithsonian Institution and DOD. The core agencies that
have contributed to climate change science are NASA, NOAA, NSF, and
DOE.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Congressional Research Service (2007). Climate Change: Federal
Expenditures; January 22; p. 3; Table 1. RL33817.
**The FY 2007 request for the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.7 billion dollars.
Current State Initiatives on Climate Change
Absent of coordinated federal direction on adapting to climate
change impacts, regions and states have taken action on their own to
develop integrated plans to serve multiple user communities. Many
states view policies that address climate change as an economic
opportunity, rather than a financial burden. These states are
positioning themselves as leaders in emerging markets related to
climate change: producing and selling alternative fuels, exploring
geographic specific adaptation strategies, attracting climate action
related businesses, and selling greenhouse gas emission reduction
credits.
In addition, regional efforts have been successful coordinating
initiatives across state boundaries. These regional plans eliminate
duplication for states with similar geographic makeup and help
businesses by bringing greater uniformity and predictability to State
rules and regulations. For example, Powering the Plains is a regional
initiative, involving participants from the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa,
and Wisconsin, which aims to develop strategies, policies, and
demonstration projects for alternative energy sources. The Southwest
Climate Change Initiative will allow Arizona and New Mexico to work
together to reduce greenhouse gases and address the impacts of climate
change in the region. Other such projects include the Northeast
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), The Clean and Diversified
Energy Initiative launched by the Western Governors Association, The
West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative, and the New England
Governors' and Eastern Canadian Premiers' Climate Action Plan. These
regional and State programs would greatly benefit from a user-driven
Climate Change Research Program, as established in H.R. 906.
The USGCRP under H.R. 906
The USGCRP has continued to produce high quality science and
advance our knowledge of Earth's climate system. However, the Program
has not produced much in the way of substantive policy analyses or
produced information in formats that are useful and accessible to the
wide range of individuals and organizations who desire information
about climate variability and change and its relationship to different
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It has not
produced information that will assist decision-makers at the federal,
State, and local level in the development of response, adaptation and
mitigation strategies.
H.R. 906 directs the Program to develop assessments of
vulnerability to climate change and to develop policy assessments that
will evaluate alternative strategies for responding, adapting, and
mitigating climate change that is projected to occur under different
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
The components of the core science programs of the USGCRP continue
to produce useful scientific information and better, more refined
understanding of the climate system. H.R. 906 does not eliminate these
programs and activities. Instead, H.R. 906 shifts the emphasis to the
production of information that is needed to develop strategies to cope
with current climate change and to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to
reduce the magnitude of future climate impacts. To ensure the Program
produces policy-relevant information, H.R. 906 includes a review of the
Program by the National Governors Association's Center for Best
Practices.
The major scientific debate is settled. Climate change is
occurring. It is impacting our nation and the rest of the world and
will continue to impact us into the future. The USGCRP should move
beyond an emphasis on addressing uncertainties and refining climate
science. In addition, the Program needs to provide information that
supports action to reduce vulnerability to climate and other global
changes and facilitates the development of adaptation and mitigation
strategies that can be applied here in the U.S. and in other vulnerable
locations throughout the world.
Witnesses
Dr. Philip Mote, Office of Washington State Climatologist and Affiliate
Professor at the University of Washington
Dr. Philip Mote is a research scientist at the University of
Washington, in the Climate Impacts Group (CIG), and an Affiliate
Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. In addition, Dr.
Mote works as a consultant at Northwest Research Associates
specializing in the dynamics of the tropical upper troposphere and
lower stratosphere. He received his B.A. in Physics from Harvard
University in 1987 and completed his doctorate in Atmospheric Sciences
at the University of Washington in 1994. His research interests
include: Northwest climate and its effects on snowpack, streamflow, and
forest fires. A frequent public speaker, he has also written over fifty
scientific articles and edited a book on climate modeling, published in
2000. In 2003, Dr. Mote became the Washington State Climatologist.
Dr. Michael MacCracken, President of the International Association of
Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences of the International Union of
Geodesy and Geophysics
Dr. Michael MacCracken is the Chief Scientist for Climate Change
Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC. He received his
B.S. in Engineering degree from Princeton University in 1964 and his
Ph.D. degree in Applied Science from the University of California
Davis/Livermore in 1968. His research has included numerical modeling
of various causes of climate change (including study of the potential
climatic effects of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, land-cover
change, and nuclear war) and of factors affecting air quality,
including photochemical pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area and
sulfate air pollution in the northeastern United States.
From 1993-2002, Dr. MacCracken was on assignment as senior global
change scientist to the Office of the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP) and served as its first Executive Director from 1993-
1997. From 1997-2001, he served as Executive Director of the USGCRP's
National Assessment Coordination Office, which coordinated the efforts
of 20 regional assessment teams, five sectoral teams, and the National
Assessment Synthesis Team that prepared the national level reports that
were forwarded to the President and to the Congress.
Dr. Jack Fellows, Vice President at the University Center for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR)
Dr. Jack Fellows is the Vice President for Corporate Affairs at
UCAR and the Director of UCAR's Office of Programs (UOP). As Director
of the UOP, he is responsible for a broad range of scientific and
educational programs that serve the atmospheric and related research
and education community. Dr. Fellows received his Ph.D. in Civil
Engineering from the University of Maryland.
Dr. Fellows began his career as a research faculty member at the
University of Maryland, where he conducted research in the use of
satellite data in hydrologic models. In 1984, he spent a year in the
U.S. Congress as the American Geophysical Union's Congressional Science
Fellow. While in Congress, he split his time between the personal
office of George Brown (D-CA) and the House Science and Space
Subcommittee and worked on a range of policy issues, including water
resources, satellite remote sensing, and general oversight of federal
research and development funding. After this, he spent 13 years in the
Executive Office of President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
overseeing budget and policy issues related to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and federal-
wide research and development programs. During this period with OMB, he
helped to initiate the U.S. Global Change Research Program and to
coordinate funding from the participating federal agencies in the new
interagency research program.
Mr. Franklin Nutter, President of the Reinsurance Association of
America and Member of UCAR's Board of Trustees
Mr. Franklin Nutter has been an active member of the UCAR Board of
Trustees and prior to that served on the NCAR Advisory Council and the
Weather Coalition, a group of private companies, associations, and
universities advocating for the advancement of weather research and
applications. He received his Juris Doctorate from the Georgetown
University Law Center and a Bachelor's degree in economics from the
University of Cincinnati.
Mr. Nutter has been President of the Reinsurance Association of
America (RAA) since May of 1991. Through his involvement as President,
he coordinated events with the UCAR Corporate Affiliates Program.
During his distinguished career in the insurance and reinsurance
industries, Mr. Nutter has promoted the use of weather and climate
models and has helped to advance the atmospheric sciences. An expert on
societal impacts of severe weather and climate change, Mr. Nutter has
been called upon to address the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Planning Workshop, the Pew Center Workshop on the Timing of Climate
Change Policies, and the AGU's Coastal Hazards Reduction Workshop.
Ms. Sarah Bittleman, Office of the Governor of Oregon, Theodore R.
Kulongoski, on behalf of the Western Governors Association
Ms. Sarah Bittleman is the Director of the Governor of Oregon's
Washington D.C. office. She assumed this position a year ago after
having spent 10 years on Capitol Hill as a staffer for both Republicans
and Democrats, in both the House and the Senate and in personal offices
as well as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. She followed
the climate change debate closely in all her positions on the Hill,
most recently drafting a forest carbon sequestration bill as the
Natural Resources Counsel for Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Ms.
Bittleman has a Masters in Public Administration from East Carolina
University as well as a JD from Tulane University in New Orleans.
Dr. James Mahoney, Environmental Consultant
Dr. James Mahoney currently serves as an environmental consultant,
providing scientific and professional advice to a number of
organizations. From April 2, 2002 to March 30, 2006 he was Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Deputy
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization
(NOAA). During this period, Dr. Mahoney served as the Director of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
Dr. Mahoney received a B.S. degree in Physics from LeMoyne College
and a Ph.D. degree in meteorology from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT). His career has involved more than forty years of
continuous focus on environmental management and the Earth sciences,
with an emphasis on the atmospheric, climate, hydrological and
oceanographic areas. After completing his Ph.D., he joined the Faculty
of Public Health at Harvard University, in its Department of
Environmental Health Sciences. Dr. Mahoney entered the public service
in 1988 as Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program, working in the Executive Office of the President. NAPAP was
charged with recommending sound approaches to controlling acid rain
effects, while providing for continued energy and economic security for
the Nation.
Ms. Giffords. [Presiding] The Committee will come to order.
Good afternoon, everyone. I want to take a moment to welcome
you, and to recognize the Subcommittee's hearing called today
to receive testimony on House Resolution 906, the Global
Climate Change Research Data and Management Act of 2007.
This is an important bill that will help us to better
address climate change in the country, and I want to thank my
colleagues, Representative Mark Udall and Ranking Member Bob
Inglis, for taking action and introducing this legislation.
Through bills like H.R. 906, Congress is starting to take
action to address the global conundrum that is climate change.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the world's future
depends on our response. The clock is ticking, and Congress
must work across party lines to pass concrete solutions as soon
as possible. I think this bill represents just that kind of
needed bipartisanship.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Good Afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to today's Subcommittee
hearing called to receive testimony on H.R. 906, the Global Climate
Change Research Data and Management Act of 2007. This is an important
bill that will help us to better address climate change in this
country, and I want to thank my colleagues, Representative Mark Udall
and Ranking Member Bob Inglis, for taking action and introducing this
legislation.
Through bills like H.R. 906, Congress is starting to take action to
address the global conundrum that is climate change. It is not an
exaggeration to say that the world's future depends on our response.
The clock is ticking, and Congress must work across party lines to pass
concrete solutions as soon as possible. I think this bill represents
just that kind of needed bipartisanship.
H.R. 906 would reorient the U.S. Global Change Research Program to
produce more user-friendly research and information. In addition, the
Act would require the Administration to identify and consult with
members of the user community in developing the USGCRP research plan.
I believe that there is a real need to apply the improved knowledge
we have about climate to produce information that federal, State, and
local officials, resource managers, and businesses can use. Managers
can then utilize that research to develop response, adaptation, and
mitigation strategies to reduce their regions' vulnerability to climate
change.
Let's look at how H.R. 906 could impact the West and Arizona
specifically. According to the IPCC and conversations of my own with
distinguished climate scientists from the University of Arizona, I
understand climate change could permanently reduce the flow of the
Colorado River, lead to more severe, prolonged droughts, and cause
water shortages for millions of people. More than 25 million people in
Arizona and six other states depend on the Colorado River for water and
power. Forest fires and invasive species are projected to increase, and
we could face an influx of environmental refugees from around the
world. This would drastically affect our quality of life.
What steps are currently being taken to develop response strategies
to reduce the Southwest's vulnerability to climate change? In February
of 2006, the Governors of Arizona and New Mexico signed an agreement to
create the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Under the agreement,
our states will collaborate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
address the impacts of climate change in the Southwest. However, in
order to do that, our State planners need relevant data to make the
best decisions on how to respond.
That's where H.R. 906 comes in. Climate change is happening in the
Southwest, but Arizona can help moderate the change. With the new user-
driven data provided by the reorientation of the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, State legislatures, local officials, resource
managers, and businesses could all begin to adjust their plans to help
Arizona avoid the worst of the impacts of climate change.
I take the challenge of addressing global warming very seriously,
and it is one of my highest priorities in Congress. This will not only
result in a stronger economy, innovative technologies, and the creation
of hundreds of thousands of jobs, but also a more stable and
sustainable world.
I want to welcome our entire distinguished panel to this morning's
hearing. I look forward to your testimony and to your recommendations
for improving H.R. 906.
Ms. Giffords. At this time, I would like to recognize the
author of the legislation, Representative Udall, for some
opening remarks.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good afternoon to
the panel and my colleagues who have joined us here.
I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman Giffords for holding
this hearing on H.R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data
Management Act of 2007, that I introduced earlier this year,
with my colleague and our Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis.
I look forward to working together as this bill moves
forward. The U.S. Global Change Research Program has been in
existence in some form since the late 1970s. Support for the
diverse array of climate-related sciences in the 11 agencies of
the Federal Government has expanded our knowledge of Earth's
land, water, and atmospheric systems. The outstanding science
produced by our nation's scientific community has gained the
U.S. worldwide recognition as a leader in climate science.
This research has been shared with the rest of the world
through international scientific organizations, such as the
World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. The evolution of global science and
the global change issue sparked the need to make changes to the
1970 National Climate Program Act, and gave us the Global
Change Research Act of 1990. It is now time for another
adjustment to alter the focus of the program governed by this
law.
The debate about whether climate change is occurring, and
about whether human activity has contributed to it, is over. As
our population, economy, and infrastructure have grown, we have
put more pressure on the natural resources we all depend upon.
Each year, fires, droughts, hurricanes, and other natural
events remind us of our vulnerability to extreme weather and
climate changes. The human and economic cost of these events is
very high. With better planning and implementation of
adaptation strategies, these costs can be reduced.
For all of these reasons, we need the USGCRP to produce
more information that is readily usable by decision-makers and
resource managers in government and in the private sector.
People throughout the country and in the rest of the world need
information they can use to develop response, adaptation, and
mitigation strategies to make our communities, our businesses,
and our nation more resilient and less vulnerable to the
changes that are inevitable.
We must also move aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions if we are to avoid future increases in surface
temperature that will trigger severe impacts that we cannot
overcome with adaptation strategies. We need economic and
technical information, as well as information about system
responses and climate responses to different concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The USGCRP should be the
vehicle for providing this information.
Madam Chairwoman, we have a very distinguished panel of
witnesses here today, several of whom have a great deal of
experience with the USGCRP. I look forward to your testimony,
and welcome your suggestions for improvements to H.R. 906. Our
goal is to ensure that the excellent science produced by this
program is expanded and translated into user-friendly
information to deliver the solutions our nation needs to
address the challenge of climate change.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman Giffords for holding this
hearing on H.R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act
of 2007 that I introduced earlier this year with my colleague and our
Ranking Member, Representative Inglis. I look forward to working
together as this bill moves forward.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has been in
existence in some form since the late 1970s. Support for the diverse
array of climate-related sciences in the eleven agencies of the Federal
Government has expanded our knowledge of Earth's land, water, and
atmospheric systems. The outstanding science produced by our nation's
scientific community has gained the U.S. worldwide recognition as a
leader in climate science. This scientific work has been shared with
the rest of the world through international scientific organizations
such as the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
The evolution of global science and the global change issue sparked
the need to make changes to the 1978 National Climate Program Act, and
gave us the Global Change Research Act of 1990. It is now time for
another adjustment to alter the focus of the program governed by this
law.
The debate, about whether climate change is occurring and about
whether human activity has contributed to it, is over. As our
population, economy, and infrastructure have grown, we have put more
pressure on the natural resources we all depend upon. Each year, fires,
droughts, hurricanes, and other natural events remind us of our
vulnerability to extreme weather and climate changes. The human and
economic cost of these events is very high. With better planning and
implementation of adaptation strategies these costs can be reduced.
For all of these reasons, we need the USGCRP to produce more
information that is readily usable by decision-makers and resource
managers in government and in the private sector. People throughout
this country and in the rest of the world need information they can use
to develop response, adaptation, and mitigation strategies to make our
communities, our businesses, and our nation more resilient and less
vulnerable to the changes that are inevitable.
We must also move aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
if we are to avoid future increases in surface temperature that will
trigger severe impacts that we cannot overcome with adaptation
strategies. We need economic and technical information as well as
information about system responses and climate responses to different
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The USGCRP should
be the vehicle for providing this information.
We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses here today, several
of whom have a great deal of experience with the USGCRP. I look forward
to your testimony and welcome your suggestions for improvements to H.R.
906. Our goal is to ensure the excellent science produced by this
program is expanded and translated into user-friendly information to
deliver the solutions our nation needs to address the challenge of
climate change.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
And now, I would like to recognize our distinguished
Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Inglis. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Chair for
holding the hearing, and Mr. Udall, for giving me the
opportunity to work with him on this bill.
This is an opportunity of bipartisan cooperation, and I
think it makes sense, because this is a bill that can increase
our awareness and our preparation for the impacts of climate
change. Of course, I hope we can also move forward and develop
a consensus on mitigation, as well, and the necessary start of
that is the attempt to build consensus, and so, I thank Mr.
Udall for doing that and pursuing this bill, and I am happy to
be with him on the bill, and very excited about hearing from
the witnesses here today.
And you know, our current climate science programs at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey have made
great gains in deepening our understanding of global climate
change, from what is causing it, to how our country and others
might be affected.
The sheer volume of data calls for an intelligent data
management system which is designed to fulfill the needs of its
users. The program must meet the additional challenge of
presenting the data in a relevant form to users that have non-
scientific backgrounds, like State and local government
operators.
So, in South Carolina, I have been hearing from fishermen
and hunters, who are particularly concerned about fish and
animal population changes that could threaten our local
ecotourism businesses. South Carolina's tourism business is
actually the largest industry in our state, especially at our
coast, and so, we are aware of the goose that is laying the
golden eggs down at our coast, and we want to make sure that it
continues to lay them there.
So, this bill, as I say, the opportunities for building
awareness and preparation, I think will help, and I am happy to
be part of it and happy to hear from the witnesses, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good afternoon. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman, for holding this hearing
on ways we might improve our climate science programs to make local
users a part of the process.
Our current climate science programs at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation
(NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and other agencies have made
great gains in deepening our understanding of global change--from what
is causing it to how our country and others might be affected. The
sheer volume of data calls for an intelligent data management system,
designed to fulfill the needs of its users. The program must meet the
additional challenge of presenting the data in a relevant form to users
that have non-scientific backgrounds, such as State and local
governments.
In South Carolina, I've been hearing from fisherman and hunters who
are concerned about fish and animal population changes that could
threaten local eco-tourism businesses. South Carolina's tourism
industry, the largest economic generator in the state, will need more
information about changes to the coast as they plan for the future.
These folks will also need the ability to let the climate programs know
what's useful and where they require additional information.
I believe we can find a bipartisan consensus to take action on
improving our climate science programs. This issue has the potential to
affect all of us and we must ensure that local users are informed and
have a say in the process to get the information they need.
I'm pleased that Dr. James Mahoney could be with us today. Dr.
Mahoney is the former Director of the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program and former Deputy Administrator for NOAA. His academic and
professional experience makes him a valuable addition to this panel.
I'm encouraged by the constructive feedback in his written testimony,
and I thank him for coming to share his insight.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, Ms. Chairwoman, and I
look forward to hearing from all of our distinguished witnesses as to
how we can most effectively structure our climate science programs.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening
statements submitted by Subcommittee Members be included in the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
It is my pleasure now to introduce this excellent panel of
witnesses that we have with us here this afternoon. First, we
have Dr. Michael MacCracken, who is the Chief Scientist for
Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute here in
Washington, D.C. Dr. MacCracken served as the Executive
Director for the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993
to 1997, and he has brought with him a stack of documentation
that he can't leave with us, but I am sure he is going to speak
about in terms of the data that exists.
Second, we have Dr. Jack Fellows, who is the Vice President
for Corporate Affairs at the University Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado, and the Director of UCAR Office
of Programs. Dr. Fellows helped to initiate the U.S. Global
Change Research Program when he worked in the Executive Office
of the President's Office of Management and Budget. Thank you
for being here, Dr. Fellows.
Dr. James Mahoney currently serves as an environmental
consultant, providing scientific and professional advice to a
number of organizations. From April 2, 2002 to March 30, 2006,
he was Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Organization. During this period, Dr. Mahoney
served as the Director of the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program. It is so terrific having you here today. We had a
chance to speak a little bit earlier. We are thrilled that you
are here with us. Thank you, Dr. Mahoney.
Mr. Franklin Nutter is the President of the Reinsurance
Association of America, and a member of the University Center
for Atmospheric Research's Board of Trustees. Good to see you,
Mr. Nutter.
Dr. Philip Mote is a Washington State climatologist, and an
Affiliate Professor at the University of Washington. His
research has focused on Northwest climate and its effects on
snowpack, streamflow, and forest fires. Thank you, Dr. Mote.
And Ms. Sarah Bittleman is the Director of the Governor of
Oregon's Washington, D.C. office, and is testifying today on
behalf of the Western Governors Association, and I know that
Arizona's Governor, Janet Napolitano, obviously is very active
with that association as well.
So, welcome to all of you. Let me just say that we do have
a series, a short series of votes that we don't know when they
will come, but we believe that we should be adjourned by 4:00.
So, my goal is to make sure that the testimony is limited to
five minutes, which goes by very quickly, and you will see the
indication, in terms of the lights.
It is important that we get through, because we have,
obviously, a panel of wonderful witnesses. We have got
questions, but I just want to make sure that we don't lose
Members, because I know that we are going to be leaving for the
weekend, and I want to make sure that we keep everyone here as
long as we can.
Your written testimony will be included in the record for
the hearing, and when all six of you have completed your
testimony, we will begin with questions, which will be, again,
for five minute increments.
So, Dr. MacCracken, if we can begin with you, please.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL C. MACCRACKEN, PRESIDENT, THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC
SCIENCES OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF GEODESY AND GEOPHYSICS;
CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS, CLIMATE INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. MacCracken. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I was asked to address two questions during my testimony,
having to do with lessons learned during the National
Assessment that took place, and what are some specific tasks
necessary to get an ongoing assessment process.
I also want to just say a few words about the program in
general. I think the USGCRP is a very unique activity. It is
trying to get agencies working together. I came in as the first
Executive Director of the office to get the ten agencies really
participating and working together, and my job description said
and you don't have control of the money, so you have to make it
happen, which is by driving it with ideas.
I think a great deal was accomplished with some inspired
leadership. There were international field programs that
combined the activities of NASA with their satellites and NOAA
with their aircraft and ships, and NSF with their capabilities,
and so, we learned a lot about El Nino and the ozone hole and
things.
What has happened since, unfortunately, even though there
are more and more questions coming up, the budget has been
dropping. The proposal, I think, for Fiscal 2008 is about 25
percent below in sort of even dollars what it was in the 1990s,
even though there are more questions. And so, we are ending up
doing less. So, I think to get the program going, what is
needed is some highly qualified leadership to get the funding
up again, and then, to work hard on the assessment activity.
So, for the assessment activity, what I brought here, and
what the Chairwoman commented upon, was the reports that came
out from the National Assessment, which you have heard. There
aren't many places where they are compiled. This is one of the
few sets. But what was talked about, and what is sometimes
talked about in the bill is the report that is delivered to
Congress, and that turned out to be this report, and then,
there was a supporting thicker report.
But at the same time, what was going on was a process all
around the country. There were sort of 20 regions that held
workshops. There were five sectoral studies, and so, each of
those was an ongoing activity, and so, there is Alaska, and
there is health, and there were forests, and Great Lakes, and a
whole host of activities going on there, because global changes
start at the global scale. When you look at it, how we are
changing the global atmosphere, impacts start at the local
scale, and you just have to have the local people involved.
There was an EPA assessment that went on in the late '80s,
where they tried to basically study five representative
regions, one of them being California, where I was. They
appointed a panel of, I think, 12 or 13 scientists. It had one
Californian on it. It got no attention whatsoever in the state.
What happened in this last assessment go round was the activity
was based at the University of California Santa Barbara, and
when they had the workshop, they had a majority of members of
the Energy Commission there, the California Air Resources
Board, and a whole bunch of other groups. They involved local
people. And California's effort took off, even though there
wasn't enough money provided to them to, in the end, publish
their report. They got so many people going, and so many people
interested in the critical problems.
So, I think it is really important to do that. There are
just all kinds of people who are interested. Planners want to
know about what is going to happen to the likelihood of floods.
Farmers and hunters and fishermen in South Carolina want to
know what is going to happen to the temperature of the streams,
or the state of the forests, and if they are going to dry out
so much that you get fires. There is just a lot of information
that can be provided.
Indeed, there are uncertainties, and there is a lot more
research to be done, but there is an awful lot of guidance that
one can give with respect to these activities. And so, in the
testimony, I go through a number of steps that I think need to
be taken. One is to be make sure that you call not just for a
report for Congress, but for a capability for the country to
address and face up to the impacts of the issue. Insist, as you
do, that there is stakeholder involvement. Insist, as you do,
to use the words ``global change'' instead of ``climate
change.'' That is a subtle difference, but it means you are
really going to do climate change in the context of everything
else, not just do climate change all by itself, which isn't
particularly useful. Do consider mitigation and adaptation.
I think it is going to be important to find a way to
provide funding that goes for assessment. As we were dealing
with the agencies, it was hard for them to consider assessment
research, and yet, the definition in the Global Change Act and
in this bill have assessment as under research. That doesn't
work very well. Some of them legally say they can't do it, and
so, I think you are really going to have to find a way to
provide separate funding.
I think there needed to be these strong regional
components, and we tried to work up to 20. We ended up being
able to fund 15, and couldn't find funding for sort of the
other five, that we thought covered the country. And there were
a couple of reports, like the one in the Southwest for Native
peoples, that the report got all done, but there was never
funding around to publish it. It was very unfortunate at the
end.
So, we need, I think, some regional centers. I think it is
also important to look nationally, and look at some sectors, so
we looked at agriculture and water resources and human health,
and coasts, and forests. And so, there are those, but there are
a whole host of additional ones to be looking at, the rural
communities, extreme events, and other things. And then have an
international, I mean an independent synthesis that can be
done, so--the signal is down there, but----
Let me just conclude by saying I think a lot can be done in
a year, but you can't get all the way there in a year, and if
you try and do it all in a year, you won't be doing the kind of
effort that you really need to have happen.
[The prepared statement of Dr. MacCracken follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael C. MacCracken
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing on H.R. 906, the Global
Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007. I am honored to
testify before you today in both my capacity, since 2002, as Chief
Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute\1\ here
in Washington, D.C., and as the executive director of the Office of the
U. S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) from 1993 to 1997 and of
USGCRP's National Assessment Coordination Office from 1997-2001.\2\ My
detail as senior scientist with the Office of the USGCRP as senior
scientist for climate change concluded in September 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Climate Institute is a non-partisan, non-governmental
501(c)(3) organization that was established under the leadership of
John Topping in 1986 to heighten national and international awareness
of climate change and to identify practical ways for dealing with it,
both through preparing for and responding to the ongoing and
prospective changes in climate and by reducing emissions and slowing
the long-term rate of change. These goals are pursued, among other
ways, through preparation of papers, presentation of talks, and
organization of symposia, conferences, roundtables, and special
briefings. These have been carried out not only in the U.S., but also
in Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, and more than two-dozen developing
countries. To accomplish this, the Climate Institute taps into its vast
network of experts and alliances in the U.S. and internationally. In
all of these efforts, the Institute strives to be a source of objective
and reliable information, promoting global climate protection through
practical and cooperative approaches. The Board of Directors, to which
I was recently elected, governs the activities of the Climate
Institute. The Board, which is currently led by Mr. William Nitze, is
made up of academic, business, environmental and scientific leaders
from several nations, and the Institute's Board of Advisors, which
plays a critical advisory role, is also very broadly based. The Climate
Institute receives financial support from membership, private and
corporate contributions, grants, and contractual services for
government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and publication sales. My
service with the Climate Institute has been on a volunteer basis.
\2\ The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was
established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Throughout my
detail with the USGCRP, it was managed by the interagency Subcommittee
on Global Change Research (SGCR), which was made up of research program
managers from NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, DOI, USDA, HHS, DOD, and the
Smithsonian Institution plus representatives from OSTP, OMB, and, on
occasion, other offices of the Executive Office of the President. To
facilitate interagency research cooperation, the SGCR established the
Office of the USGCRP in 1993, which has continued since 2002 as the
Office of the Climate Change Science Program. The National Assessment
Coordination Office was created by the SGCR in 1997 and then closed in
2001 at the end of the U.S. National Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to my detail from the University of California's Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to the Office of the USGCRP in
1993, my research at LLNL beginning in 1968 focused on computer
simulation of climate change and air pollution. In addition, from 1974-
1987 I served as deputy division leader and from 1987-1993 as division
leader of LLNL's Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences Division. While
at LLNL, I gained valuable experience in facilitating interagency
cooperation by leading or co-leading cooperative research programs
among the DOE national laboratories and across the campuses of the
University of California. In none of these cases, including with the
Office of the USGCRP and NACO, did I have control of the funding to
force cooperation; leadership, in each case, was primarily through the
offering of ideas that would attract the various participants to work
cooperatively together. A biographical sketch is appended to this
statement.
In inviting me to testify, I was asked to address two questions:
1. What lessons did you learn from your experience as
Executive Director of the National Assessment Coordination
Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program about the
importance of regional, State and local participation of a
National Assessment?
2. What are the specific tasks necessary to develop an on-
going dynamic National Assessment process and what financial
resources are needed to support them?
In addressing these questions, I will also be drawing on my
experiences participating in various ways in the assessment activities
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment, the City of Aspen, and related efforts.
Facilitating an Integrated National Research and Assessment Program on
Global Change
The Global Change Research Act of 1990 (GCRA90) is relatively
unique in its establishment of an interagency research program; when
effectively directed, the cooperative efforts led to very positive
results and accomplishments. Growing out of interagency activities and
planning beginning in about 1988 (with roots reaching back even
further), establishment of the USGCRP energized cooperative interagency
activities, with each agency bringing their strengths to the
collaborative effort, thereby creating an impressive and comprehensive
national and international research program. GCRA90's requirement to
prepare an integrated research plan and OMB's requirement that the
agencies collectively approve the budget increments of any particular
agency served to encourage cooperation and maintain budget discipline
in the early days of the program.
During the 1990s, the collective interagency budget approached $2B
a year, and significant research efforts could be accomplished. For
example, international field programs that combined the satellite and
other capabilities of NASA, the aircraft and ship capabilities of NOAA,
the university research and field experiment capabilities of NSF, and
similar contributions from other countries led to much more
comprehensive and complete data sets for analysis by scientists in all
nations, thus promoting, at lower cost to the US, more complete and
faster insight into such phenomena as the El Nino, the ozone hole,
oceanic uptake of carbon, and more. Improvement of climate models and
transfer of such models to the new generations of massively parallel
computers was accelerated by combining the strengths of DOE and its
laboratories with the modeling expertise of NSF, NASA, and NOAA--each
effort prompting the others to do better. The sharing of data and model
results allowed other agencies to draw on the results for studies of
ecosystem change, hydrology, agriculture, and more. There were many
other examples that, when the overall effort was adequately funded,
significantly advanced scientific understanding in ways that have and
can continue to benefit society.
With more and more scientific questions coming up, however, the
budget was held to roughly level dollars starting in the mid 1990s as a
step to bring the overall budget deficit under control, leaving only
the scientific benefits of working together in win-win ways and
Executive Office encouragement to drive interagency cooperation. Even
though budgets were tight, the agencies recognized the importance of
having an assessment activity and jointly sponsored the U.S. National
Assessment from 1997-2001.
With the GCRP budget becoming significantly smaller\3\ (e.g.,
within EPA and NASA), with the erosionary effects of inflation, with
the significance of the decrease being somewhat hidden by changing the
set of ongoing agency activities included in the USGCRP budget (e.g.,
within NOAA), and with the CCSP having less knowledgeable and
inspirational leadership, much less is seeming to be accomplished.
Scientists are spending far too much of their time writing proposals,
fewer young scientists are being supported, the observation program is
deteriorating, agencies have been very slow to get activities going on
important new questions (e.g., research on hurricanes and their
relationship to climate change), the U.S. is falling behind the rest of
the world and not doing its share in supporting cooperative
international research programs, and the overall national assessment
activity is far below what it was and should be given the situation
being faced by the American public. While there is indeed still much
research to be done (enumerated most recently in the Strategic Plan for
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program completed in 2003), and I
certainly support sustaining a strong interagency research program with
greater funding, just listing what should be done is not enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See their enumeration of the budget at http://
www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight2/default.htm#funding and
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/budgets/funding1989-2008byagency.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Strategic Plan did not even call for a
comprehensive decision support program, which is both very
disappointing and a real disservice to those who are experiencing
climate change now and who will be exposed to much greater change in
years to come. The Administration is not even providing sufficient
support to investigate the uncertainties that it claims are important,
much less the many areas deemed important by the national and
international scientific community and the public, just at a time when
the pace of climate change and its impacts are accelerating.
The main change that is needed, in my view, is highly qualified
leadership, restoration of the very strong research effort that had
been going on, and a significant commitment to openly, forthrightly,
and expeditiously provide the best possible information to the American
public through a comprehensive decision support and assessment
activity. Interagency cooperation can be encouraged by ensuring each
agency has a strong research program and then, for interagency
activities, allocating responsibilities across the agencies, with each
taking on a proportional share of the tasks that it can capably
undertake and fund. Shared responsibility has the effect of ensuring a
real stake in the collective effort by all of the agencies. Although I
have been disappointed in OSTP's leadership for the past few years, my
recommendation is nonetheless maintain responsibility for the
interagency coordination under OSTP and the science adviser, and to
keep the research on climate change science separate from that on
energy technologies to avoid potential biases and to ensure effective
management.
Building a Useful and Effective National Assessment Capability
Assessments are too often thought of only as reports, as, for
example, the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the WMO and UNEP reports on Stratospheric Ozone,
the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), and the US National
Assessment. Indeed, GCRA90 and H.R. 906 both focus on the delivery of a
report to Congress.
For the assessment activity to be useful, however, it has been
widely recognized for some time that a much grander vision and process
is needed, both in terms of the set of stakeholders that are included
and in establishing the type and scope of activities that need to be
undertaken. While provision of information to Congress to support
policy development is certainly important, preparing for and adapting
and responding to the impacts of climate change must start locally and
regionally--each region is distinct, and each type of impact manifests
itself in different ways in different places and for different sectors
of the economy. While there are certainly some areas where national
policy steps are warranted, there will be many where individuals,
public and private sector organizations, local communities, states, and
regions will need to respond. USGCRP activities need to serve all of
these scales and stakeholders, not dictating what policies to follow,
but providing information and capabilities needed by those experiencing
the impacts so that they can prepare for and adapt and respond to
future conditions.
Local planners will want information on likely changes in
precipitation amount and flooding rains; farmers and farm cooperatives
will want information on changes in season length and temperature, not
just for their own farms, but for those of their local and distant
competitors; coastal zone managers will want information on likely
changes in sea level, storms, estuarine temperatures, and more; water
resource managers will want information on likely changes in snowpack
and runoff, and the chance of floods and drought; community health
planners will want information on changes in location of freezing
conditions and the frequency of extreme heat waves; industry will want
information on changes in extremes that might affect their businesses
and shipping; those preparing environmental impact statements will want
information on the degree of change in a particular location; those
doing economic analyses will want information across the region, and
lots more.
In addition to providing information for stakeholders, the program
needs to have an associated outreach and educational activity, helping
to inform people about the changes ahead so that they can make
decisions that will be robust over time and not lead to wasteful
investments. As for other parts of the economy and society,
information, even somewhat uncertain information, can be very valuable.
In that Congress created the Global Change Research Act as an
application-oriented research effort, I believe that the USGCRP has an
obligation to make information available as it is produced, and not
hold back such information until the changes being studied have
occurred or the very high degree of confidence that the scientific
community ultimately strives for has been obtained.
Reflections on the U.S. National Assessment Experience (1997-2001)
Over the four-year period, significant progress was made in moving
toward creating a broad and comprehensive National Assessment
capability. We realized that we needed to create opportunities for real
people (referred to collectively as stakeholders) to meet with
scientists and specialists to learn about and discuss the information
that the research is providing, have the opportunity to ask questions
and to contribute their detailed knowledge and expertise, get
information in the form and type that they need to make their own
analyses, and to make their own judgments about whether the degree of
confidence and uncertainty that scientists have in this information
will make it useful to them.
Certainly, a top-down effort by USGCRP could set the process in
motion by helping to sponsor meetings and by carrying out illustrative
analyses of the larger-scale impacts. However, top-down reports tend to
lack the detailed, local knowledge of an area and generally
inadequately treat the social, economic, and demographic issues that
would be expected to make a climate impact report of real relevance to
city and regional planners; reports about local issues published by
agencies in Washington are just not perceived to have the credibility
of reports coming from local experts. Quite clearly, strong bottom-up
regional efforts based at local academic institutions are much more
credible than national level efforts, especially when analyses are done
at local to regional scales by local and regional experts.
A second approach to evaluating impacts is to look nationally, or
even internationally where appropriate, at particular economic or
resource sectors. For many sectors, national policies exist and
commercial entities are very active or interested, making a national
perspective most appropriate. As a result, the National Assessment set
up a series of sectoral studies. Because many of those in industry
consider their ability to adapt and prepare for climatic fluctuations
and changes a component of their proprietary business information, it
also became clear that, for some types of sectoral studies, the
assessment would need to be left to the private sector (and in the
field of weather-related issues, there is already a strong private
sector capability). Industry participants might well want to receive
information, but did not want to have to explain their requests.
So, building on experiences from already ongoing efforts by NOAA to
help water resource managers and others in the Pacific Northwest make
use of the improving predictability of El Nino and La Nina events, the
SGCR decided to create an ongoing, nationally distributed assessment
capability, not only to prepare the periodic national-level report, but
to also provide ongoing decision support and assessment capabilities to
both regional and sectoral stakeholders.
During 1997 and 1998, the USGCRP agencies sponsored 20 primarily
university-based teams across the country to organize workshops that
would provide an opportunity for the scientific and stakeholder
communities to come together.\4\ Guidance was also given to make sure
that a broad array of stakeholders were invited, and the OSTP Director
sent letters to each governor and each Member of Congress from the area
inviting their participation. Each workshop posed a set of four
questions\5\ as a way of seeking to identify the most important impacts
likely to affect each particular region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Workshops were held covering the following areas: New England
and Upstate New York, Metropolitan East Coast, Mid-Atlantic, Central
and Southern Appalachians, Southeast, South Atlantic Coast and
Caribbean, Great Lakes, Eastern Midwest, Northern Great Plains, Central
Great Plains, Southern Great Plains, Rocky Mountains/Great Basin,
Southwest-Rio Grande Basin, Southwest-Colorado River Basin, California,
Pacific Northwest, Alaska, Pacific Islands, and Native Peoples/Native
Homelands.
\5\ 1. What are the long-term environmental and resource problems
now faced in the region? 2. How would climate change amplify or
moderate them or introduce new stresses? 3. What further information is
needed to address these questions? 4. What win-win strategies might
help to address the problems being faced?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the issues identified and the capabilities for analyzing
and summarizing the likely impacts in these areas, fifteen of the
groups were funded to conduct regional assessments,\6\ and of these,
all but three completed their studies over the next couple of years
and, in addition to significant outreach to regional stakeholders,
published reports summarizing likely impacts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The five areas for which proposals and funding did not come
together were: Central and Southern Appalachians, Eastern Midwest,
South Atlantic Coast and Caribbean, Southern Great Plains, and
Southwest-Rio Grande, although some additional joint study did go on
for the last two areas. The Native People/Native Homelands workshop led
to a proposal covering only the Southwest.
\7\ While much was accomplished in the three regions that did not
ultimately publish assessment reports, a shortfall in funds did prevent
the publication of the draft reports for the California and Native
Peoples-Southwest regions. The Northern Great Plains region carried out
its outreach activities via other means than publishing a hard-copy
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following a national-level workshop in the fall of 1997 and in
response to guidance from the director of the OSTP regarding
fulfillment of the GCRA90 requirement for a national assessment, the
USGCRP agencies established the National Assessment Synthesis Team
(NAST) as a federal advisory committee in early 1998. Working with the
agencies, NAST organized sectoral assessment teams covering
agriculture, forests, human health, water resources, and coastal area
and marine resources. Each of the five sectoral teams was based at a
university and co-chaired by a university and government laboratory
scientist. While it was recognized that there were additional sectoral
topics meriting coverage (and even mentioned specifically in GCRA90),
the particular choices were made because it was recognized that other
sectoral topics would likely depend on the results from these areas
(e.g., assessing impacts on the energy sector would require estimates
of changes in water resources). In addition, because the intent was
that assessment activities would be ongoing, holding off for a few
years seemed prudent, especially because the most important aspects of
these issues would be getting covered in the regional assessments.
To provide the technical information needed to underpin the
regional, sectoral, and national assessments, the USGCRP agencies also
funded initial, but quite limited, activities relating to projection of
climate, vegetation cover, economic development, and technology
development. In addition, to provide overall coordination and
facilitation among the regions, sectors, agencies and NAST, the SGCR
established the National Assessment Coordination Office (NACO). NACO's
activities included providing staff support to the NAST, organizing
annual meetings of leaders of all the assessment teams, issuing
newsletters, maintaining a Web site, and, especially, understanding and
communicating the interests and concerns among the groups and with the
agencies which, for legal and contractual reasons, were in a number of
cases unable to work directly with the groups they were sponsoring.
While a great deal was accomplished, the most challenging problem
was funding. Fulfilling the legal requirement for a report to Congress
and supporting such a broad assessment activity was really an unfunded
mandate. There was not time, and little likelihood, to move a request
for sufficient funding for each agency through the OMB and
Congressional budget process, especially to cover activities occurring
over a number of years. There was also some question about whether
assessment really fits within the definition of research that prevails
in some agencies. To bypass the need for coordinated interagency
funding approval, the assessment activity was subdivided into about 30
components (e.g., support a regional assessment, support a sectoral
assessment, etc.) and each of the eight active agencies was asked to
find the resources to assume responsibility for the several specific
tasks most closely related to their mission (e.g., USDA supported the
agriculture and forest sectors, etc.). We ended up getting about 25 of
the 30 components funded. A key issue for future assessments will be
addressing this problem, because the unevenness of the funding that
different agencies could and did make available led to unevenness,
discontent, bewilderment, and even jealousy across the participating
groups.
Despite the complexity and problems associated with the overall
effort, a great deal was accomplished. The overall effort, which
entailed planning workshops, building of stakeholder interfaces,
regional and sectoral analyses and studies, national synthesis, and,
for all reports, extensive review, took four years. There was a
significant level of coordination achieved, both through exchange of
information among teams at workshops and e-mail, and with some
direction from the NAST. Most of the reports (and a lot of related
publications) were completed and distributed in 1999 and 2000 (regional
reports by the regions; sectoral by the sectoral groups; and the
national reports through SGCR and OSTP). The reports remain available
over the Web at http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm, and the
national level reports are also available from Cambridge University
Press.
Except for the relatively few regions and sectors where new funding
was provided (e.g., in California, where the findings of the regional
assessment raised such interest that the state established its own
program), these reports remain today the most comprehensive set of
information about the likely impacts of climate change on the U.S. In
addition, the National Assessment set of activities served as the
primary basis for the summary of impacts that was included in the
IPCC's chapter on North America in its Third Assessment Report, in the
National Academy of Science's 2001 report prepared in response to a
series of questions from President Bush, and in the impacts and
adaptation chapter of the U.S. Climate Action Report--2002, which,
after word-by-word approval by all the key government agencies and the
Executive Office of the President, was submitted in late May 2002 as
the official U.S. Government communication under the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change that the U.S. ratified in 1992. Quite
clearly, the National Assessment process from 1997-2001 served many
purposes, from local and regional to national and international.
Rebuilding a National Assessment Capability
As mentioned above, it was envisioned that an integrated regional-
sectoral-national assessment activity would continue on well beyond
2001, building on progress spurred by the ongoing research program,
interacting continuously with stakeholders, and periodically issuing
reports that represented snapshots of understanding at that point.
Instead, the Climate Change Science Program, which came to encompass
the USGCRP, chose to focus its resources primarily on further reducing
uncertainties relating to the science of climate change rather than
building capabilities for evaluating the implications of climate change
for people and the environment. There is indeed much research to be
done (on climate extremes, on hurricanes, on ecosystem responses, and
in other areas listed in the CCSP research strategy\8\ ), and I
certainly support additional funds for addressing the major scientific
uncertainties, but much is reasonably well understood, and I believe it
is particularly unfortunate for the American public (and also in
violation of the GCRA90) to not also be sponsoring a strong national
assessment activity. Unfortunately, except for a relatively small
number of ongoing activities, the focus of which has in some cases
moved away from climate change, most of the regional, sectoral, and
national assessment capabilities created for the National Assessment
have largely been discontinued. As a result, capabilities will have to
be rebuilt if our nation is going to have available the information
needed to effectively and economically prepare for and adapt to the
changes that lie ahead. If this is not done, the progress being made
through the scientific research will simply not be effectively
communicated to and usable by most stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ It is not, of course, enough to list the scientific question in
the plan. What has to be done is to have an effective research program
to address the key questions, and this is not happening across the
various elements, especially in aspects critical to identifying and
evaluating the impacts of climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To rebuild and expand the national assessment capability so that it
is providing information across the country of the kind and quality
that California is putting together to address key climate impacts on
its citizens, infrastructure, and economy, several steps need to be
taken:
1. Call for a national assessment capability: It needs to be
made explicit in H.R. 906 that the assessment process is more
than preparation of a national-level report to Congress.
Indeed, it needs to be stated that what is needed is a widely
distributed national assessment capability that can benefit
private and public sector organizations, local and State
governments, and the public at large. As explained below, this
effort needs to have regional, sectoral, and national
components.
2. Ensure a broad scope: GCRA90 and H.R. 906 both properly
call for assessments of global change, not just climate change;
that is, in addition to dealing with long-term climate change,
the stated intent is to deal with issues that include, for
example, the individual and coupled impacts of changes in
stratospheric ozone, large-scale changes in atmospheric
chemistry, ocean acidification, deforestation and
desertification, shifts in species ranges and loss of
biodiversity, changes in population and demand for water and
other ecosystem services, natural influences such as major
volcanic eruptions, and more. For the first National
Assessment, we used the threat of ``climate change'' as a means
to initiate consideration of broader concerns over global
change and sustainability. This was accomplished by having the
first discussion question inquire about other large-scale,
long-term issues, influences, and trends (e.g., the overdrawing
of underground aquifers in some regions). The second question
then inquired about how climate change might exacerbate or
ameliorate the consequences of the various factors leading
change, or how it might introduce new stresses or
opportunities. The assessment activity needs to avoid
considering climate change in the absence of how society and
the environment are otherwise changing; they will only be
useful to real people if done in the context of all types of
changes that are going on. Fully addressing global change and
sustainability will likely to require even broader interagency
cooperation and budget coordination than at present.
3. Allow coupled consideration of mitigation and adaptation:
GCRA90 separated mitigation from adaptation, yet it became
clear during the National Assessment that they are coupled in
certain ways. Changes in water resources will affect the
potential for generation of biomass; changes in climate may
well affect wind power resources and demand for energy; changes
in land cover for energy generation will affect surface albedo,
dust loading, and even air pollution; changes in location of
icing could affect transmission lines; etc. Certainly, the
technology research programs are best kept separate, but
choices regarding particularly renewable energy technologies
and their implications need to be considered jointly with
issues of impacts and adaptation.
4. Provide separate funding: Whether at NSF where research is
defined as something new or at USDA where land-grant funds are
allocated for other purposes and seemingly can't be diverted,
borrowing and begging from the research budgets of various
agencies did not work well, having to struggle to overcome
long-standing agency and recipient relationships. At the same
time, putting all of the additional funds in one agency would
tend to reduce overall credibility, as was the perception when
EPA alone was funding early assessment activities in the late
1980s. For credibility, multiple agencies, each with their
particular interests and capabilities, need to share the
responsibilities and ownership of the assessment activities.
5. Provide for national baseline information: Regional,
sectoral, and national assessments will all require developing
a set of scenarios of projected changes in climate, ecosystems,
demographics, technology, economics, and energy technologies. A
problem with the first National Assessment was that these
activities were inadequately supported and got started too late
to really get the information to assessment teams when it was
needed. Each of these efforts can be started up quickly,
perhaps most effectively under the oversight of national panels
set up under the auspices of a relevant professional society or
foundation. Major data sets that are generated can likely best
be maintained and made available through, for example, national
or agency laboratories or centers. There is also a need for
research funding to develop the capability for generating much
more useful projections and scenarios, and to find the means to
allow for consideration of societal evolution, alternative
policies, etc. This will require a coupling of the assessment
and research planning efforts. The assessment component of this
effort is likely to require several million dollars per year,
especially to support the running of regional models and the
involvement of the social science community.
6. Generalize the time horizon: GCRA90 called for looking 25
and 100 years ahead. This was too limiting. Many stakeholders
want to have projections for only 10 years in the future, even
though scientists would say, and the stakeholders understand,
that natural variability and events such as volcanic eruptions
could cause fluctuations larger than the expected changes over
these short time scales. The reason even limited confidence
estimates can be important is that businesses are not dependent
on conditions being exactly at the expected mean value; for
reasons of competitive edge and to avoid government regulation
if failure happens too often, resource-related businesses are
typically able to flexibly adapt to conditions that span 90
percent or more of the possible range of monthly to seasonal
climatic variations (e.g., have enough capacity and reserves to
be able to ensure enough natural gas or heating oil for all but
the very coldest years, after which they might need to resort
to significant price increases or extra transport of fuel, or
to pleas to the public for conservation, or, in the direst
situations, not meeting the demand). In that many businesses
already have developed an adaptive capability to deal with a
reasonable range of extremes, a projected trend in the mean can
be used to plan how best to plan for changes in the likelihood
of extreme events (e.g., to ensure sufficient electric power
during heat waves). For other groups, for example those
planning buildings or developing new paving materials,
information out to 50 years is more important. The assessment
activity therefore needs to recognize that different groups are
likely to need widely divergent information, from changes in
the mean to changes in the extremes.
7. Insist on stakeholder involvement and an applications-
oriented effort: It really needs to be made clear that the
national assessment activity is an applications-oriented,
mission-directed part of the overall USGCRP. Too often,
assessments are being done by pulling researchers away from
their research. That can be fine for a short time and for
scientific review papers, but that is not how this part of the
program should be conducted. The assessment effort needs to be
designed to maintain an ongoing interface with stakeholders,
and to develop the tools and information that stakeholders
need, taking account of the special knowledge and situations
that are being analyzed. As such, the activity needs to have a
philosophy and operating approach that is akin to NOAA's
existing regional climate centers. While new information and
insights will and can be generated by the assessment process,
this effort needs to be informed by research, but driven by
stakeholders.
8. Insist on and support a network of regional decision-
support centers: A wide range of impacts that matter happen
where people live. As one approach to estimating impacts, it is
essential to have a place-based focus in the assessment
process; those who best know and can relate to a region are
those who live and do their work there. The National Assessment
struggled a lot with the question of what a region is, and
ended up with ones of varying size and rationale.\9\ The most
important considerations ended up being that the regions
included people facing similar problems and that the
participants in the region were able to get together for one-
day information, coordination, and outreach meetings (getting
stakeholders to devote more than one day is very difficult,
given the long-term nature of the benefit they can expect). For
the first National Assessment activity, keeping in mind that
the U.S. is responsible for islands in the Caribbean and
Pacific, it seemed that 20 regions was about the right number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We considered trying to subdivide the U.S. by watershed, by
agency defined administrative region, by political boundary, and more.
In the end, recalling the book The Nine Nations of North America that
focuses on the common interests and values of those in particular
areas, and even considering whether the boundaries of major football
conferences might help define this, we ended up using no single
criterion and allowed fuzzy boundaries for regions.
For the National Assessment, the USGCRP agencies were
generally only able to provide enough funding to get a team
established that drew members from one university. A number of
the regions were able to reach out and build broader teams by
attracting separately supported participants from land and sea
grant programs, from government laboratories, and simply
because of the uniqueness of this first effort; on-going
efforts, however, are going to require more substantial support
for each center (likely of order $1-2M per year per region--and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
if regional modeling is involved, substantially more).
Ideally, I believe that regional centers (or virtual
centers or cooperative regional programs) are needed that draw
on capabilities from multiple universities, laboratories,
stakeholder organizations, and other expertise in a region,
thereby creating a regionalized science, assessment, and
decision-support capability. Such centers (or capabilities)
need to be able to do more than just review existing scientific
literature. They need to be able to carry out and analyze the
large-scale changes that characterize and drive global and
national change, and then apply this large-scale information in
local and regional analyses using the available and calibrated
local and regional models.
For the assessment and decision-support aspect of the
effort, the Regional Integrated Sciences Assessment (RISA)
teams that have been established by NOAA in a few regions
provide an example of what will be needed (and about which Dr.
Phil Mote will testify).\10\ The scope of capabilities,
however, will need to be strengthened so that these regional
centers can address issues of changes not only of climate, but
also for ecosystems, water resources, health, agriculture,
demographics, economic development, transportation, and more.
To achieve both breadth and flexibility as the set of issues
change, it may be best to establish a virtual regional center
rather than a specific center at a fixed location (California
seems to have been able to do this), or to base administrative
coordination efforts at a government laboratory or major center
within the region, with expertise distributed across a set of
universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The four regional centers sponsored by DOE's National
Institute for Climatic Change Research (NICCR) provide an example of
how regional research can be focused and coordinated across several
universities in a given region, although their core set of activities
is not as focused as for the RISA centers.
Getting such activities up and going across the country
will take at least a few years, but really does need to occur
so that all regions can have the types of information now
available for those few regions that are supported. Required
funding for roughly 20 regional activities likely needs to be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
roughly $20M per year.
9. Call for and support sectoral assessments: While many of
the impacts are regionally distinctive, our nation is
interconnected in many ways. The National Assessment sponsored
five sectoral assessments, but recognized that many more were
needed and hoped that they would be initiated as part of
ongoing activities. There have been a few efforts to do this,
with, for example, EPA continuing to sponsor assessments of the
significance of climate change for human health and air and
water quality, and DOT for issues relating to climate and
transportation infrastructure and operation. But the CCSP's
efforts have so far been quite limited, forcing the initiation
of other modest and generally underfunded efforts (e.g., GAO,
at Congressional request, on Public Lands; a few environmental
groups for various regions; and a number of groups on defense
and national security implications); fully supported studies
are needed.
Establishing on-going panels that are expected to
regularly update their analyses and assessments would likely
work best, with a sustained capability maintained in order to
be responsive to new questions, inquiries, and research
results. The overall objective would be to help those in each
sector have the information they need to cost effectively
prepare for and adapt to ongoing and prospective climatic and
environmental change.
In addition to the areas for which initial assessments
were done, areas that are particularly worthy of study include
extreme events (e.g., hurricanes), energy, transportation,
infrastructure, business and commerce, trade and international
economics, recreation and tourism, wildlife and migrating
species, drylands and deserts, public parks and natural lands,
national security, international interconnections including
environmental refugees, urban areas, rural communities, and
more.
To lead such efforts, partnerships between independent
professional or research organizations and government research
entities would likely be most effective, and might be a means
that would allow these teams to deal with proprietary
information and to develop recommendations on policies that
could help ease impacts and promote adaptation in the sector
analyzed. Funding for a set of such activities should likely
start at a level of about $5-10M.
10. National vulnerability assessment: The National Assessment
Synthesis Team (NAST) was established to provide high-level
direction for and integration across the distributed assessment
activities. NAST's responsibility included carrying out the
national synthesis by considering the larger picture,
encouraging learning and interaction across the separate
activities, and looking for gaps and weaknesses. Having NAST
organized as a federal advisory committee\11\ created
credibility and allowed for openness in its activities,
including in its review process.\12\ Insisting that such an
independent structure be used in the future is important for
many reasons, especially credibility; it is fine to ask for an
Administration evaluation of the resulting report, but the
vulnerability assessment should not be a formal Administration
or interagency document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Although NAST operated legally under the auspices of NSF, its
functioning, oversight, and interactions were handled on an interagency
basis, giving it broader independence and credibility. The independence
also allowed each agency to separately consider NAST's findings and
integrate them into their various roles and priorities. Based on
experiences of trying to get all agencies to approve every word of
official government reports, it is important that this not be required.
\12\ Having a Federal Register review in addition to an extensive
expert review served, in my view, a very useful role. However, an open
review can also create difficulties because open release of a draft
report tends to draw more media attention that release of the final
findings.
It is unclear whether an entity similar to NAST could be
sustained on a continuing basis using mainly volunteer members
who actually are also responsible for writing the report; quite
likely some support will be needed for member support, for
special studies, and for support staff. Finding a way to have
NAST's members be both widely representative of stakeholders
(including representing the interests of the agencies and
Congress) while also having the needed distribution and depth
of expertise will be a challenge. Funding required is likely
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2M per year, including support for national level meetings.
11. Overall Facilitation and Coordination: The SGCR
established the National Assessment Coordination Office (NACO)
to ensure effective coordination across all of the various
parts of the effort; this involved both a service and a subtle
independent voice supporting the overall vision for what is
wanted. Some sort of similar function will be needed for future
assessments, including especially promoting coordination,
cooperation, and exchange of information across the regions,
sectors, agencies, and national assessment team. For reasons of
credibility and acceptance, it will be important to find a way
to make sure this is done on an interagency basis.
12. Timing: GCRA90 and H.R. 906 both provide for an assessment
every four years. While periodic reports can be useful, they
can also be very disruptive to an ongoing assessment process if
every part of the process must focus on meeting the same
timelines. For this reason, rather than setting tight timelines
and a common, coordinated schedule for all parts of the process
as is done for IPCC assessments,\13\ NAST understood that,
while there was a need for the various regional and sectoral
teams to conduct some common analyses for national integration,
each region and each sector also needed some flexibility in
undertaking their own studies for their own audiences. Thus,
the national synthesis effort was set up as, essentially, a
``snapshot'' at a particular time and focused on a particular
aspect of global change, initially climate change. We
envisioned there being future snapshots to catch up with other
aspects of the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In addition to requiring very tight coordination and
essentially the superseding of all other activities and stakeholder
interactions, scheduling all reports to finish simultaneously also has
the unfortunate side effect of leading to peaks of attention on the
issue every several years rather than promoting ongoing attention to
the need to build adaptive capacity.
For the future, I would think it useful to continue to
ask for periodic national-level reports--indeed, that the
needed report called for in the GCRA90 has not been provided is
very unfortunate. While there should not be an expectation that
each report will cover every aspect of global change,
coordination across successive reports should be done to ensure
that Congress really does periodically have an up-to-date
synthesis of the key national issues. To accomplish this, what
would be most useful, I would think, would be to receive, over
time, a series of reports from different perspectives and
taking different crosscuts of the issue--one time focused on
climate change, another time on ecosystem services and
vitality, another time on water resources and drought, etc.,
and then, in addition, having an integrated executive
synthesis. Neither scientific understanding nor climate
normally changes fast enough to justify generating a full set
of reports in each region and sector on the same material every
four years; however, an up-to-date synthesis should always be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
available.
13. Policy and technology evaluation for adaptation: Unlike
GCRA90, H.R. 906 calls in section 107(5) for the vulnerability
assessment to analyze ``the adoption rates of policies and
technologies available to reduce the vulnerability of society
to global change. . .'' This looks to me to be a useful new
component of a national-level assessment. Such analyses should
also be useful as a foundation for covering this subject in the
quadrennial submission of the U.S. Climate Action Report. The
National Assessment was not very successful at getting at the
issue of adaptation to various impacts; having a special
effort, at a reasonable funding level, would likely be very
helpful.
14. Communication, education and outreach program: While the
National Assessment planned a communication, education, and
outreach component, there were inadequate funds to do very
much. A key problem was that the agencies involved just did not
feel they were empowered to use funds designated for research
for these purposes, especially when the research funding was
very tight and there were many issues that needed to be
addressed. In some way, the legislation needs to call for such
activities and find ways to make sure that funding can be
provided, even if through the agency education allocations,
etc. Funding should be at $1-2M per year.
15. Policy assessment: Section 108 of H.R. 906 calls for a
policy assessment that documents current policies across the
country for both adaptation and mitigation, analyzes the
effectiveness of these policies, and identifies and evaluates
the need for additional policies. I would suggest that the
adaptation component of this assessment not related to the
emission or uptake of greenhouse gases be made part of the
national vulnerability assessment so as to make the remaining
effort more focused and manageable. With respect to the
mitigation assessment, to ensure credibility, it will be
important to have this assessment done by an independent panel
organized under the auspices of a university, foundation, or
research or policy center. Required funding is likely a few
million per year.
What Can Be Done in a Year?
The fact that we have gone seven years without a full assessment
would certainly seem a good reason to ask that the next assessment be
completed in a year. However, insisting on such a rapid timetable could
well lead to such an inadequate result that it would impair progress in
getting to the comprehensive national capability that we need. Much,
however, can be done in a year:
A coordinated, interagency effort to prepare, review, and
publish a plan for a comprehensive national assessment;
In that historical and scenario-based information will be
required on climate, land cover, demographics, technology, and
economics, steps should be required to initiate such efforts;
The existing set of regionally based activities should be
expanded;
Key agencies should be encouraged to initiate sectoral
assessment activities on a number of new topics; and
Agency budgets should be augmented to provide for their
participation in a greatly expanded assessment activity.
In my view, establishing the national capability over the next one
to two years and then pushing for the next national-level synthesis
within three years would be possible while assuring that useful
information would be starting to get to stakeholders relatively
quickly.
In addition, the Administration should be called upon to complete
the seriously overdue Climate Action Report, with the process including
an adequate time for expert and public review of the draft and
Congressional evaluation of the result.
Biography for Michael C. MacCracken
Michael MacCracken has been Chief Scientist for Climate Change
Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C., since 2002; he
was also elected to its Board of Directors in 2006. Both of these
positions are held on a volunteer basis.
Dr. MacCracken received his B.S. in Engineering degree from
Princeton University in 1964 and his Ph.D. degree in Applied Science
from the University of California Davis/Livermore in 1968. His
dissertation used a 2-D climate model to evaluate the plausibility of
several hypotheses of the causes of ice ages. Following his graduate
work, he joined the Physics Department of the University of
California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as an
atmospheric physicist. His research in the ensuing 25 years included
numerical modeling of various causes of climate change (including study
of the potential climatic effects of greenhouse gases, volcanic
aerosols, land-cover change, and nuclear war) and of factors affecting
air quality (including photochemical pollution in the San Francisco Bay
Area and sulfate air pollution in the northeastern United States). At
LLNL, he also served as deputy division leader for atmospheric and
geophysical sciences from 1974-1987 and then division leader from 1987-
1993.
From 1993-2002, Dr. MacCracken was on assignment as senior global
change scientist to the interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP) in Washington, D.C., also serving as its
first Executive Director from 1993-1997. From 1997-2001, he served as
Executive Director of the USGCRP's National Assessment Coordination
Office, which facilitated and coordinated the efforts of 20 regional
assessment teams, five sectoral teams, and the National Assessment
Synthesis Team (which was constituted as a federal advisory committee)
that prepared the national climate impact assessment report that was
forwarded to the President and on to Congress in late 2000. During this
period with the Office of the USGCRP, Dr. MacCracken also was a co-
author/contributing author for various chapters in the IPCC assessment
reports and helped coordinate the official U.S. Government reviews of
the second and third assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.
When Dr. MacCracken's assignment with the Office of the USGCRP
concluded on September 30, 2002, he simultaneously retired from LLNL.
In addition to his activities with the Climate Institute, he served on
the integration team for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment from
2002-2004. Dr. MacCracken is also near completing a four-year term
(2003-2007) as president of the International Association of
Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS), members of which are the
national academies of science or their equivalent in about 50 nations.
As president of IAMAS, Dr. MacCracken also serves on the executive
committees of International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) and
of the Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research (SCOR). From 2004 to
2005, he served on a panel of the Scientific Committee on Problems in
the Environment that prepared a report on what is known about the
likelihood and consequences of an asteroid or comet impact, and from
2004-2007 on a scientific expert group convened by Sigma Xi and the UN
Foundation at the request of the UN's Commission on Sustainable
Development to suggest the best measures for mitigating and adapting to
global climate change (report available at http://
www.confrontingclimatechange.org).
Dr. MacCracken is a fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) and a member of the American
Meteorological Society, the Oceanography Society, and the American
Geophysical Union, among other organizations. His affidavit relating
global climate change and impacts on particular regions was recently
cited favorably by Justice Stevens in his opinion in the recent
decision in Massachusetts et al. versus EPA.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Dr. MacCracken. Dr. Fellows,
please.
STATEMENT OF DR. JACK D. FELLOWS, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
Dr. Fellows. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Chairwoman.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to testify on H.R. 906, in addition to my personal involvement
in the creation of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. And
I wanted to mention that UCAR, this consortium of 70
universities, has been involved in this program for over 15
years as well.
The Subcommittee asked me to address the following
questions: What are the major strengths and weaknesses of the
U.S. Global Change Research Program? Are the current program
funding levels adequate for adaptation and mitigation research
and characterizing national vulnerability to climate change?
And how can we ensure that resource managers and policy-makers'
needs are met by the program?
Let me start by describing the current U.S. Global Change
Research Program strengths. The program has always been focused
on producing the sound, scientific basis for policy-making. It
has developed a unique interagency mechanism that provides a
critical mass and focus for planning, and it is periodically
peer reviewed. It has also made an effort to tie research and
observational strategies to user needs, and it has clearly
advanced the science over the last 17 years.
Although it is not perfect--it does have some weakness--it
has been impacted by political influences over the years,
climate politics, overshadowed by other priorities. Over its
history, its leaders have not always been given the support and
tools to make the tough decisions and tradeoffs between program
and agency priorities. It has been difficult at times to track
the progress of the program, and it could clearly be more
responsive to user needs.
Let me turn to whether or not the program has adequate
funding for adaptation and mitigation and characterizing
national vulnerability. To discuss the budget, I will be
referring to the Financial Year '07 ``Our Changing Planet''
document. It is a report that is produced by the program every
year. That report covers the years Financial Year '05 to '07.
During these years, the funding was roughly at about $2 billion
a year. This is not easy to do a critical analysis of balance.
Typically, National Research Council takes a couple years to do
this.
But the program does have five goals, and the first three
are focused largely on scientific advancement, and the last two
on adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability analysis. Those
last two goals represent about 25 to 30 percent of the current
budget, and that is about $300 million annually.
So, in my own judgment, I think that the balance is
probably roughly right, and it actually includes a range of
synthesis and assessment products that focus on national
vulnerability, all the way from urban environments that we live
in to even Arctic ice, and Mr. Inglis, I know you have traveled
to the Antarctic, and you have experienced those ice
conditions.
One balance issue that I would like to point out is between
Financial Year '05 and '07, the observational support actually
decreased by almost 30 percent, from $500 million to about $700
million. These were largely NASA science cuts due to other
Administration priorities that have weakened the program, right
at the time when we really need this kind of environmental
observation. This reduction was actually highlighted in a
recent National Research Council report that warned that our
national environmental observation systems are at risk.
Let me turn to whether or not we can ensure that resource
managers and policy-makers' needs are being met in this
program. The program has actually had a long history of
engaging stakeholders. The program sponsored, in 2001, a
National Assessment, of which researchers and stakeholders
worked together, in 20 regions of the United States, to help
identify user needs. Most of the synthesis and assessment
products that came out of this effort continued to be an
important part of the program, and involved the stakeholders.
But despite all these efforts, I do think that H.R. 906
would increase user input, and particularly, on the planning
and priority setting of the program. So, in summary, I would
say that H.R. 906 is very timely. It is an important piece of
legislation. We have learned a lot since 1990 on how to run an
interagency program, and the demand for this information is
clearly increasing.
If there is anything I would recommend about H.R. 906, it
has to do with improving the interagency process itself. The
bill does need to further highlight the priority of this
program, so that it doesn't get diluted by other things. It is
still a surprise to me that there is no aspect of this program
included in the American Competitive Initiative, even though
most of our economy is weather-sensitive or climate-sensitive.
The bill also ought to identify, I think, a Director of
this program and an Office of this program, and give them the
tools and support and clout to be able to make the tough
decisions, in terms of developing priorities.
So, with that, I will conclude my remarks, Madam
Chairwoman, and I would be happy to answer questions when we
get to it.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fellows follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack D. Fellows
Introduction
My name is Dr. Jack D. Fellows and I submit this written testimony
for the record of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. I
am the Vice President of Corporate Affairs at the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. UCAR
is a 70-university member consortium that manages and operates the
National Center for Atmospheric Research and additional programs that
support and extend the country's scientific and education capabilities
related to weather and climate. The UCAR community has been a major
contributor to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) for
more than 15 years.
In the invitation extended to me to participate in today's hearing
on H.R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of
2007, I was asked to address the following questions:
1. What are the major strengths and weaknesses of the current
U.S. Global Change Research Program?
2. Are the current levels of funding for research to support
the development of adaptation practices, characterization of
ecosystem, community, and economic vulnerability, and
mitigation strategies adequate?
3. How can we best ensure that information needs of resources
managers and policy-makers at the State and local level are met
by the U.S. Global Change Research Program?
In addition to addressing these three questions, I will also
include my comments on how H.R. 906 can contribute to these three
areas. My testimony today expresses my own views on H.R. 906 and is
based on my own experiences and involvement in the USGCRP since its
inception. I was a co-author of the very first USGCRP ``Our Changing
Planet'' (OCP) report that accompanied the President's 1990 Budget and
from my vantage point at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at
that time, I assisted the Congress in its enactment of the Global
Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), which codified the USGCRP
into law.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
While the USGCRP formally started in 1989, it actually began in
early 1987 with some informal budget crosscuts when I was at the OMB.
Those early crosscuts showed that over $1 billion of agency programs
were related to global change type research. Shortly after these
crosscuts, the Office of Science and Technology and OMB lead an
interagency effort to improve the coordination of these programs. For
over 15 years, the OCP reports have annually summarized the efforts of
this critically important interagency research effort to better
understand both the natural and human-induced changes occurring on our
planet. The USGCRP has changed over the years both in research focus
and structure. In 2001, the Bush Administration created the Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP) that became the umbrella program for both
the USGCRP and the Bush Administration's Climate Change Research
Initiative. In July 2003, the Bush Administration released the
``Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program'' to guide
the CCSP program. I will be using the FY07 OCP report for the basis of
my testimony today. The USGCRP does not change radically from year to
year and the FY07 OCP report is a particularly relevant report to
address the three questions I have been asked to address.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
USGCRP Major Strengths and Weaknesses?
My own view is that the USGCRP has been instrumental in improving
our knowledge of how our planet works and how human activities impact
it. That said, I believe the program does have exceptional strengths
and a few things that must be addressed to realize the goals outlined
in H.R. 906.
The major strengths of the USGCRP include:
1. Its primary goal has not changed since its inception--to
provide a sound scientific basis for developing national and
international policy on global change issues.
2. It has provided an important interagency mechanism for
developing research priorities and budgets and coordinating the
program's implementation.
3. It has provided a ``critical mass'' and ``focal point''
both within the federal and academic research and policy
communities to ensure this important science is discussed,
debated, reported, and remain a national priority.
4. It has periodically been independently reviewed (e.g., the
National Academy of Sciences) and been responsive to those
reviews.
5. It has tried to tie these interagency research efforts to
societal and user needs.
The major weaknesses of the USGCRP include:
1. The program has been subject to rather substantial
political influences over the years (e.g., avoidance of certain
research areas, overshadowed by other Administration
priorities, disjointed congressional oversight, etc).
2. The interagency process has not always had the leadership
and clout to really ensure that the highest research priorities
are addressed or all agency contributions were included
(program priorities versus agency priorities).
3. It has not been as responsive to user needs as it could
have been.
4. There has been difficulty in tracking budget categories and
progress over time as cited in the 2006 GAO report entitled
``Climate Change: Greater Clarity And Consistency Are Needed in
Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding.''
Are Current Funding Levels Adequate to Support Adaptation and
Mitigation Research and Characterize Ecosystem,
Community, and Economic Vulnerability?
In FY07, the USGCRP had five key goal areas (see box). While some
of the wording has changed over the years, these goals have been
surprisingly stable for many years. That said, U.S. climate research
has historically been focused on Goals 1-3, which have emphasized
improvements in fundamental understanding of the climate systems, its
driving forces, and the tools to make predictions about climate
variability and change. As the science has improved and its
applicability to societal needs has become more evident, the importance
of Goals 4-5 have clearly increased. The FY07 report has pages and
pages of highlights of progress in all these goal areas. Between, FY05-
07, the USGCRP funding has been between $1.7-1.8B. It is difficult to
critically assess the specific program balance of such a large program.
National Academy of Science panels have spent over a year doing this
kind of analysis and even those reviews are largely done a high-level.
That said, the CCSP Goals and Funding Percentage box above shows that
the funding for Goals 4-5 are roughly 25-30 percent of the overall
research funding (not including observations). I believe this is
substantially up from the early years of the program, represents a
reasonable balance in the program, and I expect will increase with time
given policy and user demand for this type of research and information.
It has just been in the last five years or so that the science has
mature enough and the Goal 4-5 capacity capable enough to undertake the
over $300 million annually being invested in the Goal 4-5 areas today.
The USGCRP currently has 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products that are
clearly applicable to national vulnerability, including weather and
climate extremes, abrupt climate change, coastal sensitivity to sea
level rise, ecosystem discontinuities, global change effects on
agriculture, water resource, and energy production, human health
impacts, best-practice in characterizing uncertainty, decision support
systems for selected economic sectors and regions, adaptive management
strategies, and many others.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
One issue I wish to point out is the USGCRP observations budget has
dropped from over $772 million in FY05 to roughly $575 million in FY07
(a 33 percent decrease). This is largely due to substantial reductions
in NASA's science budget and a problem highlighted in the recent
National Research Council's ``Earth Science and Application from Space:
National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond.'' This is an
example where other Administration priorities have weakened the USGCRP
program and interagency process. We should consider very carefully
whether it is in our best interest to allow our observational
capabilities to decline. I believe that in the very near future,
policy-makers will begin to take actions to address the climate change
issues documented in recent international reports. It would seem to me
that observing capabilities will be even more important in the future
as tools for policy-makers so that they can assess the impact of the
important policy choices they make in response to climate change--which
is why it is so hard to understand why this Administration has allowed
such a steep decline in the funding of our observing capabilities. It
is quite possible that some of the stakeholders input required in H.R.
906 would also agree with the need to maintain these observational
capabilities.
How can we best ensure that information needs of resources managers and
policy-makers at the State and local level are met
by the USGCRP?
In 2001, the USGCRP sponsored the first U.S. National Assessment
entitled ``Climate Change Impacts on the United States: the potential
consequences of climate variability and change.'' This assessment was
required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and involved teams
of researchers and stakeholders working in 20 regions across the U.S.
Much was learned from this first assessment in terms of national
vulnerability, stakeholder needs, and how to best do assessments in the
future. Many of the FY07 Synthesis and Assessment Products are
outgrowths of this assessment and continue to solicit resource manager
and policy-maker needs at all levels. So, the USGCRP continues to make
substantial progress in making its investment relevant to stakeholders.
But, is it enough given the urgency and political interest in this
important science and policy issue? I'll try to address this in the
next section of my testimony. I do believe that the type of reports and
oversight recommended in H.R. 906 will go a long way to ensuring that
resource managers and policy-makers needs are met by the USGCRP.
How H.R. 906 can help in these three areas?
Overall I believe that H.R. 906 is a timely and important piece of
legislation. We have learned a lot about climate science since 1990.
Given increased awareness of the risks posed by climate change there is
significant demand for data, information, models, and tools to help
decision-makers and resources managers cope with climate change. Thus,
the USGCRP has an unprecedented opportunity to provide even more
``decision support'' to stakeholders. Also, we have grown wiser on how
to run interagency science programs over the past 17 years. Given this
increased demand for information and improved management approaches, I
believe it is the right time to consider replacing the 1990 Act with
H.R. 906. The type of program outlined in H.R. 906 is a significant
step in the right direction for the following reasons:
1. It builds on the existing USGCRP strengths and minimizes or
even eliminates the weaknesses mentioned above;
2. It seeks more ``balance'' between the physical and
mitigation/adaptation research components; and
3. It promotes further stakeholders engagement at all levels.
Many of the bill's provisions are fully consistent with the
recommendations in the 2004 National Research Council report entitled:
``Implementing Climate and Global Change Research: A review of the
final U.S. Climate Change Program Strategic Plan.'' The only
suggestions I have that might further strengthen the bill include:
1. Leadership, Priorities, and Management. Given the possible
dire consequences of climate change, I find it puzzling that
there is no mention of weather and climate in federal
priorities like the American Competitiveness Initiative. A
significant portion of our nation's economy is impacted by
weather and climate and this area of research and education is
preparing the next generation of environmental leaders that
will contribute to both our nation's safety and to our economy.
For the USGCRP leaders to make progress, this program must be
recognized as a key priority in both the Administration and
Congress. Without this level of recognition, the USGCRP leaders
will not have the clout to make sure the program stays focused
on the highest research and policy priorities. This bill would
be even stronger if it required the USGCRP interagency
committee to have: (1) a clear budget process linking tasks to
agency and program budgets, (2) a USGCRP Director with
sufficient authority to ensure that agency programs reflect
USGCRP priorities and make tough tradeoffs among competing
agencies desires and evolving program needs, (3) a timeline
with clear and realistic deliverables, and (4) a Director that
is clearly held accountable to deliver on the program's goals.
This would make for an effective interagency enterprise and
reflect what we have learned about interagency efforts over the
past 17 years. The flip side of this is to not make it so rigid
and centralized that it will actually undermine the interagency
process--always a danger! One the greatest frustrations and
challenges in putting together an integrated USGCRP while I was
at OMB was that there is no equivalent integrated oversight
mechanism in the Congress. Many people spent enormous amounts
of time in the Executive Branch putting this together and then
having it looked at in a completely non-integrated manner on
the Hill. Today, the restructuring of the committee
jurisdictions has improved the integrated oversight of the
USGCRP, but this is something to keep a watchful eye on.
2. Reporting. Within one year of the Act's enactment, the
Program must produce: (1) a 10 year research plan that reflects
user needs at the federal, State, regional, and local levels,
international coordination recommendations, categorize user
need information needed to develop policies to reduce societal
vulnerability to global change, and identify needed global
observations; (2) a vulnerability assessment for the U.S. and
the world that goes well beyond research; and (3) a policy
assessment that documents the mitigation and adaptation
policies being used at the federal, State, and local levels,
evaluate them, and recommended others, (4) a data management
plan, and (5) an annual report. This level of analysis and
reporting is likely to be very challenging within one year and
would probably benefit from a different sequencing. The
research plan would be greatly enhanced from the vulnerability
and policy assessment. Perhaps the research plan due date
should be delayed to take advantage of a combined
vulnerability/policy assessment that involves both the research
plan participants and people of very different perspectives and
skills (e.g., economists, policy researchers, etc). There is a
much greater chance that the research plan's goals and
priorities will be responsive to user needs with this input.
3. Research and User-Need Balance. This bill should help
refocus the USGCRP to better reflect user needs. That said, it
shouldn't eliminate important basic research that could lead to
a major scientific breakthrough due to over emphasis on user-
driven requirements. Whether this happens or not will likely be
due to individual interpretation of the bill. While loosely
implied, this kind of balance is not directly addressed in the
bill and should be. Another way to look at this is that there
should be balance between researcher-driven research that may
lead to unforeseen breakthroughs and a more top-down approach
to managing programs and setting priorities.
4. Other. Unlike Title 1, there is no reference to user needs
in the Title II data management section. It would make sense
that many of these data be relevant to user needs. Lastly,
Title I Page 5 Lines 22-23 should include the obvious agencies
involved in the Program just like the data management section
(Title II Page 18 Lines 9-19).
I want to thank the Subcommittee for the chance to provide this
testimony and your stewardship of the Nation's weather and climate
enterprise. There will be tremendous opportunities in the future for
international climate leadership and for a broad range of research and
technology opportunities that will have substantial return to our
nation's economy. The future strength of our nation depends on today's
investments in these programs.
Biography for Jack D. Fellows
Education
Ph.D (1984), M.S. (1976), B.S. (1975) Civil Engineering, University
of Maryland. Focus: hydrology, geographical information systems, and
remote sensing.
Dr. Fellows began his career as a research faculty member at the
University of Maryland, where he conducted research in the use of
satellite data in hydrologic models. In 1984, he spent a year in the
U.S. Congress as the American Geophysical Union's Congressional Science
Fellow. While in Congress, he split his time between the personal
office of George Brown (D-CA) and the House Science and Space
Subcommittee (George Brown was the Chair at the time) and worked on a
range of policy issues, including water resources, satellite remote
sensing, and general oversight of federal research and development
funding. He helped write legislation that was enacted regarding the
commercialization of land remote sensing satellites. After this
fellowship (and largely because of it), he spent 13 years in the
Executive Office of President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
overseeing budget and policy issues related to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and federal-
wide research and development programs. During this period with OMB, he
helped initiate the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Jack has two roles at UCAR. Since 1997, Jack has been the Vice
President of UCAR's Corporate Affairs; he's responsible for a broad
range of corporate activities, including development of corporate
policies and programs, liaison with the Federal Government, management
of UCAR's consortium of over 100 national and international
universities, and UCAR (http://www.ucar.edu) funding raising, advocacy,
and communications activities. UCAR is a $200M+ per year corporation
with over 1,300 employees.
He is also the Director of UCAR's Office of Programs, responsible
for overseeing a broad range of scientific and educational programs
that serve the atmospheric and related research and education
community, including building digital libraries (DLESE and NSDL),
providing real time data to over 160 universities via the Internet
(Unidata), training our nation's operational forecasters via distance
learning and other media (COMET), and building a multi-national
constellation of six micro-satellites to measure critical weather,
climate, and space weather parameters (COSMIC), helping children around
the world learn how to take and analyze environmental measurement
(GLOBE), providing administrative and research services to the
atmospheric science community (JOSS). These are all research,
education, or technology programs that the research and education
community have asked UCAR to manage based on its excellent management
background and capability. UOP is $40M per year organization with over
400 employees.
Jack Fellows was awarded the Edward A. Flinn III Award in 1997. The
Flinn Award is given to those individuals who personify the Union's
motto ``unselfish cooperation in research'' through their facilitating,
coordinating, and implementing activities.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Fellows. Dr. Mahoney, please.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES R. MAHONEY, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT;
FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND
ATMOSPHERE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, AND DIRECTOR OF U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE
SCIENCE PROGRAM
Dr. Mahoney. Thank you, Chairwoman Giffords, and so, I
address, of course, the entire panel, with Ranking Member
Inglis in particular, and I want to cite Mr. Udall, and the
Chair of the main Committee, too.
I am delighted to have the chance to address you today, and
I am a more recent veteran of these skirmishes, having spent
four years in trying to make the interagency process work to a
sensible outcome, so I associate myself very much with the
comments that Dr. MacCracken made before, as well as those of
Dr. Fellows just before me now.
I will mention one of them here again just as a highlight,
so that it won't be necessary for me to turn to it in my own
comments quite as much, and that is I also bring the message
that I would urge the Committee, and at the end of the day, the
Congress, to make a more explicit position about how this
program should be managed. On one hand, that is, after all, a
function of the executive branch. But it isn't a function of
the executive branch only, to say that to be successful, a
program like this must have a reasonably funded management and
coordination office, with a sense of permanence to it, and that
the budget lines brought forward through OMB, and ultimately,
those that survive in the President's budget up here to the
Hill, have to recognize this kind of program very directly.
One of the key weaknesses that I certainly observe in all
the recent years is that there has been no move away from the
concept that this is a program conducted in 13 parts by, now,
13 collaborating agencies, and with that view, they all must
take--they must set their own priorities, and take them
internally, and then up to OMB, and that leaves no place to
really solidify the view about the priorities for the whole
program.
So, if I were to give any one message to this committee,
even recognizing the separation of powers, so that I wouldn't
propose that the Congress ought to explicitly lay out chapter
and verse of organization and management, but I think some
guidance being given by the Congress would be very helpful,
because it is a long-term battle, and it pained me a great deal
to see the lack of progress that was made in a number of areas,
because it wasn't possible to break through some of these
problems along the way.
With that, let me press on to the rest of my comments very
quickly here as well. Since the Chair already introduced us, I
won't take any more time on that, and I will pass directly to
the point that I have a series of comments, that I divide into
three parts. One is some overall comments. The second is a set
of comments on structure and resources for the program, and
then, the third is some other suggestions, as well. In my
overall comments, the first is perhaps the most important.
I certainly agree that the Global Change Research Act of
1990 is ready for a significant update, and I certainly agree
with the sense of the current draft bill, focusing on much more
user interaction, much more assessment work and the like as
part of that, so I simply applaud those efforts as, to my best
lights, as being very much in place.
Second point, an overview, though, I want to raise the very
important caution that we need to be careful that we don't just
flip from one extreme to the other, in other words, that we
don't deemphasize the science, to the point, by saying that
what we need to do is assessment and user interaction, which we
must do, but if that all simply came at the expense of the
underlying science, I would assert strongly that what we know
now, yes, the question about human causation of global change
is settled, but there are so many other very important science
questions about regional impacts, abrupt climate change, and we
could go on and make a list that would consume all the time
here. So, what I would suggest that what the, hopefully the
Congress, this committee first, and then, ultimately, the
Congress would deal with in this, is something that recognizes
the great need to pick up the user involvement, and get going
on that kind of assessment work, but to mate that with this
continuing strong commitment to the underlying science.
And then I, also, as an overview comment, cite back some of
the areas where I see the benefit of the things the Committee,
that this bill, the current train has brought along, the
requirements for stakeholder involvement, the major emphasis on
improved data management, and a clear mandate for developing
policy analysis statements as a basis for understanding our
climate information.
I would cite, somewhat in hindsight, that one of the
reasons that the Climate Change Science Program was not able to
address as much as it might have wanted of some of the
underlying scientific information use questions was that there
was no framework to put that against in terms of either one or
more, or a set of policies that are worth examining. So,
treating those things are a very good point.
Now, I will very quickly go to a close. I have got a
comment on structures and resources. First of all, there is no
specific funding mechanism, neither authorization, nor other
guidance about approaches to funding in the bill, and I would
commend that to your attention, given the great difficulty of
making a long-term multi-agency program run. There continues to
be a great need to assure the independence of the science. I
think that is there in large part with the call for continued
involvement with the National Academy. The Academy's
involvement with the current program is now well in place under
contract, and presumably, this bill will do nothing to take
that out of place.
I look to see major OMB involvement in this activity,
because it can't simply look at the pieces and the various
lines, but it has to look at the program altogether, and as my
colleagues have already commented, too, there is a clear need
for the bill to say something directly about the importance of
a coordination office, and its location in government, and its
funding.
And then, just the last closing comments. I believe some of
the timelines now set out in the bill, and the first year, in
particular, are unrealistic. There is a call for five different
reports to be done in the first year, and there is just no way.
I would bet a dime and make $0.20 on my bet, that that would
not happen in one year. So, I would suggest that you might want
to take another look at phasing those somewhat.
Second, there is a need to call for a solid communication
and education strategy in the bill, too, since this deals so
much with user involvement with the information, yet there is
still no call for that kind of communication capability, and
that was absolutely the poor orphan of everything we tried to
do in recent years, so I would hate to see that get left off
without any kind of mandate in the law, when this is done.
And finally, there is a need to coordinate the reports and
output from this program with the international activities and
other U.S. Government reporting activities in the climate area,
too. Simply to say, as my very last point, since the IPCC, for
example, which is just releasing its Fourth Assessment, and
which will start a six-year process toward its Fifth
Assessment, it would be helpful for the bill to recognize
something that would alternate phase between the international
assessments and the major reporting responsibilities in the
states, because many of the same group of scientists, hundreds
of U.S. scientists are involved in both of those activities.
Many of them are the same people, and the quality is better if
the pain is stretched out a little bit.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mahoney follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Mahoney
Chairman Giffords, Ranking Member Inglis and Members of the
Subcommittee: thank you for your invitation to address the subcommittee
today on the important issue of ``Reorienting the U.S. Global Change
Research Program toward a user-driven research endeavor: H.R. 906.'' I
am James R. Mahoney, and I currently serve as an environmental
consultant, providing scientific and professional advice to a number of
organizations. From April 2, 2002 to March 30, 2006 I was Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Deputy
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). During this period I was also the Director of the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP), involving 13 federal agencies conducting
and overseeing total annual budgets of approximately $2 billion
dedicated to scientific research, Earth system observations, computer
simulations of future climate conditions, and evaluation of possible
adaptation and mitigation actions to address climate change. I
reluctantly retired from my federal appointment approximately one year
ago because of continuing significant health problems.
In 1966 I received the Ph.D. degree in meteorology from MIT, with a
specialization in geophysical fluid mechanics. Since that time I have
had over 40 years continuous experience in science-based environmental
management, including service on the faculty of Harvard University,
advisory assignments with national government agencies and
international organizations in several regions of the world, extensive
private sector environmental assessment and design work, and two
appointed positions with the U.S. Federal Government (involving overall
management of national acid rain studies from 1988 to 1991, and climate
science studies from 2002 to 2006). A resume summarizing my experience
follows this testimony.
In response to Chairman Lampson's letter of invitation, my
testimony today provides my views about H.R. 906 from the specific
perspective of my experience as Director of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program from 2002 to 2006. Also I make recommendations about
other, supplementary issues that the Subcommittee may wish to consider
during its continuing consideration of H.R. 906.
A. Overall comments:
1. The Global Change Research Act of 1990 is in need of significant
updating. H.R. 906 is a good start. In its final version it would be
helpful for the revised law to reflect the goal of expected significant
improvements in the coverage and level of detail available in climate
information, and to call for major upgrading of the expected uses of
climate information (measurements, analyses and projections) for the
development of climate services, which will be the principal actions
expected to be undertaken by climate information users.
2. A proper balance should be sought between ongoing climate research
on the one hand, and developing assessments and decision support
applications on the other hand. H.R. 906 is on the right track in its
emphasis on enhancing the importance of user initiatives and
applications studies in the development of overall climate research
planning. However, it would be highly damaging to the international
efforts to better adapt to, and mitigate the effects of, extreme
climate phenomena if the support for exploratory research were deeply
diminished prematurely. While an improved consensus about the core
question of human-caused climate change has emerged in recent years,
very little is currently well understood about many climate phenomena
that pose great risks for a large number of human and ecosystem
populations around the world. Examples of poorly understood current
climate issues include, among others, abrupt climate change, regional
variability of climate parameters, climate-ecosystem interactions, and
the (new) levels of extreme weather conditions that may occur as a
result of changes in global, regional, and local climate patterns.
3. H.R. 906 appropriately addresses several requirements in the U.S.
climate research program that currently need improved resources and
activities. These improvements (compared to the provisions of the 1990
Act, and compared to the practices that have emerged in the 17 years
since the adoption of that Act) include (1) a more specific requirement
for significant stakeholder engagement in research planning and in the
use of the climate information being developed, (2) a clear requirement
for sophisticated information management to address the massive amount
of new climate data currently being collected, and the further
expansion of these data sets that will come on line in the next few
years, (3) a clear mandate to develop policy analysis methods capable
of making appropriate use of the large investment in climate
information.
A. Structure and Resource Comments:
1. H.R. 906 does not specify a mechanism for funding the expanded
program responsibilities envisioned in the bill. A multiple-agency
program is still the most effective approach, but more legislative
structure would better clarify individual agency roles. The multiple-
agency organization of the program makes sense, although there should
be more careful delineation of roles between agencies that are
predominantly research oriented (e.g., NSF, NASA, DOE, parts of NOAA)
and those that are mission-oriented and thus key user stakeholders.
This will streamline certain types of decision-making. A ``user
council'' or similar body should be created and empowered to provide
input on directions and also provide funding for user-oriented programs
and products.
2. There is a need to assure the independence of the science while
providing for committed overview by the politically appointed
management of the collaborating agencies. The CCSP activities initiated
in 2002, including the 10-Year Strategic Plan for CCSP published in
July 2003, have provided a highly useful framework for all CCSP
studies. It is now timely to reevaluate and update the major elements
of the 2002-2003 research plan. Regular ongoing involvement of the
National Academy of Sciences should be continued. This continuous
review function has been placed under a long-term contract basis
between CCSP and the Academy, and should be maintained.
3. A stronger role for OMB should be mandated in H.R. 906 to
facilitate budgetary coordination across the agencies. CCSP has been
reasonably successful in achieving interagency research coordination,
but after the passage of five years it would be an appropriate time to
assure the independence of the climate research program by providing
for a direct role for OMB in the oversight of the multiple agency
program.
4. H.R. 906 should provide the program with two budget lines under the
control of the interagency committee of the whole. One set of resources
would be used to fill gaps and generate new research thrusts that are
difficult to support through individual agency mechanisms and for which
there is a clear need. A second set of resources would be used to
support regional or national assessment and decision support
activities. These funds could be awarded on a competitive basis but
would require a collective decision on the part of the interagency
process to be released.
5. The role of and funding for a coordination office should be
explicitly included in the legislation. This funding should not be
taken out of research funding. The current practice of ``taxing''
research funds to support overall program coordination activities has
historically resulted in under provision of resources for the
coordination and management function. My experience over the past
several years suggests that an adequately funded program coordination
office is essential. With a growing emphasis on the coordination of
assessments and decision support studies, even more ``cross-cut''
management will be needed, and the funds for this type of program
integration must be assured.
B. Other Important Suggestions
1. Unreasonable timetables are currently specified by H.R. 906. The
current draft bill calls for five separate reports to be completed
within one year of enactment. These include a new strategic plan, a
policy review, a vulnerability assessment, a data management plan, and
an annual report. Given the need for extensive multiple-agency drafting
and review actions, as well as other reviews by user groups and the
scientific community, in my view it will be impossible for the program
to produce quality documents in all of the specified categories within
a one-year time frame. I suggest that the time for delivery of this
first set of information be extended over two years or more.
2. An overall communications strategy should be included in H.R. 906.
Based on my personal experience as Director of the National Acid Rain
Assessment Program in the late 1980's and as Director of CCSP for four
years recently, I earnestly recommend that responsibilities for
communication and education activities be incorporated into H.R. 906.
Without a clear mandate for such activities, it is almost impossible to
obtain approval for communications and education activities in the
President's budget. And without support for communications and
education activities, the efficiency of transmitting climate change
information to potential users throughout the Nation will be seriously
diminished.
3. The assessment reporting requirements in H.R. 906 should be
coordinated with other national and international climate reporting
cycles already established. The IPCC Fourth Assessment is currently
being completed, and will likely be followed by a Fifth Assessment six
years later (i.e., in 2013). During approximately a two-year period of
drafting and review for the IPCC assessment, the U.S. climate science
community will be heavily engaged in the IPCC international assessment.
I recommend that the summary assessments specified in H.R. 906 be
placed on a six-year schedule (at least after the first edition), and
the schedule for the U.S. assessments be offset by approximately three
years form the delivery dates for the IPCC reports.
I trust my suggestions offered here may be useful to the
Subcommittee, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that
you may have. Thank you.
Biography for James R. Mahoney
Education
LeMoyne College, Syracuse, NY: B.S., Physics, Magna cum Laude, 1959
MIT, Cambridge, MA: Ph.D., Meteorology, 1966
Professional Experience
2002-2006 (March): Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Also served throughout this period
as Director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, involving the
combined work of 13 federal agencies with an annual program budget of
approximately $2 billion.
1999-2002 (March): Environmental management consultant serving U.S. and
international clients. Topics included insurance recovery for
environmental damages, and technical analysis of regional air quality
and haze patterns.
1991-1999 (July): Senior Vice President of International Technology
Corporation, a $1+ billion international engineering and construction
company pursuing a broad technical specialty environmental business,
combined with field construction activity dealing with restoration of
contaminated soil and ground water. From 1997 to 1999 also served as
President of the Consulting and Engineering Division of the
corporation, responsible for a $200+ million technical business. Also
from 1997 to 1999 served as Chairman of the Board and responsible
corporate officer for Landbank, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
addressing the brownfield market by restoring and redeveloping
contaminated commercial property sites.
1988-1991 (January): Director of the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP) involving six federal agencies with a
combined federal budget of approximately $100 million annually. The
position was in the Executive Office of the President, during the final
year of the Reagan administration and during the first two years of the
administration of President George H.W. Bush.
1987-1988 (February): Environmental management consultant serving U.S.
and international clients. Topics included environmental management
government organization planning for Saudi Arabia, and environmental
permitting issues for large Kraft paper plants.
1984-1987 (February): Manager of the Environmental Industries Center of
the Bechtel Group, Inc. The Environmental Industries Center addressed
environmental compliance, planning and engineering matters for
Bechtel's major domestic and international clients.
1983-1984 (January): Environmental management consultant serving U.S.
and international clients. Topics included strategic planning for a
large environmental engineering firm, and comparative studies of
international environmental regulations.
1968-1983 (September): Co-founder and Senior Vice President of
Environmental Research & Technology, Inc. (ERT). ERT began as a start-
up in December 1968 and by the late 1970's it had grown to become the
largest environmental specialty firm in the United States, with offices
and laboratories located throughout the United States combined with a
substantial international business operating in several countries in
both the developed and developing world. Also served as President of
ERT International, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary responsible for
ERT's international business from 1975 until 1983.
1966-1973 (June): Assistant Professor and Associate Professor (from
July 1970) in the School of Public Health at Harvard University,
specializing in environmental health management. During the period from
December 1968 through June 1973 I served in two positions: the faculty
position at Harvard and the Senior Vice President position at ERT, Inc.
(see above).
1962-1965 (December): Graduate research assistant in the Department of
Meteorology at MIT.
1959-1962 (June): Graduate student at MIT, supported by fellowship
grants.
1956-1959 (June): Laboratory assistant and lecturer in the Physics
Laboratories at LeMoyne College.
Honors
2006: Awarded the U.S. Department of Commerce William C. Redfield Award
for outstanding public service, presented by Commerce Secretary
Carlos M. Gutierrez.
2002: Confirmed by the U.S. Senate (following nomination by President
George W. Bush) to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce.
1990: Elected as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
1990: Awarded the U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal for
outstanding accomplishments as Director of the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program, presented by Commerce
Secretary Robert A. Mosbacher.
1989: Elected as President of the American Meteorological Society.
1985: Selected as one of a group of four inaugural Bechtel Fellows from
a worldwide population of 100,000+ Bechtel employees.
1973-2006: Served as member and co-chair of several committees and
boards of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
1959: Selected as a Danforth Graduate Fellow in a national competition
among college seniors.
1955: Valedictorian of high school graduating class (Christian Brothers
Academy of Syracuse, NY).
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Mahoney. Mr. Nutter, please.
STATEMENT OF MR. FRANKLIN W. NUTTER, PRESIDENT, THE REINSURANCE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; MEMBER OF UCAR'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Mr. Nutter. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank
you. It is an honor to appear before you.
Reinsurance is essentially the insurance of insurance
companies. Insurance companies traditionally lay off risk,
particularly catastrophe risk, notably extreme weather events
to the reinsurance market.
No financial services business is more dependent on the
vagaries of climate and weather than property and casualty
insurers. The industry is at great risk if it does not
understand climate change variability, and the severity and
frequency of extreme events. Understanding global climate
change and integrating that information into the insurance
system is an essential part of addressing climate extremes, and
conveying information to governments and the public about the
economic consequences of human activity in the face of a
changing global climate.
We believe that the enactment of H.R. 906, with an
increased emphasis on input to government climate research by
user communities such as ours, will greatly enhance adaptation
and response to the effect of climate and of global change. The
industry looks at climate change largely through the prism of
the catastrophe losses that it pays. The General Accounting
Office just released a report that from 1980 through 2005,
private insurers and federal insurers, meaning the National
Flood Insurance Program and the Crop Insurance Program, paid
$320 billion in claims on weather-related losses. The insurance
industry paid two-thirds of those losses. 2005 alone produced a
record year. Total global insured catastrophe losses were $83
billion, 80 percent of which were U.S. landfalling hurricanes.
As bad as those numbers, AIR Worldwide estimates that
insured losses from natural catastrophes could be expected to
double roughly every ten years. With respect to the impact of
climate change alone, fixing everything else in place, the
Association of British Insurers concludes that the average
annual losses from three major storm types affecting insurance
markets, that is U.S. hurricanes, Japanese typhoons, and
European windstorms, could increase by two-thirds by the 2080s.
Climate change could increase wind-related insured losses from
extreme U.S. hurricanes by about three quarters, the equivalent
of two to three Hurricane Andrews annually. The ABI advises
that these loss estimates do not include likely increases in
society's exposure to extreme storms due to growing wealthier
populations and increasing assets at risk. These are their
assessments based upon the impact of climate change.
The catastrophe modeling firm Risk Management Solutions
advises that financial losses from weather-related catastrophes
have increased by an average of two percent per year since the
1970s, with climate change as a major factor, even when
inflation, changes in wealth and population, are taken into
account.
It is quite clear that there are several factors affecting
the losses associated with extreme events, including population
growth in high risk areas, certainly people moving to those
areas, the dramatic increases in insured coastal values, the
insurance industry's own expansion of coverage, climate change,
and the incidence of more intense extreme events.
We believe that H.R. 906, with greater emphasis on basic
climate research, coordination among sponsoring government
agencies, improved integration of user needs into the research
agenda, and access to climate data will enhance risk
assessment, and lead to improved insurance markets.
In this regard, our sector needs science-based business
intelligence. A key component of the Global Climate Change
Research Program is observation technologies. It will be
critical to our ability to provide insurance markets that
climate and weather data through observation capabilities be
maintained.
Perhaps the most relevant aspect of the insurance industry,
with respect to science assessment and extreme events, is the
use of catastrophe models. These models incorporate scientific
assumptions about climate trends and the probability of future
events, then produce estimates of prospective costs associated
with these events.
In the context of the Global Climate Change Research
Program and its reauthorization pursuant to H.R. 906, our
industry would benefit from enhanced research on historical
extreme events, particularly those which predate satellite
technology. Climate research which addresses the effect of
climate change on the frequency and intensity of extreme events
would be of great value. Additionally, the consequences of
climate change on extreme weather regionally would improve
insurer adaptation strategies.
A key component of this agenda, again, are observation
capabilities. Our industry is taking steps to adjust to climate
change, even though there is no insurance policy that covers
climate change. It is our belief that H.R. 906 will be of great
value in improving our capability. Insurers are in the business
of assessing risk, pricing it, and providing financing or risk
transfer. Its long-term strategy, however, does not include
bearing the costs of climate change without a commitment on the
part of society to pursue a mitigation strategy addressing both
the causes and consequences of climate change.
H.R. 906 is to be commended as placing greater weight on
basic research, that emphasizes user needs, and maintains or
enhances observation capabilities, the coordination of research
with the global research community, as well as private sector
resources.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nutter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Franklin W. Nutter
Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Bartlett and Members of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment:
My name is Frank Nutter and I am President of the Reinsurance
Association of America (RAA). It is an honor to appear before you on
behalf of the RAA. The RAA is a national trade association representing
property and casualty organizations that specialize in assuming
reinsurance. Together, RAA members and affiliates write over 70 percent
of the reinsurance coverage provided by U.S. property and casualty
reinsurers and affiliates.
No financial services business is more dependent on the vagaries of
climate and weather than property and casualty insurers. The industry
is at great risk if it does not understand global climate variability
and the severity and frequency of extreme events. It must be more than
a pass-through mechanism for the costs associated with natural
disasters. Understanding global climate change and integrating that
information into the insurance system is an essential part of
addressing climate extremes and conveying information to governments
and the public about the economic consequences of human activity in the
face of changing global climate.
We believe that the enactment of H.R. 906, the Global Climate
Change Research Data and Management Act of 2007, with an increased
emphasis on input to government climate research by user communities
will greatly enhance adaptation and response to the effects of global
change.
Climate and Catastrophes
The General Accounting Office reports that from 1980 through 2005
private and federal insurers paid $320 billion in claims on weather
related losses. The insurance industry paid two-thirds of those losses.
The number of insured natural catastrophes has doubled since 1990; the
insured losses in this decade already exceed the decade of the 1990s.
The year 2005 alone produced a record: total global insurer catastrophe
claims were $83 billion, 80 percent of which were from U.S. land-
falling hurricanes. Even 2006, thought of as a benign catastrophe year,
produced 43 insured loss catastrophes in North America out of a global
total of 349. Although some of these catastrophes are earthquake
related, over 90 percent of events causing damage to people and
property originated in the atmosphere. Almost 12,000 people lost their
lives to storms and floods in 2006. AIR Worldwide estimates that
insured losses from natural catastrophes should be expected to double
roughly every ten years due to increases in construction costs,
increases in the number of structures and changes in their
characteristics.
With respect to the impact of climate change, the Association of
British Insurers concludes as follows:
<bullet> Average annual losses from the three major storm
types affecting insurance markets (U.S. hurricanes, Japanese
typhoons and European windstorms) could increase by two-thirds
by the 2080s.
<bullet> Focusing on the most extreme storms (losses with a
probability of occurring once every 100 to 250 years), by the
2080s climate change could:
-- Increase wind-related insured losses from extreme
U.S. hurricanes by around three-quarters (the
equivalent of two to three Hurricane Andrews annually).
-- Increase wind-related insured losses from extreme
Japanese typhoons by around two-thirds. The increase
alone would be more than twice the cost of the 2004
typhoon season, the costliest in the last 100 years.
-- Increase wind-related insured losses from extreme
European storms by at least five percent.
-- Increase the annual costs of flooding in the UK
almost 15-fold.
<bullet> Under high emissions scenarios, insurers' capital
requirements could increase by over 90 percent for U.S.
hurricanes, and by 80 percent for Japanese typhoons. Higher
capital costs combined with greater annual losses from
windstorms alone could result in premium increases of around 60
percent in these markets.
The ABI advises that these loss estimates do not include likely
increases in society's exposure to extreme storms, due to growing,
wealthier populations, and increasing assets at risk.
Financial losses from weather-related catastrophes have increased
by an average of two percent per year since the 1970s, with climate
change a major contributing factor, according to the chief researcher
of catastrophe modeler Risk Management Solutions, Inc. The rate of loss
increase holds true even when inflation, changes in wealth and
population growth are taken into account. In its latest climate change
report, Rapid Climate Change, Lloyd's of London warns that waiting on
``definitive scientific pronouncements'' on the impact of climate
change ``seems like an increasingly risky strategy.''
The causes behind the dramatic rise in insured catastrophe losses
are several:
<bullet> Population growth in high-risk areas. Dramatic
increases in high risk coastal areas suggest people and local
governments have placed too little emphasis on exposure to
weather risk in a changing climate environment.
<bullet> Dramatic increases in insured coastal values. Florida
now has nearly $2 trillion of insured coastal properties. New
York has $2 trillion, Louisiana $209 billion and South Carolina
$149 billion.
<bullet> The insurance industry's own expansion of coverage
which had the effect of increasing potential insured damage;
deductibles were lowered and full replacement cost added to
homeowners' policies in the period 1970-1990. Government
policy, which either endorsed weak building codes or failed to
enforce existing building codes and which has facilitated
development in high risk areas. Recent State government
initiatives are encouraging however.
<bullet> Climate change and the incidence of more intense
extreme events. Munich Re's Geo-Science Department has
concluded that the proportion of severe storms has risen and
that of moderate storms has fallen. Three of the ten most
intense storms ever recorded in North America were in 2005.
The Insurance Industry's Financial Interest
The insurance industry's financial interest is inter-dependent with
climate and weather. It is the risk of natural events which drives the
demand for insurance coverage and yet, if not properly managed, can
threaten the viability of an insurer if it is over-exposed in high risk
areas. An insurance company thrives or dies on its ability to make
estimates of the economic consequences of future events.
We believe pursuant to H.R. 906, greater emphasis on basic climate
research, coordination among sponsoring government agencies, improved
integration of user needs into the research agenda, and access to
climate data will enhance risk assessment by insurers and lead to
improved insurance markets.
Insurance and Science
Although a number of European insurers and reinsurers have shown
greater interest in understanding the causes of climate change,
including the impact of global warming, U.S. insurers have been more
focused on the effect of natural disasters. Thus, the U.S. industry has
been more attentive to approaches to mitigate the consequences of
natural catastrophes and other extreme events. Some European insurers
have called upon their governments to reduce the human factors they
believe contribute to global warming. In the U.S., the industry's
agenda includes the evaluation of building codes and building code
enforcement in every community in the country. Additionally, through
the Institute for Business & Home Safety, the U.S. industry has greatly
enhanced its support for hazard mitigation by conducting research on
building design and building materials. Improved research on the likely
impact of climate change on extreme weather and the built environment
will improve society's hazard mitigation adaptation.
The initiative most related to science and scientific assessment of
global climate change is the use of catastrophe computer models to
integrate scientific knowledge about climate into the actuarial
sciences. These catastrophe models incorporate scientific assumptions
about climate trends and the probability of future extreme events and
then produce estimated prospective costs associated with natural
catastrophes. They assist an insurer with an analysis of its potential
exposure and are used to support rates filed for approval with
insurance departments. It is the classic example of using insurance to
translate scientific analysis and data into the economic consequences
of people's behavior, i.e., where they live and the value and potential
loss of properties in those areas. The pure result of the use of
catastrophe models is the application of risk-based premiums and the
understanding of aggregate exposure for insured property.
In the context of the Global Climate Change Research Program and
its reauthorization pursuant to H.R. 906, the industry would benefit
from enhanced research on historical extreme events; particularly those
which pre-date satellite technology. Climate research which addresses
the effect of climate change on the frequency and intensity of extreme
weather would be of great value. Additionally, the consequences of
climate change on extreme weather regionally would improve insurer
adaptation strategies.
Insurance Related Adaptive Product Strategies
Although insurance often covers damages from climate related
events, there is no insurance policy with specific coverage related to
climate change. Insurers and brokers have however announced the
development of several climate related financial products:
<bullet> Carbon emissions credit delivery guarantees providing
coverage for non-delivery of credits due to project insolvency,
political and investment risk, operational problems (Marsh)
<bullet> Insurance for one-third of waste to energy plants and
one-quarter of wind farms (Lloyd's of London)
<bullet> A risk financing product that facilitates trade by
companies that participate in global trading of emissions
credits (an options contract) (Swiss Re)
<bullet> A financial product that provides a buyer for carbon
credits in the secondary market if the primary buyer fails to
deliver (Munich Re)
<bullet> Directors and officers liability coverage for failure
to address corporate compliance with government regulations
(Swiss Re)
<bullet> New risk transfer products for weather related
damages: ``Cat Bonds'' ($5 billion were issued in 2006, $30
billion since 1996); weather derivatives ($45 billion in
notional value in 2005-6)
<bullet> Exchange traded weather securities (Chicago
Mercantile Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange with
Gallagher Re (2007) )
Industry observers also note that, as an adaptive strategy,
insurers should focus research on energy efficient technologies that
have the potential to reduce ordinary insured losses. They also
encourage the development of insurance products with premium discounts
that reward safety enhancing energy efficiency. In addition, the
industry has been encouraged to increase in its investment portfolio
energy efficiency oriented investments.
In a world where ``reducing carbon dioxide emissions from a high to
a low scenario would reduce the impact on losses and insurers' capital
requirement for extreme windstorms by 80 percent'' (Association of
British Insurers), the industry is showing signs of initiative to
address carbon related climate concerns. AIG recently (April 2007)
joined as the first insurer in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership
(CAP), whose goal is a U.S. cap and trade system. Prudential Financial
and Hartford Financial Services have agreed to disclose to shareholders
the potential financial risk they face from climate change (April
2007). Swiss Re set a target of being greenhouse neutral in its
business operations by 2013.
Conclusion
Insurers are in the business of assessing risk, pricing it and
providing risk financing or transfer. The insurance industry's long-
term strategy, however, does not include bearing the cost of climate
change without a commitment on the part of society to pursue a
mitigation strategy--addressing the causes and consequences of climate
change. H.R. 906 is to be commended as placing greater weight on basic
research that emphasizes user needs and priorities and the coordination
of research with the global research community, including public,
academic and private resources.
Biography for Franklin W. Nutter
Frank Nutter has been President of the Reinsurance Association of
America (RAA) since May of 1991. He held the same position with the RAA
from 1981-1984.
In the interim, he was President of the Alliance of American
Insurers and the Property Loss Research Bureau, which have now merged
to be part of the PCI (Property Casualty Insurance Association of
America).
Mr. Nutter currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the Bermuda
Biological Station for Research; the Board of the International
Hurricane Center; the Advisory Board of the Center for Health and the
Global Environment, an adjunct to the Harvard University Medical
School; and the Board of the University Center for Atmospheric
Research, a consortium of universities funded primarily by the National
Science Foundation. He currently serves on the Advisory Board of the
OECD's International Network for the Financial Management of Large
Scale Disasters.
Mr. Nutter has a Juris Doctorate from the Georgetown University Law
Center and a Bachelor's degree in economics.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Nutter. Gentleman, I think
probably the best plan would be to go to Dr. Mote. We have 15
minutes to get to the Floor to vote, and if we can keep your
testimony, again, to five minutes, then we will recess, and
hopefully, see you all back after--we have a series of votes,
so we can't split the group up, and have half go, and half come
back.
So, Dr. Mote, we will go to you, and then, we will recess,
and come back afterwards.
STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP W. MOTE, CLIMATE IMPACTS GROUP,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON; OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE
CLIMATOLOGIST AND AFFILIATE PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON
Dr. Mote. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the
Committee, for your interest in climate monitoring research and
applications. I am Philip Mote, and I am a research scientist.
I am involved in the Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts
Group which, since 1995, has been articulating how climate
influences natural resources, not just climate change, but
climate variability. And we have also made great strides in
discussing these findings with natural resource managers,
getting their perspective, what they need, and what information
they need from us. So, I have been on both sides of, you know,
doing basic science research, and also, more applied science.
The Climate Impacts Group is one of eight regionally funded
teams funded by NOAA's Regional Integrated Sciences and
Assessments Program. Unfortunately, the whole country is not
covered or served by RISA programs.
As the science of climate variability and change has
advanced tremendously since 1990, so too have the societal
demands for information about climate and what it means
locally. Some examples of how climate has advanced: climate
models now consist of elaborate components that simulate the
ocean and sea ice, land surface, biosphere, carbon cycle, as
well as the atmosphere, and our regional models are now capable
of simulating climate in great deal regionally. And there is,
in fact, a program underway called NARCCAP, the North American
Regional Climate Change Assessment Program, which is combining
regional climate modeling for the whole country, coordinated by
the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
There have also been tremendous advances in paleoclimate,
our ability to use tree rings and other so-called proxies to
understand climate over timescales of hundreds to thousands of
years, that provide the context for understanding our current
climate and possible future climate.
Let me give you some examples of information that
stakeholders have sought from the Climate Impacts Group or from
the Office of Washington State Climatologists. Water utilities
around the Northwest are factoring in climate change to long
range plans, so they want to know what are the probable changes
in temperature, precipitation, snowmelt, streamflow, so that
they can incorporate that, as well as population and demand
changes, into their plans and their policies.
The Northwest Power and Conservation Council wanted very
detailed streamflow estimates for future decades, so that they
could calculate changes in hydropower production from the
Columbia River basin, and the hydropower dams there. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is starting to think about what does it
mean to change flood control rule curves that govern
reservoirs, given that there has already been an observed shift
of two weeks in the spring snowmelt. There is no policy that
currently would allow them to make that move, but for starters,
they need good, detailed information. A natural gas utility
wanted help demonstrating to the state Utilities and
Transportation Commission that warming trends have rendered
obsolete the old assumption of constant climate by which their
rates are set.
So, a regional and State level focus is very valuable for
connecting with these stakeholder needs, and providing climate
services. In a number of respects, a national level effort, a
National Climate Service, is needed, that would take the basic
research that is provided by modeling centers and analysis, and
translate into stakeholder needs.
National level expertise in climate science can provide the
highest quality, most comprehensive information about patterns
of climate variation and change, both from the past and from
future modeling. Such expertise can be brought to bear on
problems that may be too difficult for a single regional group
to solve. For example, to properly construct probabilistic
scenarios of future climate change at a given location would
ideally involve evaluating scenarios from tens of climate
models against the observed record of the 20th Century, and
then weighting their projects of future change according to how
well they did with the past. This is a task that is both
computationally and conceptually probably too challenging for a
regional team like ours to undertake.
Another challenge would be the construction of sea level
rise scenarios, factoring in not just global sea level rise,
but local relative land movements, obviously of great concern
in the tourist-friendly beaches of South Carolina, which I had
the good fortunes to visit a year or two ago. All of these
things, all these types of information are needed on very fine
local scales, and can be provided by a comprehensive national
effort.
Finally, a word about the unglamorous topic of monitoring
the climate, which H.R. 906 rightly addresses. As numerous
reports by the National Research Council and others have
documented, the Nation's various observing networks and,
notably, the cooperative observer network that forms the
backbone of long-term weather observations, and the streamgauge
network of the U.S. Geological Survey, are slowly dwindling in
coverage and, in some cases, quality. A vigorous effort is
urgently needed to preserve these networks as our primary
source of information for documenting the changes in our
environment and our climate over the 20th Century and into the
21st Century, in order to understand how best to cope with
these changes. The American Association of State Climatologists
calls on the 110th Congress to rescue these networks from
decline.
Finally, a National Climate Service, with high level buy-in
from the Administration and the various agencies would serve
the needs for climate information of a wide spectrum of private
and public sector entities, and H.R. 906 points us in that
direction.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mote follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip W. Mote
Summary
As the science of climate variability and change has advanced and
as public awareness of its implications for natural resource management
and economic activity has grown, demands for climate information have
rapidly exceeded the capacity of experts. Significant federal
investment is needed in a National Climate Service to match these
growing needs. H.R. 906 aims in that direction by calling for improved
direction of federally funded climate research.
Regional focus
For several reasons, a regional focus on research and delivery of
climate information is appropriate. First, economic and natural
resources emphases differ starkly from region to region, and in some
cases are organized regionally (for example, the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council). Second, a regional focus matches regional
decision-makers and regional scientists whose very proximity permits
sustained interactions, understanding, and trust to develop.
NOAA's Climate Program Office meets some needs for climate
information by leading and funding efforts such as the Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program. RISA projects point
the way toward a new paradigm of stakeholder-driven climate sciences
that directly address society's needs and concerns.
The RISA program began with university-based efforts in regions of
the United States where recent advances in integrated climate sciences
held the greatest promise to assist decision-making. Much of the first-
generation RISA success built on breakthroughs in predicting
variability, change, and impacts of climate processes occurring in the
tropical Pacific Ocean. This is the area where El Nino and La Nina
conditions, which affect much of the western and southern United
States, as well as Mexico, originate.
RISA scientists provide information that decision-makers can use to
cope with drought, understand climatic influences on wildfire, and
assess climate impacts on the transportation sector, coastal
communities and human health. Stakeholders can use such information to
evaluate potential climate change impacts on water supplies and
hydroelectric power and support disaster management planning. RISAs are
helping farmers, ranchers, and fishermen use climate information to
produce the Nation's foods and fibers, and Pacific Islanders to figure
out how to weave climate information into their quest for
sustainability.
With each passing year, the impacts of climate variability and
change on water availability, wildfire regimes, public health,
agriculture, energy issues, and coastal communities become more acute.
At the same time, climate sciences are making great strides in
producing knowledge that could aid decision-makers dealing with these
issues.
University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group (CIG) was the
first project funded by RISA's predecessor, in 1995, and there are now
a total of eight regional projects. CIG has developed close connections
with the public, private, and North American tribal groups and agencies
responsible for managing the region's water, forest, fishery, and
coastal resources in order to ensure that our research results in
information and products that are not only useful, but also used to
shape decisions in the PNW. As a result of this interaction, CIG has
gained a clear picture of the current use and perceived value of
climate forecasts by natural resource managers, insight into their
decision calendars, and an understanding of institutional barriers to
adaptability. Stakeholders benefit from the development of improved
tools and information for planning, such as resource forecasts and
regional- and resource-specific interpretations of global climate
change. Members of CIG's stakeholder community are listed in Appendix
A. A sustained regional focus over the course of more than a decade has
allowed deep two-way interactions to develop, with scientists learning
from natural resource managers and vice versa toward a shared goal of
improving resilience to climate variations and change.
In addition to regional focus, the Nation's State Climatologists
serve their respective states. While the primary focus of most State
climatologists is delivering weather and climate data, many also
develop higher-level products in response to stakeholder needs, for
example, specialized tools for drought monitoring.
National expertise, sectoral focus
While regional- and State-level focus is a critical part of climate
services, in a number of respects a national-level effort is also
needed. National-level expertise in climate science can provide the
highest-quality, most comprehensive information about patterns of
climate variation and change. Such expertise can be brought to bear on
problems that may be too difficult for a single regional group to
solve. For example, to properly construct probabilistic scenarios of
future climate at a given location would ideally involve evaluating
tens of scenarios from global climate models and weighting them
appropriately according to their fidelity at simulating past climate, a
task that is both computationally and conceptually challenging. Another
example would be the construction of probabilistic sea level rise
scenarios accounting for global sea level change, local relative land
motions, possible contributions from changes in atmospheric
circulation, etc. Finally, as the Federal Emergency Management Agency
undertakes the redrawing of food plain maps nationwide, a thorough
probabilistic assessment of the possible changes in food risk
associated with climate change could best be accomplished by a
national-scale effort.
Preserving observation networks
As numerous reports by the National Research Council and others
have documented, the Nation's various observing networks and notably
the Cooperative Observer Network are slowly dwindling in coverage and
quality. An urgent effort is needed to preserve these networks as a
legacy for future generations and as our primary source of information
for documenting the changes in our environment and our climate, whether
these changes be natural or man-made. See also the attached letter from
the American Association of State Climatologists.
Why undertake a new National Assessment
In the roughly ten years since the first National Assessment was
begun, the science of climate change has advanced immensely.
Atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs) have been replaced by
climate system models that simulate also the ocean, land surface
processes, sea ice, and even components of the biosphere and carbon
cycle in tremendous detail. Hundreds of simulations have been performed
with these models describing the evolution of the climate from 1900 to
2100, allowing comparisons with past climate and projections of future
climate. Attribution of climate change to human activity can now be
performed not just for globally averaged temperature but for sub-
continental temperature changes and also for changes in other, more
societally-relevant climate variables. Paleoclimate research has
dramatically improved our understanding of past climate variability and
change. Finally, regional climate modeling has also advanced,
permitting much higher resolution simulations and better information
over complex terrain such as the mountainous West. A comprehensive
effort at regional modeling is underway, called North American Regional
Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP), coordinated by the
National Center for Atmospheric Research.
In addition to significant advances in the science, a second reason
to undertake a new National Assessment is that attitudes toward climate
have advanced. Officials with federal, State, regional, local agencies,
private companies, consultants, and others, are wondering how to
incorporate the best information about climate change into plans,
policies, and reports. Members of RISA teams, like the Climate Impacts
Group, are straining to meet the demands for information. These
requests come to CIG in the form of specific questions, requests for
academic papers, requests for data including detailed probabilistic
climate scenarios, in-person presentations at the rate of about 150/
year, media interviews, analysis of climate variables, explanations of
or comments on controversial points, and requests to review reports,
web sites, and the like. These questions can be answered in limited
fashion by the existing network of RISA programs and State
climatologists.
Far better would be to match national capabilities in science
research with regional and sectoral needs for climate information,
especially if a national assessment led to creation of a National
Climate Service that included additional regional teams covering areas
of the country not currently served by the RISA program. These
capabilities were suggested in the President's Climate Change Science
Program, in which one of the goals was Decision Support, but few
resources were devoted to making decision support a reality.
Tasks to create a National Assessment and National Climate Service
Creating new regional teams and strong sectoral assessment
capabilities would require significant agency investment not just in
dollars but in effort and time. A thorough assessment would require
tens of millions of dollars per year, scaling up the funds that support
the existing eight regional assessment teams in the RISA program to a
comparable effort that would serve the entire Nation geographically and
in addition would create sectorally based assessment efforts. As was
learned in the first national assessment, substantial effort is
required to get federal agencies to work together for a common purpose.
Finally, the timeline should be at least three years from the
availability of funding to the delivery of a report. This amount of
time is required to constitute new teams, forge partnerships between
key stakeholders and scientists, and write and peer-review a set of
reports.
Beyond the production of a report, the National Assessment should
catalyze the creation of networks for delivering useful climate
information and reducing societal vulnerability to climate variation
and change. A useful prototype of such a network is the National
Integrated Drought Information System, which seeks to combine the
skills and resources of federal agencies in producing timely drought
analysis and warnings, and in finding ways to reduce societal
vulnerability to drought.
Appendix A
Stakeholders of UW's Climate Impacts Group
Local level
City of Tualatin, Oregon
King County, Washington
Local watershed planning units
Portland Water Bureau
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Seattle City Council
Seattle City Light
Seattle Public Utilities
Tacoma Power and Light
Thurston County, Washington
State Level
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Water Resources
Idaho Department of Water Resources
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Oregon Department of Water Resources State Governor's Offices
(Washington, Oregon, Idaho)
State Legislatures (Washington, Oregon, Idaho)
Washington Department of Agriculture
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Health
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Washington Division of Emergency Management
Washington State Office of Financial Management
Regional or Federal Level
Bonneville Power Administration
International Pacific Halibut Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service [Northwest Fisheries Science Center
and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, River Forecast Center
National Park Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Congress, PNW delegation
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geologic Survey
Tribal
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Other
BC Hydro (British Columbia, Canada)
Idaho Power Company
National Wildlife Federation
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Oregon State University, Coastal Impacts
PNW news media (print and broadcast)
Puget Sound Energy
Sustainable Development Research Institute, University of British
Columbia
University of Idaho
University of Victoria
Wild Salmon Center
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Biography for Philip W. Mote
Dr. Philip Mote is a research scientist at the University of
Washington, in the Climate Impacts Group (CIG), and an Affiliate
Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. His research
interest include Northwest climate and its effects on snowpack,
streamflow, and forest fires. A frequent public speaker, he has also
written more than 60 scientific articles and edited a book on climate
modeling, published in 2000. In 2003 he became the Washington State
Climatologist. He served as a lead author of the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in
2007.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Mote. The Committee stands in
recess.
[Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 3:22 p.m.]
Mr. Udall. [Presiding] The hearing will come to order. I
want to thank the panelists for your patience. I am going to
sit in as Acting Chair for Congresswoman Giffords, who was
required to go to the airport and return to her home in
Arizona.
We will pick up back with Ms. Bittleman for her five
minutes, and then, I would tell the panel we will do all that
we can to end at the latest, by 4:00, perhaps five or ten
minutes early, but we do want to take advantage of your
expertise and your presence.
Ms. Bittleman, the five minutes is yours.
STATEMENT OF MS. SARAH BITTLEMAN, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF OREGON, THEODORE R. KULONGOSKI, ON
BEHALF OF THE WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
Ms. Bittleman. Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee
today regarding H.R. 906. My name is Sarah Bittleman. I work
for the Governor of Oregon, Governor Kulongoski, here in
Washington, D.C. I would like to thank the sponsors,
Representative Udall and Representative Inglis especially, for
their bipartisan effort on this bill, as well as for their
outreach to the Western states in its development. The Western
Governors Association, which I am representing here today,
appreciates the specific effort to make this bill relevant to
and address the needs of the states.
With the efforts occurring in Oregon and in many Western
states to address climate change, the Western Governors believe
it is not only appropriate, but it is also necessary to
reorient and fully fund the U.S. Global Change Research Program
to make it more user-driven. The U.S. has spent considerable
dollars on understanding the science of climate change. Now is
the time to address and adequately fund the issue of
adaptation. How will climate change manifest itself in
different areas of the country? What impacts can we expect at
the State and local levels? How can we prepare for the change
in an effort to avoid or mitigate the impacts? How can we most
effectively implement adaptation measures, given that many of
them need a long lead time?
At the risk of sounding like an advertisement for a summer
blockbuster movie, I need to recite some of the very real
effects of climate change projected for the American West:
smaller snowpacks that lead to water shortages; earlier
snowmelt that lead to water shortages; and yet, more extreme
floods; more evaporation and dryness; less groundwater; more
drought; more wildfires; pest and disease, more of them
affecting our agricultural crops and forests.
I don't think I need to remind the Members of the Committee
that there are already substantial stressors on water in the
West today. Given global climate change, we expect additional
ones. The Western Governors stated in their 2006 report,
entitled ``Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable
Future,'' that Congress and the Administration should fund
research that makes it easier to predict and mitigate climate
change impacts.
The Governors believe Title I of H.R. 906 would
appropriately focus the research of the U.S. Global Change
Research Program on improving the understanding of global
climate change, responding to the information needs of
communities and decision-makers, and providing periodic
assessments of the vulnerabilities of the U.S. and other
regions to global climate change. In other words, making the
program more user-driven and user-friendly.
Some states are already creating their own climate change
research centers, including Oregon. In May 2006, Governor
Kulongoski created the Climate Change Integration Group to
develop a climate change strategy for Oregon that provides
long-term sustainability for the environment, protects public
health, considers social equity, creates economic opportunity,
and expands public awareness. Their main focus has been on
adapting to climate change.
It is important that the program created under H.R. 906
integrates and supports the State efforts that are already in
existence, like the one in Oregon and across the West, as well
as regional climate research and application centers. This
includes the State climatologists' offices, agricultural
extensions, State and local governments, and resource
management agencies.
Additionally, Western Governors stated in their 2006 report
that the federal agencies must continue to fund and expand
funding for data collection networks and activities necessary
for monitoring, as Dr. Mote mentioned, assessing and predicting
future water supplies. To the degree that Title II of the bill
would lead to such improvements in data management, the
Governors certainly believe it is appropriate and supported.
One recommendation that we would make for the bill is to
amend it to address the need for a National Climate Information
Service in the context of the U.S. Global Change Research
Program. A National Climate Service, as again, Dr. Mote
mentioned, such a Service would be the focal point for
coordination of climate activities across the Federal
Government, and could be the organization charged with such
responsibilities as making sustained climate observations and
assessments about the state of the climate, and providing
climate outlooks and projects, similar to an early warning
system. Additionally, the NCIS could provide routine
assessments of climate impacts and vulnerabilities, and develop
relevant products and services for decision and policy-makers.
The National Integrated Drought Information System that
this committee authorized last year would thus become an
important component of a larger climate information system. The
Western states see all of this as very much connected.
Decision-makers at all levels of government and in the private
sector need reliable and timely information to understand the
possible impacts of the response, and respond to the effects of
climate change.
The Western Governors Association supports H.R. 906 as an
effort to move the Nation's climate change research program in
this direction, and I welcome any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bittleman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sarah Bittleman
Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee, my name is Sarah
Bittleman, and I am the Director of Oregon Governor Theodore
Kulongoski's Washington, D.C. Office.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today
regarding H.R. 906, the Global Climate Change Research Data and
Management Act of 2007. I appear before you on behalf of the Western
Governor's Association (WGA)--an independent, nonprofit organization
representing the governors of 19 Western States, American Samoa, Guam
and the Northern Mariana Islands. Through their Association, the
Western governors identify and address key policy and governance issues
in natural resources, the environment, human services, economic
development, international relations and public management.
Before making specific comments about the U.S. Global Change
Research Program and the legislation before you today, I would like to
thank the sponsors of H.R.906, Representative Udall and Representative
Inglis, for both their bipartisan effort on this bill, and their
outreach to the Western States in its development.
Last year, WGA worked closely with this Committee on the
development and passage of legislation authorizing the National
Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006 (NIDIS). There was a
high degree of bipartisan cooperation on this Committee, and in
particular among the sponsors of the NIDIS bill--Mr. Udall and then-
Chairman Hall--and this cooperation undoubtedly led to the successful
passage of that bill. The Governors are very pleased to see this spirit
of cooperation from the Committee continuing with your efforts on H.R.
906.
Additionally, the Governors want to thank Mr. Udall and Mr. Inglis
for their outreach to the Western States in soliciting input into the
development of H.R. 906. WGA appreciates the specific effort to make
this bill relevant to, and address the needs of, the States.
Mr. Chairman, with the efforts occurring in Oregon and many western
states to address climate change, the Western Governors believe it is
not only appropriate, but also is necessary to reorient and fully fund
the U.S. Global Change Research Program to make it more user-driven.
Since the time the USGCRP was enacted in 1990, the debate on climate
change in this country has largely focused on whether the world is
warming and whether humans are the cause of that warming. The current
science indicates that the Earth is warming and that concentrations of
atmospheric CO<INF>2</INF> have increased significantly. In a 2005
statement, the United States National Academies of Science concluded,
``the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
clear to justify taking prompt action.'' Eleven National Academies of
Science from the major nations of the world, including the United
States, the United Kingdom, Japan, China, Russia, and others, have
agreed that science supports the fact that climate change is occurring,
is influenced by human activity, and presents risks that should be
addressed through changed practices and preparation for changed
conditions.
The U.S. has spent considerable dollars on understanding the
science of climate change, and we must now look to addressing and
adequately funding the issue of adaptation. The focus of the USGCRP
research must now move with greater focus to help states, tribes and
local governments understand what that means: How will climate change
manifest itself in different areas of the country? What impacts can we
expect at the State and local levels? How can we prepare for the change
in an effort to avoid or mitigate the impacts? How can we most
effectively implement adaptation measures given that many of them will
require a long lead-time?
Impacts from warming that have been projected for the West include
the following:
<bullet> Smaller snowpacks--winter precipitation could fall as
rain instead of snow; periods of snowpack accumulation could be
shorter; and snowpacks could be smaller, which has serious
implications for reservoir storage.
<bullet> Earlier snowmelt--warming earlier in the year could
melt snowpacks sooner, further increasing the length of time
between peak water flows and peak water demands from cities,
farmers, utilities, etc., requiring more reservoir storage to
capture the earlier runoff.
<bullet> Rainfall--it is expected that precipitation will come
more in the form of rain than snow, but it is not understood
whether overall precipitation will increase or decrease, or
what the temporal and spatial changes of precipitation will be.
<bullet> Flood-control releases--water managers may be forced
to make changes in reservoir operations and rule curves.
<bullet> More extreme flood events--extreme events could be
more common, causing more frequent and larger floods. In some
cases, existing flood control `rule curves' should be
reformulated.
<bullet> Floodplain management--extensive efforts will be
needed to better map and define floodplains, and interaction
with local governments will be required to shape the direction
of future development in floodplains.
<bullet> Receding glaciers--some scientists have suggested
Glacier National Park could be void of glaciers by 2030 as a
result of warming.
<bullet> More evaporation and dryness--higher temperatures
could increase evaporation from streams and reservoirs, soil
dryness, and the need for supplemental water for crops and
other plants.
<bullet> Less groundwater--less availability of surface water
supplies may lead to increased pumping from groundwater
aquifers, further stressing groundwater supplies and
hydraulically connected surface water supplies.
<bullet> More droughts--more intense, frequent, and longer-
lasting droughts could result.
<bullet> More wildfires--there could be an increase in the
number and severity of wildfires and an extended wildfire
season.
<bullet> More pests and disease--there could be an increase in
the types of disease and pests that exist and proliferate which
would adversely impact human public health as well as forest
and agriculture health.
<bullet> Water quality challenges--diminished streamflows
during drought could result in less dilution of discharges;
sediment loading from storm events that follow wildfires;
saltwater intrusion along the coast resulting from rising sea
levels; and warmer lake temperatures leading to algae blooms
could follow.
<bullet> Sea level rise--investments in infrastructure to
adapt to rising sea levels will be necessary.
<bullet> Hydroelectric generation--climate changes that alter
overall water availability and timing could reduce the
productivity of hydropower facilities; changes in the timing of
hydroelectric generation can affect the value of the energy
produced.
<bullet> Water-borne shipping--decreases in river flows could
reduce the periods when navigation is possible; increase
transportation costs; and increase conflicts over water
allocated for other purposes.
<bullet> Ecosystems--natural ecosystems and wildlife have
limited ability to adapt or cope with climate changes that
occur over a relatively short time frame, which could lead to
irreversible impacts, such as additional species extinctions.
<bullet> Recreation impacts--due to lower lake and stream flow
levels, recreation opportunities and economies could be
significantly reduced.
Given the existence of a number of variables, it is not currently
possible to predict or model with any precision if, how and when a
particular area within the region may be impacted. More flexible
institutional arrangements are needed in order to adapt to changing
conditions related to climate change and other existing stresses as
well.
It must be recognized that there is already substantial stress on
the water sector today even in the absence of climate change. There are
many watersheds that are already fully-appropriated, and new stresses
are coming from population growth, land use changes, and water needs
for in-stream uses, including those necessary to meet federal laws such
as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. In some areas,
the new demands may cause major shifts in water supply and water
rights. Climate change may pose additional stresses and could result in
thresholds being reached much earlier than currently anticipated.
The Western Governors stated in their 2006 report, Water Needs and
Strategies for a Sustainable Future, that Congress and the
Administration should fund research for improving the predictive
capabilities for climate change, and assessment and mitigation of its
impacts. Additionally, given the complex climatology in the West, it is
important that climate change modeling be conducted at a much finer
resolution, e.g., watersheds and sub-watersheds. It is also important
that the federal government implement research funding recommendations
associated with Goals 4 and 5 of the 2003 CCSP Strategic Plan,
including the area of increased partnerships with existing user support
institutions, such as State climatologists or climate centers, regional
climate centers, agricultural extension services, resource management
agencies, and State and local governments.
Consistent with their report, the governors believe Title I of H.R.
906 would appropriately focus the research of the U.S. Global Change
Research Program on improving the understanding of global climate
change, responding to the information needs of communities and
decision-makers, and providing periodic assessments of the
vulnerabilities of the U.S. and other regions to global climate change.
Some states are creating their own climate change research centers,
including Oregon. It is important that the program created under H.R.
906 integrates and supports the efforts of State and regional climate
research centers.
Additionally, Western Governors stated in their report that the
federal agencies must continue and expand funding for data collection
networks and activities necessary for monitoring, assessing, and
predicting future water supplies. To the degree Title II of the bill
will lead to such improvements to data management, the governors
believe it is appropriate.
One recommendation that we would make for the bill is to amend it
to address the need for a National Climate Information Service in the
context of USGCRP. Such a service could be the focal point for
coordination of climate activities across the Federal Government, and
could be the organization charged with such responsibilities as making
sustained climate observations and assessments about the state of the
climate and providing climate outlooks and projections (similar to an
early warning system). Additionally, the NCIS could provide routine
assessments of climate impacts and vulnerabilities and develop relevant
products and services for decision- and policy-makers. The National
Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) that you authorized the
last year would thus become an important component of this larger
climate information system.
On May 4 of last year, the Western Governors' Association testified
before your committee in support of the NIDIS bill stating:
No systematic collection and analysis of social, environmental
and economic data focused on the impacts of drought within the
United States exists today. Understanding these impacts of
drought will empower users and expand the comprehension of the
full magnitude of drought losses. By so doing, it will
encourage local, State and federal officials to increase
efforts in drought planning, preparation, and mitigation. . ..
The National Integrated Drought Information System will allow
policy-makers and water managers at all levels of the private
and public sectors to make more informed and timely decisions
about water resources in order to mitigate or avoid the impacts
from droughts.
These same statements could also be applied to the broader needs of
climate data and research. Decision-makers at all levels of government
and in the private sector need reliable and timely information to
understand the possible impacts and corresponding vulnerabilities that
are posed by climate change so they can plan and respond accordingly.
The Western Governors' Association supports H.R. 906 as an effort to
move the Nation's climate change research program in this direction.
Discussion
The USGCRP Budget Process
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Ms. Bittleman. Thank you, Members of
the panel, for your excellent testimony.
At this point, we will open our first round of questions,
and I will recognize myself for five minutes. And I want to
start with a constituent, a Coloradan, Dr. Fellows.
As you well know from your experience at the Office of
Management and Budget, in coordinating agency budgets for the
USGCRP, the budget process for interagency programs is always a
challenge, shall we say. Would you elaborate on your
recommendation that the USGCRP Interagency Committee have ``a
clear budget process linking tasks to agency and program
budgets?''
Are you saying that the Director of the USGCRP must have
budget authority over the agencies of the USGCRP? Would the
Director of OSTP, for example, be a good candidate for this
function?
Dr. Fellows. Well, there are a lot of options here, you
know, ranging from the current one, where all the agencies
retain their budgets, to a completely centralized budget
process, and I am not sure that either end of the spectrum is
the right way to go.
I do think there is an argument to be made for the Director
of the U.S. Global Change Research Program to be close enough
to political power to have the clout to make the kind of
decisions and tradeoffs that you would across an agency, and
probably, to have some level of budget authority that he can
use to help encourage, or provide incentives for people to make
investments in the highest priority areas of the program.
We used to, when I was in OMB, have an annual budget review
process, where we actually called all the agencies in. They got
a chance to present their programs, every relevant budget
examiner and representative of OSTP had a chance to hear their
programs, got to see the links between the programs, and I
thought that that was a pretty effective mechanism to try to
make the kind of tradeoffs. But we never had the real clout to
actually be able to say we need to move in one particular area.
We had to rely on the goodwill between all the agencies to do
that, so I think that budget authority could help the Director.
Mr. Udall. Anyone else want to comment on that particular
question, given Dr. Fellows' expertise, but others have also
faced this same dilemma?
Dr. Mahoney. Exactly. Mr. Udall, just a brief comment that
perhaps it is trying to think pragmatically about what might
work. I had somewhat of a hybrid position, because I was a
Senate confirmed subcabinet officer, so I had, for better or
for worse, political standing over these recent years in
managing the program, and I had access to the very top of OMB,
OSTP, and exercised those, and to all of the relevant Cabinet
officers frequently enough. Still, what I recommend is close to
what Dr. Fellows has just said, but I would treat it a little
bit differently.
I think that there should be a definite recognized
management and coordination function, because that is where, as
little as it is, some very important things are done now in the
communications area, and in getting all these reports out, and
they are tremendously under-resourced, the people in that
office work very hard to get it done. But it is also a major
source of delay, because they are just overwhelmed.
I think if we took that same office, and I wouldn't want to
give any climate program head budget authority over a Cabinet
department. I don't think that makes sense. But if that
function were placed in one of the departments, but clearly,
its role was to be subject to the review by the others, and it
had a very small budget itself in that department, one part for
its own manpower, for example, which wouldn't be much, and I
actually have in my statement a recommendation about two other
functions, close to what Dr. Fellows was talking about. One,
that would provide a small kitty of developmental and bright
idea and filling the gaps funds that it could administer on a
transfer basis or whatever else, and the other one, to provide
some seed money for some assessment work.
And to my experience of working in the last several years
on this, anyway, having that capability, with an element of
budget, which would flow through that department's own budget,
but which would be clearly identified as funds to support this
programmatic activity, would be a way to maintain the normal
purity of the departments being responsible for their own
budgets, while having a relatively small budget that could be,
it could reach around some.
And that is an area where I would think that some direction
by the Congress about its desire to see a more efficient and
effective process, given the complexity of our government,
would be a positive step.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, and I see that my time has expired,
and Doctor, I will come back to you, and I want to, at this
point, I want to recognize my friend and coauthor of this
legislation, I want to thank Congressman Inglis again for his
joining me in this important endeavor, and Mr. Inglis, you are
recognized for five minutes.
Assessment Timeline
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Udall, and I am interested in
the timeline that, for updating the ten year Global Change
Research Plan. The bill calls for it being updated every four
years, and I wonder if you all might want to comment on whether
you think that is a sufficient schedule for updates, or will it
become stale within that four year period, or do you have any
thoughts about that?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, the first one was developed in about
1990, and had a theme that was very disciplinary. It had what
were called seven disciplinary areas, so, ecology and things.
We actually did develop an alternative approach in the mid-
'90s, to try and cut it a different way, to focus on the
stratospheric ozone issue, on seasonal to inter-annual, on
climate change, and on, I think, land cover, and things. There
wasn't a formal plan put out, although there was, in one of
these Our Changing Planets a set of objectives and a whole
bunch of sort of activities that are not a whole lot different
than what came out in the plan later.
I think it is useful every, I am not sure four years is the
right number, but you do need to sort of take a different
perspective. This is a very complex issue, and there is no
optimal way to cut it into pieces, and so, I think it helps to
take different looks at different times, and get different
perspectives.
We wanted to do that also on the National Assessment, come
at it not the second time for climate change, because in four
years, that wouldn't have changed so much, but come at it, for
example, on well, what are all the factors affecting land cover
that we have? Think about global change very broadly. What are
the things that are affecting land cover? And so that partly is
climate change and partly variability, and partly atmospheric
chemistry changes, and a whole bunch of other things. So, cut
it differently, try and get some new insights.
So, requiring something in an update, and some re-looking,
I think, is useful. It can be a hard process, but it is useful.
Mr. Inglis. And Dr. Fellows.
Dr. Fellows. I was just going to mention that the world
climate science community every five years takes a look, it
essentially takes a temperature of the new science in the
climate arena, so I think four or five years is probably pretty
reasonable.
In the bill, and Dr. Mahoney touched on this, it actually
talks about a ten year research plan, an annual plan, a
vulnerability plan, a policy plan, and they are all due the
first year. It would be interesting to actually look at how
that plan might change, if you did the vulnerability and the
policy assessment first. So, there is even some sequencing of
how you would do these various reports, but a five year cycle,
a four or five year cycle is probably good for the program plan
itself.
Mr. Inglis. Some people might say to us about this bill
that you know, you can collect information, but is it going to
help us that much? And I am thinking of the mountain trout, I
believe it is, in the streams of North Carolina and a little
bit of South Carolina, in the mountains. Apparently, 1 degree
Fahrenheit, I believe it is, temperature change, and we have no
more trout. It warms up 1 degree, and they are gone from our
rivers.
And I guess, the question is: is it helpful to know? I
think it does build awareness. Is that right, Ms. Bittleman?
Ms. Bittleman. Yes, Mr. Inglis, I had wanted to add to
this, having the assessments reviewed and updated, and the
scientific data reviewed and updated periodically, whether it
is three years, four years, five years, is all very important.
But from a State perspective, I think it is important to
realize that the entire process of data collection and
adaptation and how climate change is being experienced on the
ground is really, to us, what the important aspect of this bill
is, which is every year, when data is being collected, at the
same time, states like Oregon, and in the Carolinas and Pacific
Northwest, the Carolinas, the states are actually acting. We
have user groups, we have climate change groups, we have
scientists, but we also have economists and businesses that are
really reacting to and trying to anticipate how their
businesses are going to change.
Salmon fishery is a very good example in the Pacific
Northwest. We are looking at salmon populations all the time,
in conjunction with NOAA, and the question is, you know, is
climate change going to--what are the long-term effects of
climate change, and how are we, as an industry, the salmon
industry, how are they going to react to that? How can we help
them react to that?
So, while--I just would hope that you don't, you know, when
there is a year date for a report, I don't think that is as
important as the flexibility needed to incorporate all this,
all the information, science data, but also, activities that
are happening on the ground, including what is happening in the
states, and how the states are responding.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you. My time has expired.
Regional vs. National Assessments
Mr. Udall. Thank the gentleman. We will come back around
for a second round, if you all can stay. I recognize myself
again for five minutes, and I want to start with Ms. Bittleman,
but I would alert the panel that I would like you all to think
about weighing in once she has had a chance to answer.
And I want to just talk about this regional versus national
assessments dynamic that we have. We certainly need regional
assessments and regional responses, but each individual region
doesn't stand on its own. You get impacts, consequences in
other areas. And for this reason, we need also national
assessments.
Would you agree, and if so, how do we ensure that the
USGCRP will serve both of these information needs?
Ms. Bittleman. Well, since I am here representing a region,
I am going to fall on the side of preferring a regional
approach, but I think you are absolutely right. We do need
national information and a national approach.
Again, I don't see these things as actually separate. In
Oregon, and in the Pacific Northwest, we would like to collect
climate information on a watershed and sub-watershed level.
That is a much more specific level than a region, than a state
or a region, and so, what we would like to see is all of this
information integrated. So, from a sub-watershed to watershed
to State to region to national level, and we see the
possibility of integration as the real hope here.
The Insurance Industry's Perspective
Mr. Udall. Anyone else like to respond? Mr. Nutter. And Mr.
Nutter, by the way, it is always great to have you as part of
these hearings, because you bring the economic implications of
much of this to the fore, which is crucial to consider, and it
is, in fact, why a lot of us have moved, a lot of communities,
a lot of industries are moving in the direction. Let us respond
now. We have time.
Mr. Nutter. Well, thank you for the question and the
comment.
From the insurance perspective, regional assessments are
probably imperative. There is not much point in looking at a
national assessment without understanding the subcategories of
all that. The effect of climate change on extreme weather
events in the Gulf is different than it is for a State like
Florida, or East Coast or upper East Coast. The same would be
true, the same comment would be true if you are looking at the
effect of extreme weather events in the Midwest, the tornados
and other extreme events.
So, from our perspective, the regionalization of the
assessment is, frankly, the most valuable part.
Mr. Udall. Very good point. Very useful. Dr. MacCracken.
More on Regional vs. National Assessments
Dr. MacCracken. I think that is also a very good question.
We tried, because there are a number of issues that cut across,
to have sector assessments do that, so you wanted to crosscut
with that. And so, if you are interested in how the forests are
going to do, health-wise, locally, you want to have a regional
one. If you want to understand the market for forest products,
you have to look more broadly, certainly across the country. Or
if you want to look at agriculture, you can look at what
happens to a farmer in a particular place, or you can look at
food production more broadly.
So, I think you need both regions, you need sectors, and
the area that we didn't get to at all in what we were, realized
needed to get done, was how what happens elsewhere in the world
affects what happens here, so that can be everything on natural
factors, like migratory species, to what happens with our
investments. When there was a drought in Indonesia several
years ago, there were layoffs on Wall Street. I mean, the world
is interconnected with investments. It is certainly
interconnected with respect to health, and it is certainly
interconnected with respect to environmental refugees.
IPCC looks at some of these, but it sort of does the
chapters a little bit separately, and hasn't looked at how one
set of countries depends on another, and the various economic
connections. So, there are a lot of different cuts that have to
be taken, and together, that is how you draw forth the findings
for a national level report that would be meaningful to Members
of Congress.
Mr. Udall. There is an interesting school of thought out
there when it comes to this challenge we face of responding to
global change, and we are having that discussion today, or
climate change, or both. If we would figure--I should say when
we figure this one out, as the human race, that we will
actually create a template to deal with a lot of other
challenges and opportunities and problems that we face across
the globe.
And that keeps me going every day, given the size of this,
and the complexity of what we face.
Dr. MacCracken. The report that we did, that this UN panel
recently did for the Commission on Sustainable Development,
tried to very much make that point, that climate change is
intimately tied to meeting the Millennium Development Goals,
and if you don't think about climate change in the context, you
are not going to be able to ensure meeting the water needs and
the other kinds of things in particular regions, or severe
weather, or other kinds of things. So, it is, indeed, all
coupled, and has to be done that way, looked at that way.
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Mr. Udall. I know my time has expired, but Mr. Inglis and I
have reached an agreement. I think he has asked the questions
he would like to ask. I am going to go for a few more minutes,
and then, we will begin to bring the hearing to a close, but I
did want to turn back to Mr. Nutter, if I might, for a minute,
and ask you a question about the large population growth in
high risk areas that has exacerbated the impacts of climate
change.
Would you comment on how H.R. 906 might provide information
to reduce the vulnerability of these already overstressed
areas?
Mr. Nutter. Thank you for the question.
To the extent that the assessments can help not just our
industry, the insurance industry, but those who regulate our
industry, and those who look at protecting people's property
and lives through building codes or other hazard mitigation, we
will all learn from the information about increased frequency
or severity of storms, and other research products from this
program. It would have enormous public benefit, and obviously,
the private benefit to all of us who are engaged in risk
assessment or risk mitigation.
So, I see it as a valuable product, as we try to understand
the dynamics of a changing climate. My recollection is that 53
percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a
coast. That is a pretty remarkable exposed population. The
State of Florida has $2 trillion of insured properties. The
State of New York has $2 trillion of insured properties. My
recollection, Mr. Inglis, is that your state has something like
$150 billion of insured properties.
It is a remarkable exposure, and our ability to deal with
the financing of recovery from extreme events, and understand
the dynamics, so we can protect property and life from that
would be a byproduct of this legislation.
Mr. Udall. Thank you for that response. Dr. MacCracken, I
would turn back to you briefly. You recommend keeping research
on climate change science separate from that on energy
technologies. I assume you are referring to technology
development and research. At some point, however, shouldn't we
evaluate new energy technologies, their potential deployment
schedules, their costs, and their missions profiles, to see how
they will impact atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases? And in general, where should this analysis of issues
that intersect the science and technology development occur?
Easy question, I know.
Dr. MacCracken. You know, I was, in my comment, just trying
to keep the, to make sure that the research that goes on about
what is going to happen, and the decisions about what
technology research you fund, are not so closely intermixed
that they bias each other, that you say, well, I mean, I think
the fear was in some of the 1990s, that people will use climate
change to justify funding fusion research or something, and we
really wanted to pursue those kinds of things separately.
Certainly, you have to look at what the, what will happen, in
terms of technology, and in fact, if I can just go back to
comments that Ms. Bittleman and Phil made, when they called for
a National Climate Information Service, that is absolutely
vital, but there are some other things we need as well, to
project into the future that we struggle with, and that
includes what is going to happen to the Nation's ecosystems,
sort of the land cover projection, what is going to happen in
terms of demographics and in economics and technology.
One of the things we struggled with, in trying to put
together a useful assessment, was to project well, what is
really going to happen? Are there things around the corner that
are going to mean that this isn't the problem? How are we going
to adapt to it? And one needs to have some sort of perhaps
central facility to make that happen, or central, maybe it is a
virtual program, or some place where it comes together, but it
can't just be Climate Information Service, because as soon as
you say, well, I have got the Climate Information Service, then
people are going to ask: ``Well, what is happening with
economic development?'' Or ``what is happening with
demographics and population?'' And ``where are people choosing
to live?'' and all these other issues. And that whole social
science part of what needs to be in global change isn't really
well-funded and doesn't even have much of a constituency or
capability for it.
Mr. Udall. Dr. Mote, I am going to move to you now, if I
could.
Dr. Mote. Sure.
Mr. Udall. And--if I could ask--you want to comment on
that, and then, I will ask you a question?
Dr. Mote. Yeah, let me just comment on the--another aspect
of this sort of separation that Dr. MacCracken talked about is
in some instances, mitigating and adapting to climate change do
come together. For example, evaluating the resilience of
hydropower to a changing climate, or wind power. So, as we
design portfolios of future energy, are those portfolios
themselves resistant to or resilient to the kinds of changes
that may come down in the future.
Mr. Udall. That is a very, very good point. Some cases, it
may work to power needs benefits, in other cases, it may
actually work the other way. Hydropower----
Dr. Mote. Yeah, in the Pacific Northwest is having----
Mr. Udall. Hydropower----
Dr. Mote.--warming climates actually helps our hydropower
production, because it puts availability of supply more in sync
with regional demand. It sort of leaves California in a more
difficult position, because then, we don't have spare power to
sell in the summer, but----
Mr. Udall. I am going to not be tempted to comment on that,
as a Coloradan, but let me turn to RISA for a minute, and you
discussed it as an example of a stakeholder-driven climate
sciences venture. How could the climate program be tailored to
build upon the work being done by RISA?
Dr. Mote. Well, the key success of the RISA program has
been putting top level scientists directly in touch with top
level decision-makers on the regional, State, and local scale.
And you know, to some extent, that happens nationally, but
these are partnerships that lead to better science, because the
science is then driven by a genuine societal need, and it also
leads to better management, because the decision-makers are
slowly learning more about climate.
Again, it is not just about future climate change, but the
patterns of variability that we already experience,
paleoclimate, you know, evaluating how robust is the Colorado
River Compact, given the 400 year perspective that we get from
tree rings, things like that.
Mr. Udall. Thank you. You had to bring the Colorado River
into this.
Dr. Mote. I drew my first breath 42 years ago today in the
high mountain air of Colorado, so----
Mr. Udall. Today is your birthday?
Dr. Mote. Yes.
Mr. Udall. Well, happy birthday. Well, maybe we should----
Dr. Mote. Thank you.
Mr. Udall. Well, I think that is a great place to stop at
this point.
I did want to yield to Mr. Inglis for a couple of
concluding remarks, and then, we will bring the hearing to a
close.
Mr. Inglis. So, I am going to sing. I will spare you, but
happy birthday. And I thank Mr. Udall for chairing this part of
the hearing, and appreciate his work on this, and it has been
very helpful for me to hear your comments, so thank you for the
education you have afforded us today.
Mr. Udall. Well, let me conclude by thanking you all for
appearing before the Subcommittee. It is clear, I hope, to all
of you, and those listening, and those participating today,
that I take the challenge, as does Congressman Inglis, and many
of us here in the House, of addressing global warming, very
seriously, and it is one of our highest priorities in the
Congress.
Your testimony, as we have said, has been very helpful, and
I believe that this legislation will take an important step
forward in providing planners with the tools they need to
combat climate change.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record will be held
open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements
and any additional questions they might have for the witnesses.
At this time, the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>