[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
AND WHY IT MATTERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 13, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-231 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma NEAL DUNN, Florida
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia VACANCY
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida VACANCY
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
February 13, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Frank D. Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Dr. Robert Kopp, Director, Rutgers Institute of Earth, Ocean, and
Atmospheric Sciences, and Professor, Department of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Dr. Jennifer Francis, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research
Center
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Dr. Joseph Majkut, Director of Climate Policy, Niskanen Center
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Dr. Kristie L. Ebi, Rohm and Haas Endowed Professor in Public
Health Sciences, and Director, Center for Health and the Global
Environment, University of Washington
Oral Statement............................................... 54
Written Statement............................................ 56
Dr. Natalie M. Mahowald, Irving Porter Church Professor of
Engineering, Faculty Director for the Environment, Atkinson
Center for a Sustainable Future, Cornell University
Oral Statement............................................... 76
Written Statement............................................ 78
Discussion....................................................... 115
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Robert Kopp, Director, Rutgers Institute of Earth, Ocean, and
Atmospheric Sciences, and Professor, Department of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University......................... 152
Dr. Jennifer Francis, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research
Center......................................................... 157
Dr. Joseph Majkut, Director of Climate Policy, Niskanen Center... 162
Dr. Kristie L. Ebi, Rohm and Haas Endowed Professor in Public
Health Sciences, and Director, Center for Health and the Global
Environment, University of Washington.......................... 168
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 246
Report submitted by Representative Bill Foster, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 248
Article submitted by Representative Sean Casten, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 269
THE STATE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
AND WHY IT MATTERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice
Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
at any time.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing entitled,
``The State of Climate Science and Why it Matters.'' Let me
first welcome everyone to the full Committee hearing of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for the 116th
Congress. I'm looking forward to a productive and collegial
meeting today, one in which rigorous scientific discourse can
help enable the creation of a sound public policy.
Every committee is meeting because we've had to alter
committee meetings this week because we've had two funerals.
And so we will have Members coming and going, and we hope that
you'll understand.
I also want to welcome all of our distinguished witnesses
and thank them for their flexibility in making themselves
available to participate in this rescheduled hearing.
Today's hearing is the first in what will be multiple
climate-change-related hearings this Congress. Following the
release of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 +C, and the National
Climate Assessment last year, it is clear that we're
responsible for our planet warming at an alarming rate, and we
already are feeling the impacts of this warming today. Setting
the stage with a discussion of the most relevant and up-to-date
scientific evidence from these and other reports will allow us
to better understand the climate-related impacts we are
experiencing in all of our districts. The evidence of continued
unmitigated emissions of greenhouse gases is clear. Our coastal
communities are dealing with sea-level rise and ocean
acidification, and all communities are dealing with more severe
weather incidences and the increased exposure to extreme heat
and poor air quality.
Today's discussion on climate science is important to
deepening our fundamental understanding of why the climate is
changing and how this manifests in ways that impact society. It
will also help us as we turn our focus to the role of science
and innovative technology development to devise adaptation and
mitigation strategies, which will have numerous positive
benefits for our economy, our safety and security, and our
public health. I am glad we have the leading experts in these
fields who worked closely on these reports to guide our
discussion.
I also want to note that the impacts of climate change are
not limited to what is described in these climate science
reports. Just last week, NOAA's (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration) State of the Climate Report for
2018 found that it was the wettest year for the contiguous
United States in the past 35 years. NASA (National Aeronautics
and Space Administration) and NOAA also found that last year
had the fourth-highest global surface temperature since 1880.
It has almost become a given that we can expect record-breaking
temperatures every year, especially since the past 5 years have
been the warmest in modern record.
Though this Administration has regrettably chosen to ignore
the findings of its own scientists in regards to climate
change, we as lawmakers have a responsibility to protect the
public's interest. I plan to do this by making sure this
Committee is informed by the most relevant and up-to-date
science as we work to conduct our legislative and oversight
responsibilities. The Science Committee oversees much of the
Federal climate research, and as well as the development and
demonstration of new and innovative technologies, which makes
our role as Members of this Committee critical to preparing our
country to deal with climate change.
I look forward to kicking off a fruitful and informative
discussion that will continue throughout this Congress on why
we need to act on climate change now.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Now I will recognize the Ranking
Member's opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and I would like
to again thank you for holding this hearing and providing a
platform to hold a constructive dialog on the issue of climate
change.
I'm proud to be a western Oklahoma farmer and to represent
a resilient community of farmers. As any farmer can tell you,
we are especially dependent on the weather. Droughts and heat
waves come and go naturally, but the changing climate has
intensified their impacts.
We know the climate is changing and that global industrial
activity has played a role in this phenomenon. But our
communities, like the farmers and ranchers in my district, need
to know more about the extent to which a changing climate
affects short- and long-term weather patterns.
I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to
prioritize research so that we can better understand the
complex relationship between climate and weather and increase
preparedness in our communities. I also believe it's critical
that America leads the world in developing the next-generation
technologies to address the effects of climate change.
Fortunately, we have a unique opportunity here on the
Science Committee to promote research and technology solutions.
American industry, innovators, and researchers at our national
labs are pioneering technologies that capture carbon emissions
from coal and natural gas, batteries that store energy from
intermittent energy sources like wind and solar, and advanced
nuclear reactors that can provide cleaner, more affordable
power. These technologies have the potential to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions around the world and ensure American
energy dominance.
America has always led the way in technology advances. In
1919, my great aunt's prized possession was a phonograph, a
mechanical device which was then state-of-the-art technology. A
hundred years later, we listen to music on our cell phones, and
no one could have predicted the incredible leap forward in
technology. Americans are always innovating, finding surprising
ways to meet new challenges. Energy is no exception. Hydraulic
fracking revolutionized energy production, unlocking a vast
American energy resource that was unimaginable just a decade
ago. Developed by industry in cooperation with the national
labs, fracking reduced the environmental footprint of energy
production and has brought cleaner, cheaper natural gas to the
market around the world.
Through innovation, we can repeat this incredible success.
The next technological breakthrough is right around the corner,
and if we want to succeed, we must continue to focus on
realistic, technology-driven solutions to climate change that
can compete in today's economy. We won't succeed in pie-in-the-
sky policies that demand 100 percent renewable energy at the
expense of reliable power from nuclear and fossil fuels and
raise energy prices for businesses and consumers.
Today, we'll hear from Dr. Joseph Majkut, the Director of
Climate Policy for the Niskanen Center, who will stress that
it's essential that we take a realistic, innovative, and
competitive approach to addressing climate change. I share his
belief that by investing in research to develop carbon capture,
carbon use, advanced nuclear and renewable energy technologies,
we can incentivize innovation and growth in these industries
and reduce carbon emissions in the process. Innovation is good
for the global environment and the American economy.
I take environmental policy very seriously. This dedication
comes from being raised by people who lived through the worst
prolonged environmental disaster in American history, the great
drought and Dust Bowl of the 1930s. We have a responsibility to
ensure events like the Dust Bowl never occur again.
While this Committee cannot control the weather, we can
prioritize investments in basic science and energy research
that will revolutionize the global energy market. America led
the world in coal, oil, and gas. Now we must lead again, and
partner with industry to develop breakthrough energy
technologies and make our existing energy sources cleaner and
more affordable.
I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I yield
back the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
witness is Dr. Natalie Mahowald, the Irving Porter Church
Professor of Engineering, and the Faculty Director for the
Environment of the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future at
Cornell University. Due to the weather-related travel delays,
she's joining us through a video link from Ithaca, New York.
Her research looks at natural feedbacks in the climate system,
and Dr. Mahowald was the lead author on the IPCC Special Report
on 1.5 +C Global Warming
released last year and the IPCC Fifth Assessment from Working
Group 1 on the physical science of climate change in 2013.
She received her Ph.D. in meteorology from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and we now will
recognize--she'll be our first witness.
Our second witness is Dr. Robert Kopp, who is Director of
Rutgers Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences,
and Professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
at Rutgers University. He also serves as Co-Director of
Rutgers' Coastal Climate Risk and Resilience Initiative. Dr.
Kopp's research focuses on past and future sea-level change and
the utilization of climate risk information and decisionmaking.
He is a lead author of volume 1 of the Fourth National Climate
Assessment (NCA 4) released last year and the IPCC's Sixth
Assessment Report, which is due out in 2021.
Dr. Kopp received his Ph.D. in geobiology from the
California Institute of Technology.
Our third witness, Dr. Jennifer Francis, who is a Senior
Scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. Dr. Francis'
research focuses on climate change impacts in the Arctic and
how that affects weather around the world, especially how a
warming Arctic may lead to a weakened jet stream. Dr. Francis
is regularly quoted in media outlets.
Dr. Francis received her Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences from
the University of Washington.
Our fourth witness is Dr. Joseph Majkut from the Niskanen
Center. He is an expert on climate science policy, and risk and
uncertainty analysis for decisionmaking, and is frequently
cited by media outlets on climate scientific research.
He received his Ph.D. in atmospheric and oceanic sciences
from Princeton University.
Our final witness, Dr. Kristie Ebi, who is the Director of
the Center for Health and the Global Environment, or CHanGE
program, and the Rohm and Haas Endowed Professor in Public
Health Sciences at the University of Washington. Dr. Ebi's
research includes estimating current and future health risks of
climate change and estimating the health co-benefits of
mitigation policies and technologies. Dr. Ebi was the chapter
lead on the Human Health Chapter, volume 2, of the Fourth
National Climate Assessment released last year. She also co-
chairs the National Academies Committee to Advise a U.S. Global
Change Research program.
Dr. Ebi received her Ph.D. in epidemiology from the
University of Michigan.
As our witnesses shall know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record of the hearing. When all of you have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin a round of
questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the
panel.
And we will start with a witness that is appearing on the
screen, Dr. Mahowald.
[Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
Chairwoman Johnson [continuing]. We can't--let's go to Dr.
Kopp and then return when we get the technology working.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT KOPP,
DIRECTOR, RUTGERS INSTITUTE OF EARTH, OCEAN,
AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES,
AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND
PLANETARY SCIENCES, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Dr. Kopp. All right. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Johnson,
Ranking Member Lucas, and Committee Members for inviting me to
speak today. My name is Robert Kopp. I am the Director of the
Rutgers Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences and
a Professor at Rutgers University. My research focuses on past
and future sea-level change and on the interactions between
climate change and the economy.
I served as one of the 29 lead authors of the fourth
volume--of the first volume of the Fourth National Climate
Assessment, and I was invited here to speak to the fourth
assessment. I should note that I'm doing so in my personal
capacity, not to represent the U.S. Global Change Research
Program or Rutgers.
The Fourth National Climate Assessment provides an up-to-
date assessment of the scientific understanding of climate
change, its current effects on the United States, and its
potential future impacts. It draws out key findings from the
massive body of peer-reviewed science to support scientifically
informed climate risk management. Its first volume focuses on
the physical science; the second on impacts, risks, and
adaptation. The report's nearly 2,000 pages are data-driven and
extensively referenced. Both volumes underwent detailed
transparent review processes, including open reviews by
external experts in the general public and thorough reviews by
independent experts convened by the National Academies.
The process of drafting the National Climate Assessment was
painstaking and complex, but its fundamental findings are
simple and urgent. First, climate change is real, it is
happening now, and humans are responsible for it. The planet is
running a fever. Its average temperature has increased by
nearly 2 +F since 1900 with humans responsible for essentially
all of the warming since 1950.
Second, climate change isn't an issue for the distant
future. It's already affecting Americans in every region of the
country. Across the country, heat waves are becoming more
frequent, heavy rainfall more intense, and coastal flooding
more common as a result of climate change and sea-level rise.
Studies show that climate change intensified the dry hot summer
of 2011 in Texas and Oklahoma, the recent drought in
California, and the rainfall of Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
Third, climate change is not just an environmental
challenge. It's an economic challenge, an infrastructure
challenge, a public-health challenge, and a national-security
challenge. As the report notes, and I quote, ``In the absence
of more significant global mitigation efforts, climate change
is projected to impose substantial damages on the U.S. economy,
human health, and the environment,'' particularly in scenarios
with limited adaptation.
Fourth, every amount--every additional amount of greenhouse
gas emitted makes climate change more severe. In order to
stabilize global climate at any level, human--any level of
warming, human emissions of carbon dioxide must be brought as
close to zero as possible with any continued emission of
CO2 balanced by human removal of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, whether that's by expanding forests or using
new, little-tested technologies. In other words, to stabilize
the global climate, net global carbon dioxide emissions must be
brought to zero. The faster we reduce our emissions, the less
severe the effects and the lower the risk of unwelcome
surprises.
Fifth, though the pace is not yet adequate to minimize
climate risk, Americans are already starting to respond by
reducing emissions and beginning to adapt to climate-change
impacts. As the report notes, 110 cities, several States, and
an increasing number of companies have adopted emissions-
reduction targets. The report highlights adaptation planning
efforts by cities and transport systems, the use of innovative
farming techniques to deal with wet and dry extremes, and
efforts to measure--to manage water scarcity in places like the
Colorado River basin and Texas' Edwards Aquifer. These
mitigation and adaptation efforts need to grow dramatically and
rapidly to effectively manage climate risk.
In conclusion, the National Climate Assessment shows that
climate change is real, it's here, and we humans are
responsible for it. To stabilize the global climate, we need to
bring net global greenhouse gas emissions to zero. The sooner
we do this, the smaller the risks to our economy, health,
infrastructure, and security that we will have to manage. But
even with strong emissions reductions, there will still be
major adaptation challenges ahead. It's therefore essential
that climate change become a routine and integrated part of
decisionmaking at all levels, public and private, Federal,
State, and local.
Thank you for holding this important hearing today. It's my
hope that, as the Science Committee, you will look closely at
how to advance the climate science enterprise in a manner that
supports climate risk management.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kopp follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Dr. Kopp. Do we
have that ready yet? OK. We'll move to Dr. Francis.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JENNIFER FRANCIS,
SENIOR SCIENTIST, WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER
Dr. Francis. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Francis. I'm
an atmospheric scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center in
Massachusetts, and I study the connections between climate
change and extreme weather. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson and
Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify here
today.
It's not your imagination. Extreme weather events have
become more frequent in recent decades. If we could have figure
1.
[Slide.]
Dr. Francis. According to this analysis by Munich Re, one
of the foremost reinsurance companies in the world, the
occurrence of extreme weather events has nearly tripled since
the 1980s. They are shown by the green, blue, and orange bars
in this figure.
Images of recent extreme weather events are etched into our
memories: Neighborhoods flooded by feet of rain unleashed by
Hurricanes Harvey and Florence, docks sitting high and dry in
California's reservoirs, and a sunken New Jersey roller coaster
in the wake of Superstorm Sandy to name only a few. Yes,
extreme weather has always happened, but there's no question
that it's more vicious now, and all the signs point to it
getting worse as the globe continues to warm under a thickening
blanket of greenhouse gases.
Before I go any further, let's clear up a few definitions
that sometimes cause confusion. Climate change versus global
warming: Climate change means all the ways that the climate
system is changing, while global warming is just one of those
ways. Climate versus weather: Climate is the average of all the
weather that occurs at a particular location, while weather is
the day-to-day swings in temperature and precipitation. Think
of climate as your personality and weather as your mood on any
given day.
The links between climate change and extreme weather are a
hot topic of scientific research. Some of the connections are
straightforward. For example, global warming is making heat
waves more intense and persistent and therefore more deadly.
And as the air and oceans warm, evaporation also increases,
which fuels an uptick in heavy precipitation events. The warmer
oceans are also fueling rapid intensification of tropical
storms, and because sea level is higher, storm surges are doing
more damage now. On a happier note, though, fewer low-
temperature records are being broken. All of these changes are
clearly tied to a warming planet.
Other less straightforward connections are emerging as
well. The polar vortex has been in the news a lot lately, so
let's start with winter extremes. The polar vortex is a frigid
pool of air encircled by strong winds that sits up high above
the Arctic only during winter. Recent studies suggest it has
been weakening and deforming more often lately, and when that
happens, extreme cold and hot temperatures strike the northern
hemisphere.
If I could at the next figure, please.
[Slide.]
Dr. Francis. This map of temperature departures during the
recent Eastern cold snap demonstrates this clearly, so even
though cold records are being broken less often, severe cold
spells and heat waves will still happen.
Turning southward, global warming appears to be widening
the tropics. This may sound like a good thing, but it's causing
abnormal heat and drought in temperate regions such as
Australia, southern California, and South Africa. We're also
learning that earlier spring snow melt is causing high latitude
land areas to dry out and warm up faster. This creates land
temperature patterns that can trap summer weather systems and
make them stagnant. Studies have linked deadly summer heat
waves and floods to this change in the climate.
Finally, rapid Arctic warming may be favoring weather
regimes that exacerbate drought, heat, and wildfires in our
Western States while stacking the deck toward cool and stormy
conditions in the East. Remember the parade of bomb cyclones
that struck the eastern seaboard last winter? This pattern was
responsible.
In a nutshell, we know that our atmosphere is warmer and
wetter, which alters every weather event that happens now. It's
relatively easy to determine that climate change made Harvey's
rainfall more intense, but it's much harder to say whether
Harvey would have stalled over Houston in the absence of
climate change. There's no doubt that the Arctic has warmed
much faster than elsewhere, but whether Arctic air is surging
southward more frequently now because of climate change is a
cutting-edge research question.
This is just a sampling of the many topics being studied in
our universities and research laboratories, the results of
which are crucial to understanding climate change impacts,
knowledge that will help decisionmakers and each of us prepare
for a future with even more destructive weather extremes.
Clearly more work is needed to confirm or reject these complex
relationships, though many are already coming into sharp focus.
Thank you again for inviting me to be here.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Francis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Francis.
Dr. Majkut?
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOSEPH MAJKUT,
DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE POLICY, NISKANEN CENTER
Dr. Majkut. Good morning, and thank you for having me,
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, Members of the
Committee.
My name is Joseph Majkut, and I am the Director of Climate
Policy at the Niskanen Center, which is a 501(c)(3) located
here in Washington. We work to promote public policy to advance
an open society and particularly in climate we promote a
mainstream understanding of climate science. It's nothing to be
afraid of. And we aim to better characterize the risks of
climate change. And on the policy side we support market-based
policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Committee asked that we comment on the recent United
Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special
Report on Global Warming of 1.5 +C, as well as the Fourth
National Climate Assessment prepared by the USGRCP (U.S. Global
Change Research Program), and I'd like to offer a brief summary
of those reports.
Climate change is real, and global emissions of greenhouse
gases are driving latter-day global warming. Manifestations of
that warming are increasingly observed, as Dr. Francis just
told us in great detail, and attributed to global emissions as
well. But these are early days, so many of the changes
scientists expect to see are either subtle or undetectable at
high confidence.
Yet as climate change continues, more severe and perverse
effects will manifest themselves causing economic harms and
damages to individuals, ecosystems, and other things that we
tend to be concerned about. The science tells us also that
limiting climate change means ceasing global emissions, and
that's a challenging thing to do.
The goals articulated in international agreements, that is
limiting warming to 1.5 or 2 +C globally are probably unlikely
given that they would require global emissions to fall by 45--
or 25 percent by 2030 and further from there. That doesn't mean
that the impulse to do that is unjustified given the risks we
face. Those emissions reductions, however, sit in stark
contrast to what we've seen over the last few decades. To even
get close, we'll need significant innovation in low-carbon
technology, finance, and market design in order to be able to
provide reliable, affordable, and globally accessible low-
carbon energy.
Given the present circumstance, how should this Committee
respond this Congress? I've got three areas that I think the
Committee should point its attention to. First, the time to
talk about solving climate change has really passed us. We're
managing a chronic condition, and we cannot place the burden on
reducing global emissions alone. Rather, we must prioritize
reducing social--societal vulnerability and adapting to climate
change where we can. While this will largely be an effort for
the private sector and local government, those efforts will be
bolstered by continued Federal support for research into
climate change's effects and the risks that our communities
face. This research can be disseminated through social and
professional networks, and devices like the National Climate
Assessment provide a very good venue for that work.
Second, a world aiming for 2 +C will require a portfolio of
low-carbon energy sources, including carbon capture and storage
for fossil fuels. In a world aiming for 1.5 +C, processes that
remove carbon from the atmosphere will need to be deployed at a
scale capturing up to 1/4 of today's emissions, and that is a
mind-boggling number for an infant technology. Both of these
will be large industries, but the technologies are so infant
that they need your support. Faster progress is possible
through smart investments in advanced research, which deserve
the Committee's continued attention and support.
Third, we have to research alternatives. Last Congress I
testified before your Subcommittees on Environment and Energy
on a research and governance agenda for so-called geo-
engineering technologies, which could sever the link between
global emissions and warming. While we had a productive
hearing, there's still much that this Committee could do to
support early research into these technologies and help
establish a set of norms under which that research could be
done.
Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to
a robust discussion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Majkut follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Dr. Majkut.
Dr. Ebi?
TESTIMONY OF DR. KRISTIE L. EBI,
ROHM AND HAAS ENDOWED PROFESSOR
IN PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCES, AND
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR HEALTH AND
THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT (CHanGE),
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Dr. Ebi. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
distinguished Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to
speak with you today. As you know, my name is Kristie Ebi. I've
got more than 20 years' experience----
[Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
Dr. Ebi. Do you want me to start over? Sorry about that.
The evidence is clear. Climate change is adversely affecting
the health of Americans. Climate change is heating the land and
oceans, melting snow and ice, increasing the frequency and
severity of extreme weather events, and raising sea levels. All
of these have significant implications for our health and well-
being, as well as for our public health and healthcare
infrastructure. It is timely and appropriate for Congress to
understand this issue of critical national importance so that
effective actions can be taken to protect and promote the
health of all Americans now and in the future.
Climate change affects human health by altering exposures
to heat waves, floods, droughts, and other extreme events by
increasing the prevalence of some vector, food, and water-borne
infectious diseases; by reducing the quality and safety of our
air, food, and water; and by worsening our mental health and
well-being. Climate change also can affect health by, for
example, undermining economic productivity and reducing labor
productivity.
As the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment highlights,
Americans are already suffering and dying from our changing
climate with primarily negative risks projected to increase
with each additional unit of warming. The IPCC's Special Report
on Global Warming of 1.5 +C, which assessed research in the
U.S. and globally, concluded that lower risks are projected at
1.5, than at 2 +C for heat-related morbidity and mortality, for
ozone mortality if the precursor emissions remain high. Risks
from vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and
Lyme disease are projected to increase with warming from 1.5 to
2 +C, including potential shifts in their geographic range to
areas previously unexposed to these diseases.
Individuals and communities are differentially exposed to
climate-related hazards and disproportionately affected by
climate-related health risks. Populations experiencing greater
risk include children, older adults, low-income communities,
and some communities of color.
The adverse health impacts of climate change have many
potential economic and social costs, including medical expenses
and caregiving services, as well as costs that are harder to
quantify such as those associated with pain, suffering,
inconvenience, or reduced enjoyment of leisure activities.
Further, our healthcare infrastructure is vulnerable to extreme
events with, for example, many hospitals and healthcare clinics
located in coastal regions subject to flooding.
The magnitude and pattern of future health risks depend on
the rapidity and extent of greenhouse gas emission reductions
and on the level of ambition and investment in adaptation. Many
projected risks and costs which, in some cases, may be
extremely unaffordable, can be reduced by taking immediate
action to increase preparedness for effectively managing health
and healthcare infrastructure risks. Examples include
developing early notification and response plans such as for
extreme heat, implementing integrated surveillance of climate-
sensitive infectious diseases, and incorporating climate
projections into emergency preparedness and disaster risk-
management initiatives. These steps can protect health now and
provide a basis for more effective adaptation to our future
climate.
Nearly all mitigation policies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions have benefits for health for Americans in the near-
and in the long-term by reducing premature mortality and by
avoiding hospitalizations. By the end of this century,
thousands of premature deaths could be avoided and hundreds of
millions of dollars in health-related economic benefits gained
each year under a pathway of lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, on a personal note, I grew up in Senator Dingell's
district. He was a very dedicated public servant who helped
write most of our major environmental and energy laws that were
passed by Congress. My condolences to his family, his friends,
and his colleagues. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ebi follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
We're going to return now to our first witness. No? She's
not quite ready.
Let me thank all of the witnesses. We now will go to our
first round of questions. I will go through a few questions I
have at the beginning.
Last month's government shutdown lasted for 35 days. During
that time, many Federal science activities were put on hold.
While some essential activities continued like the National
Weather Service forecast, many other activities stopped
entirely like updates to NOAA's climate and hurricane models.
There were also staffing issues like the National Center for
Environmental Protection, which had just one person out of 200
on staff during the shutdown.
These questions are for any or all of you that would like
to respond. First question, what are the short- and long-term
impacts of a government shutdown on Federal climate science?
And with the United States currently a global leader in climate
science, how do government shutdowns risk the U.S. leadership
in producing top climate science? And what impact does it have
on the rest of the world? We are heading to another potential
shutdown, but hopefully it won't occur. But what are the top
risks of our climate science enterprise when or if another
shutdown is a reality?
You can start, Dr. Kopp.
Dr. Kopp. Sure. I'll just give a couple quick examples. So
during the last shutdown, I was at an IPCC lead author meeting
in Vancouver, and there were several of our co-authors who
couldn't make it there because of the shutdown. And then of
course, if you're looking at a large collaboration, having
people who not only can't be there but also can't even be there
remotely sort of makes you an unreliable partner, right? And so
if you ask, how does this affect U.S. leadership, well, if we
are an unreliable partner in international collaborations, that
does make it harder for us to be a leader.
Another example, one of my co-authors at NOAA, we're
working on a paper together, he didn't have access to his
computer or data during the shutdown, and so all of the
analyses that might've happened during that time were stalled.
It's one thing if this is a couple of weeks, but if it's a
chronic condition, this really accumulates.
Dr. Francis. I would just add to what Dr. Kopp has
mentioned. There were several major scientific conferences that
occurred during the shutdown, and a large number of government
employees were just unable to attend and present the research
that they'd been working on for literally years, which is a
huge detriment to their careers. Also, several field programs
that were supposed to occur could not, so in some cases those
field programs maybe won't happen ever or at least they'll be
delayed for a year or more because there's a lot of planning
and logistics that have to be lined up to make those field
programs work. There was also a big delay in processing
proposals for more research or processing reports on that
research, and all of that just delays the progress of science.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you.
Dr. Ebi. To add to the other comments, everything you heard
so far this morning about climate change is driven by data, and
those data need to be collected. Equipment is not perfect, as
we saw so far this morning, and someone needs to go out and fix
equipment. There are various things that need to take place to
make sure that you continue those data series. You can't make
up data that you can't go back and regenerate what you didn't
collect, and so having these gaps where we don't have our
critical Federal employees taking care of collecting the data
that we need so critically to provide the science you need to
make informed decisions.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Now, according to
the IPCC's special report, limiting global warming to 1.5
centigrade over the long-term would, compared to 2, provide
clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems. However, it
would also require rapid far-reaching and unprecedented changes
in all aspects of society to achieve decarbonization of our
economy.
So for each panelist, if you would just comment, what are
the potential costs of failing to limit warming to 1.5
centigrade? The witnesses can speak to their own areas of
expertise in societal, economic, and environmental impacts.
Dr. Kopp. Well, I mean, there are a number of risks that
accumulate the more carbon dioxide we put in. More heat waves
lead to more mortality, as we've heard from our other speakers.
Sea-level rise will be somewhat higher under 2 degrees versus
1.5 degrees, and so that leads to more coastal flooding.
Both of those goals are heavy lifts, and so, the most
important thing to keep in mind, I would argue, is that to
stabilize climate at any level we need to get net global
greenhouse gas emissions to zero. And I think it's important we
recognize the more warming we let happen, the more the risks
accumulate, but we've got to keep that goal as our centerpiece,
net global--net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Francis. And I would just reiterate the fact that we
are already seeing a large increase in the occurrence of
extreme weather events and the intensity of many of those types
of events, and that's only going to get worse as the globe
continues to warm.
And I just wanted to add also that it may seem arbitrary to
pick 1.5 or 2.0-degree warming of the earth, but that's
actually a very useful thing to do because we can use these
very sophisticated climate models that have been developed by
many groups over many years to simulate the kinds of extreme
events and the kinds of changes in the physical climate system
that would occur under both of those scenarios. They're very
useful for helping us visualize what the world would look like
under those two different kinds of conditions, and by doing
that, we can see we really don't want a world with a 2-degree
warming, and we certainly don't want to go past that, so it's a
very useful exercise to go through visualizing these endpoints.
Dr. Majkut. Yes, I would echo my colleagues that the way I
think about climate risk as we progress through these various
temperature levels is the planet doesn't really care about it
being
1.5 +C or 2 +C, but the risks accumulate as we go higher and
higher up through warming levels.
The thing that jumped out to me as I was preparing for the
hearing was the effect on coral reefs, funny enough. At 1.5 +C
scientists are projecting that up to 90 percent of coral reefs
globally will be substantially diminished by warming events,
and at 2 +C that number goes to over 99 percent, which would be
utterly devastating. So when we think about these global
targets, we could really interpret it--interpret those low-
temperature targets as being hedges, right, looking to avoid
catastrophic impacts on particular systems.
Chairwoman Johnson. Dr. Ebi?
Dr. Ebi. Another critical conclusion of the Special Report
on Global Warming of 1.5 is that it is possible to stay below
1.5 +C, and we can do that with current technologies. We have
to increase our level of ambition. We have to be more
proactive, but it's not impossible. So there is both the
message that it's critical that we do so and that it's possible
to make that commitment to stay below 1.5.
And as the other speakers mentioned, as we increase from
today, which is 1 +C above preindustrial to 1.5 to 2 degrees,
that each unit of warming is associated with adverse
consequences for our health, our livelihoods, our ecosystems,
and for our economies.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Before we proceed,
I think we might have Dr. Mahowald ready for testimony. You may
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DR. NATALIE M. MAHOWALD,
IRVING PORTER CHURCH PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING,
FACULTY DIRECTOR FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
ATKINSON CENTER FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE,
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Dr. Mahowald. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing on the state of
climate science and why it matters. I'd also like to thank the
technical staff in the House and here at Cornell for making
this happen.
My name is Natalie Mahowald. I'm a Professor of Atmospheric
Sciences at Cornell University with over 20 years' research
expertise in climate science. I'm here today because--to
explain why climate science matters and to put simply, it
matters because the health and well-being of Americans matter,
the U.S. economy matters, national security matters, and
ensuring that the next generation of citizens can enjoy a
better lifestyle than we do matters.
Over the past year, we've witnessed record-breaking storms,
precipitation, heat waves, fires, and flooding, all of which
show the power of weather and the potential for changes in
climate to harm human lives and livelihoods. At the same time,
we're witnessing a global revolution in the development of
innovative new technologies that hold the promise of delivering
a low-carbon-emitting future. China and Europe in particular
are investing heavily in these new technologies. The United
States can take a leadership role in business, science, and
technology to bring both clean energy and new jobs to thousands
of Americans.
These topics--climate change, its impacts, and the
technologies to mitigate and adapt its effects--were the
subject of the IPCC's special report on limiting warming to 1.5
+C, on which I was a lead author. This report comes at a
critical time when we are rejecting the old-fashioned view that
either we protect the environment or we promote business. The
goal of the report is to identify solutions to reach low-
climate targets while promoting economic growth and eradicating
poverty.
Scientific evidence is clear that human activities have
caused warming of 1.0 +C since the late 1800s. If we keep
warming at the same rate, we will pass 1.5 +C around 2040. Past
emissions alone, however, are unlikely to cause 1.5 degrees
warming. In other words, if we can cut emissions quickly
enough, we can arrest the Earth's warming trends, keep
temperatures below 1.5 degrees. This would require extremely
ambitious emission cuts, 45 percent reduction in global
emissions by 2030, which is much more ambitious than agreed to
by the Paris Agreement and the voluntary reduction. In fact,
the voluntary reductions agreed to through the Paris Agreement
are likely to result in a warming of perhaps 3 +C. While this
falls short of the stated goals of the Paris Agreement where
governments agreed to keep warming below 2 degrees, it is much
lower than the business-as-usual scenarios of up to a 5-degree
increase in warming by 2100.
The climate impacts will be lower at lower temperatures.
Adaptation to climate change is easier at lower temperatures,
but it's still going to be required. Whatever temperature
target policymakers set as a goal, the 1.5 report provides a
menu of policy options from which they can choose. This report
also suggests an array of technologies and techniques across
many sectors that may be deployed to strengthen the response to
climate change. Combined, these policies, technologies, and
techniques can help reduce climate change impacts either
through mitigation or adaptation and are appropriate for any
climate target. For example, reducing subsidies for fossil
fuels or removing regulatory barriers for new energy-producing
technology and promoting a stable business environment to low-
carbon technologies and techniques can create jobs, save money,
improve health, and mitigate climate change.
Promoting policies at the local, State, and Federal levels
that move existing financing into new areas of research
development and deployment for the energy industry,
transportation, agriculture, and building sectors can create
new business opportunities and technologies while mitigating
for climate.
Finally, an important new area of research will be carbon
dioxide removal and utilization technology. The world is very
different today than it was 50 years ago in terms of how we
live, how we interact with each other, virtually and in person,
and globally. The world in 50 years will again be different,
and the challenge of climate change will be one of the key ways
that define our future in terms of mitigation and adaptation to
climate change. Keeping America in a business and technological
leadership role requires thoughtful investment in research
development and deployment and innovative technologies and
techniques that our international competitors are already
investing in and will result in a more prosperous, healthier,
safer America and world.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mahowald follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Now, the Chair recognizes Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate that.
As I said in my opening statement, I represent a rural
district where weather trends and predictions are extremely
important to the agricultural community. Dr. Majkut, what are
some of the things that we're doing well, and what are some of
the things we could do better to increase preparedness for
weather events and other effects associated with climate
change?
Dr. Majkut. Thank you for the question. I actually think
we're doing fairly well. You look at the National Climate
Assessment, and it shows a real effort on the part of the
scientific community to start understanding what the medium-
and long-term effects of climate change are going to be for
communities like your own. And just one of the things--and that
activity should definitely continue.
One of the things we might think about doing better in the
Science Committee and the Science Committee generally can think
about doing is getting decisionmakers information that's
relevant on the timescales over which they make decisions,
right? So you mentioned you represent a farming community and
you're a farmer yourself. You understand that what you think
about the weather is a question for the next few days and the
stuff you're going to do over the next few days. It's not
necessarily clear that a 30-year projection is a helpful thing
for what you're deciding to do this year or next year. But if
you're designing a water system or a stormwater system or
something like that, something you want to have around for a
long time, then you really do want to have information around
what the next 30 or 50 or 100 years are possibly going to look
like.
So where I think the scientific community can fairly say is
learning how to do that, how to transfer that information and
how to make the--kind of that whole range of timeframes from
decade to decades to centuries available to people who need to
think in that regard.
Mr. Lucas. My fear from this increased demand for immediate
action is pushed down from the top, perhaps unrealistic
proposals that aren't practical. The last thing we want to do
is dramatically raise energy prices for America. Dr. Majkut,
with the growing demand for fossil fuels worldwide, what can we
do to ensure that we are leading the way with low-carbon energy
solutions?
Dr. Majkut. Well, in particular, I think the Committee
should continue to focus on and continue to be supportive of
advanced research efforts for the things we think we're going
to need in the future, and that means reliable, affordable low-
carbon energy. And in particular low carbon is the key thing
that the climate is worried about, so it doesn't particularly
matter whether that's energy that's going to come from a
windmill or a fancy kind of battery or is going to come from
fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, or advanced
nuclear. Instead, the target should be having a broad array of
energy sources that can be used here and abroad at affordable
levels and putting in place a research enterprise that is
pursuing them with real vigor.
Mr. Lucas. We make lots of investment in research in the
Federal Government, and that's an important thing. How does the
private sector advance what the government has started?
Dr. Majkut. Well, the private sector is going to be the
thing that actually scales those early run projects that
received justifiable governmental support into use, right?
That's the thing that's going to matter in sub-Saharan Africa,
is going to matter in Southeast Asia, is going to matter in
Oklahoma, how do those things compete in the marketplace. And
so making sure that those innovations diffuse out is a matter
of transitional policies and market design.
Mr. Lucas. From the back door of my house on the farm in
western Oklahoma I can see windmills, electric windmills from
one horizon to the other. Dr. Majkut, you have referred to the
goals set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as
ambitious. Is there a scenario in which those ambitious goals
can be reached by transitioning to 100 percent renewable? By
the way, those windmills don't always turn. They turn most of
the time. We're a great source, but not all the time. Is there
a scenario of how we could get to 100 percent renewable?
Dr. Majkut. You could probably write one out on paper where
it's physically possible, but I don't know that that's a
necessary thing to do. And in particular if, like me and a lot
of my colleagues and a lot of folks out in the--and your
constituents are concerned about climate and you want to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, having a broad portfolio of options
seems like the best choice, and there is a raft of literature
showing you that if you want a reliable, low-cost energy system
that has a lot less carbon emissions than we have today, you
want a wide variety of technologies available.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doc. I yield back the balance of my
time, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas. Ms.
Stevens?
Ms. Stevens. Thank you all so much for bringing your
expertise and time to today's hearing. We're privileged to be
able to engage with you.
Certainly on this topic we have two choices. We can either
embrace the need for climate change action and the embracing of
climate science through fear or we can embrace it through
opportunity. And I am so grateful that Dr. Mahowald was able to
bring her testimony to us through video. And my questions are
for you if we're able to ask questions of her. Are we able to
do that? OK. Fabulous. So how are we as a country measuring up
globally in terms of the actions that we are taking around
Federal investments to develop innovative technologies and
solutions to address the impacts of climate change?
Dr. Mahowald. Thank you very much for the question. You're
hearing me? Good.
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Mahowald. The United States is starting to get the
momentum to deal with climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Much of the adaptation efforts of course have started at the
local level, but they need to be moving across local, State,
and Federal levels. We need to be dealing more with the
adaptation efforts for climate change, as well as mitigation
across the board. At this point the Federal efforts have not
been consistent with what needs to happen for the ambitious
targets for climate change. And some of the States have been
reacting much more ambitiously than others, and there's several
studies suggesting that Federal-level coordination of the
States' efforts is much more efficient for the whole system in
terms of transitioning to lower-carbon mitigation targets.
Thank you.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Well, I happen to represent
suburban metro Detroit, the home of the Nation's automotive
sector, and our automotive industry is in the race for the
future, particularly around energy efficiency. And they see
where China and Europe is moving, and they're sort of waiting
on the United States. And so I was wondering if you could shed
a little bit more light in terms of any projections that you
might have that our country could capture in terms of return on
investment. Should we be making the right strategic investments
to lay the foundation for our industrial sector to be making
the investments in carbon neutrality?
Dr. Mahowald. Well, the transportation sector is an
important sector, and of course Detroit is the home of that in
the United States. Our competitors are investing heavily in
low-carbon options. China is trying to get rid of internal
combustion engines. India also has efforts in this area. The
United States has the technological and the business innovation
advantage. If we can use this, we can maintain our advantage in
the automobile industry and other industries as well. But more
coordination across the--at the Federal level, across the
Federal, State, and local levels will really help in this
effort. Thank you.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. I think it's fair to say that
there's the ``if not but for'' role the government can play.
Certainly industry is making their investments, but they're
waiting on the Federal Government to lay the foundation, set
the table, as we have in many ways where we created the
highways and we plowed fields, but we need to set the table.
And I want to get Dr. Kopp in just quickly with my
remaining time available because you also mentioned this in
your testimony saying that climate change is not just an
environmental challenge, it's an economic challenge. It's an
infrastructure challenge, a public health challenge, and a
national security challenge. And while we have your great
expertise in the room, I was wondering if you could maybe give
us a few points around how the United States can continue to be
a leader in addressing the impacts of climate change while also
maintaining our global economic power.
Dr. Kopp. Well, I want to come back to the thing I said at
the very end of my remarks, which is that we need to make
climate change a routine and integrated part of decisionmaking,
public and private sector, Federal, State, and local, right? We
make lots of decisions, particularly when we think about, say,
infrastructure investments or particularly when we think about
national security that play out over decades. And any time
we're thinking about changes over decades, we're thinking about
a world where the climate is changing in ways that we can
project. And so we have to move beyond using the past as a
guide to what we do and, when we're building a new rail tunnel
under the Hudson, say, or we're building new water
infrastructure, right, those need to be planned with all the
range of possible futures that we might project in mind.
Ms. Stevens. Yes, thank you. I yield back the remainder of
my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Kopp, I'm looking at your written testimony as opposed
to your oral testimony. On page three you state, quote,
``Climate change is real, it is here now, and humans are
responsible for it,'' end quote. Is that an accurate statement
of your quote?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, it is.
Mr. Brooks. And on page five of your written testimony you
state, quote, ``Global average sea level has risen by about 8
inches since 1900,'' end quote, citing the Climate Science
Special Report, Earth National Climate Assessment. Is that an
accurate reading of that quote?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, it is.
Mr. Brooks. Are you familiar with the Earth's last glacial
maximum roughly 21,000 years ago?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, I am.
Mr. Brooks. And is it fair to say that sea levels during
the last glacial maximum were roughly 400 feet lower than they
are today?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, it is.
Mr. Brooks. And would it also be fair to say, then, the sea
levels over the last 21,000 years, 400 divided by 21,000 or 210
centuries, sea levels have risen on average over that 21,000-
year period of time at roughly 2 feet per century?
Dr. Kopp. Well, it was concentrated in the first half of
that time, but yes.
Mr. Brooks. From the 21,000- to the 7,000-year-ago period
is the concentration, then it still increased--sea levels did--
but at a much lower rate during the last 7,000 years?
Dr. Kopp. When they stopped rising is a scientific
uncertainty, but certainly that by 7,000 years ago the giant
ice sheet that was sitting on North America was gone, and so
the contribution to sea level that came from that ice sheet
ended.
Mr. Brooks. So apparently, somewhere between 21,000 and
7,000 years ago we had a very significant rise in sea levels,
much more than the 2-feet-per-century average of the overall
21,000-year period. Did humans cause that?
Dr. Kopp. No, they did not.
Mr. Brooks. They did not. So there are other causes to sea-
level rises other than humans, and at least in this instance
over the last 21,000 years we're looking at an average sea-
level rise of 2 feet per century on average, 210 centuries, a
little over 400 feet total. What was the cause of that?
Dr. Kopp. Well, if you go back 21,000 years ago, my home
State was sitting in its northern edge is under about a mile of
ice, and that ice sheet, which we call the Lorne Tide, had a
whole lot of water locked up in it. And so as that ice melted,
sea level rose. We're now in a very different world where
there's--the ice on the planet is largely in--almost
exclusively in Antarctica and Greenland, and so what we're
concerned about now----
Mr. Brooks. OK. I'm not asking what we're concerned about
now. I'm asking what caused the 400 feet in sea-level rise over
the last 21,000 years? Would it be fair to say that it was
global warming?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, it would be.
Mr. Brooks. And what is it that caused that global warming
that began roughly 18 to 21,000 years ago?
Dr. Kopp. So that--we were in an Ice Age roughly 18,000
years ago, and the differences between the Ice Ages and the
periods like we're in now, which are called interglacials
because we're not in a glacial period, are paced by changes in
Earth's orbit, amplified by changes in carbon dioxide.
Mr. Brooks. OK. So there have been fluctuations in orbit,
perhaps changes in carbon dioxide, and perhaps also some change
in the actual tilt?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, well, when I talk about changes in orbit on
that frequency you're talking about where Earth is pointing,
what we call a precession.
Mr. Brooks. OK. And during the last glacial maximum, is it
fair to say that almost all of Canada was uninhabitable, along
with New England, New York, everything north of the Ohio River
was in effect uninhabitable?
Dr. Kopp. Certainly on the east side of the country, yes.
Mr. Brooks. And would it also be fair to say that certainly
at least in that instance, global warming was a desirable thing
if you're a Canadian?
Dr. Kopp. Well, there weren't many Canadians, but yes.
Mr. Brooks. Well, there weren't any back then.
Dr. Kopp. Over in the West there were, but yes.
Mr. Brooks. OK. Now, let's talk about the remedy for a
second. You may recall that in 2008 Dr. Steven Chu, who later
became President Obama's Secretary of Energy, stated that, to
combat climate change, quote, ``Somehow, we have to figure out
how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,''
end quote, which was about $8.70 per gallon. Do you agree with
Steven Chu that that is a remedy that the United States should
implement?
Dr. Kopp. Well, there's lots of policy solutions. My job
is----
Mr. Brooks. I'm just asking about this one. Yes or no?
Dr. Kopp. We are dumping CO2 into the
atmosphere. One way of dealing with the problem would be to put
a price on carbon that reflected the cost of that carbon
dioxide is imposing on the world.
Mr. Brooks. Is that a yes or a no?
Dr. Kopp. I'm going to give you the scientific answer and
say it depends. It's one of the solutions that would work.
Mr. Brooks. All right. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate the time.
Mrs. Fletcher [presiding]. Thank you. I'll now recognize
Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I thank
Chairwoman Johnson for holding what I think is a very important
hearing today and for our witnesses for joining us.
I am beyond excited that, as a Committee, we are committing
to seriously examining and addressing the urgent threat of
climate change. I'm glad that this majority is focused on
climate change and that we have stepped up to face the task at
hand. And in particular, as a Member of the Science Committee,
I am proud that after so many years of inaction, we are moving
forward and giving this critical issue the time and focus it
deserves and requires. Inaction is expensive.
As we address climate change, our planning must be science-
based and evidence-based. The overwhelming majority of the
scientific community knows that climate change is happening and
that we are already feeling the impacts. The scientific
evidence on climate change clearly tells us that we need to
take action. Taking action means there will be challenges but
also opportunities. We have a real opportunity to transform our
economy to one that is cleaner, safer, and more just. We have
the chance to advance clean-energy technologies, design the
infrastructure of the future that will help communities endure
and rethink every industry we have ever known. Investing in
solutions and resilience today will help manage and limit those
risks and serve as a foundation for job creation, healthier
communities, and economic opportunity.
It has been a decade since the House last seriously
attempted to address climate change, and with that, Dr.
Mahowald--and I will address you as a fellow upstate New
Yorker. And I know what weather can mean at this time of year,
so we're sorry that you're not with us, but thank you for
joining us via technology. So, Doctor, how has our
understanding of climate science and its impacts developed over
the past 10 years?
Dr. Mahowald. Thank you very much for the question and for
your understanding of upstate New York's weather.
Our understanding of climate science over the last 10 years
has really benefited from the leaps in technology in terms of
computer simulation, high--some of the big data analysis
methods that we now have. And some of what that has allowed us
to do is to really see the impacts of small changes in
temperature on humans and ecosystems. And this was highlighted
in the 1.5 report.
Often what scientists do is we simply look at the big
changes, but for this particular report we were asked to look
at the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees, and we focused on
that. Almost 6,000 new studies were assessed in that report and
really focused on what small changes in temperature can do in
terms of impacts on humans. And that report highlights that
small temperature changes, for example, can have a big impact.
Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And when many talk about
climate change, they associate the tone of urgency. Do you
think there's more or less urgency than we faced a decade ago?
Dr. Mahowald. Thank you for the question. I think there's
more urgency. Every day there's more people on this planet
asking for more energy, and we're building more facilities. And
right now, the technologies that people use, just by default,
are technologies that emit a lot of carbon dioxide. The faster
we can start using research, developing and deploying
technologies that don't emit as much CO2, this can
snowball into making it more and more economically feasible and
politically feasible. All the infrastructure will be there to
have lower-carbon technologies deployed. So the urgency is
twofold. It's both because we're accumulating this CO2
in the atmosphere, and in addition, we're accumulating
infrastructure and technology that emits a lot of
CO2. So there's a lot of urgency on the technology
side, and then of course we're seeing more and more impacts on
people. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much for your input and that of
Cornell routinely on these issues.
Dr. Ebi, according to both the IPCC's special report and
the NCA 4, climate change takes a toll on mental health. Those
who survive extreme weather events and see their communities
damaged can suffer from depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts,
and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A report notes that
droughts have led to an increase in alcohol and drug use and
higher temperatures are associated with more aggressive
behaviors. How does climate change affect mental health, and
what steps can the medical community take to ease the
psychological burden?
Dr. Ebi. Thank you. That's an excellent summary of how
climate change can affect mental health through exposure to
extreme events. There needs to be increased awareness about
this across the health professions so that there are greater
actions when we have these extreme events, that we do have
mental healthcare professionals available to help people after
an event. And we need a lot greater preparedness for these
events. If the United States was as prepared as it should be,
we wouldn't have seen the impacts we've seen over the last
couple of years. So investing in adaptation, investing in
making sure we understand what future risks could look like,
we're better able then to handle all of the challenges,
including the mental health ones. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Weber
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. Dr. Majkut,
you mentioned that there is, quote, ``No better incentive for
us than the private sector, but if you really want energy
innovation, you need to show the innovators there's a market
waiting for them,'' end quote. Dr. Majkut, I ran an air-
conditioning company for 35 years, built it from the ground up,
and I know that when the weather got hot, my business on the
Gulf Coast of Texas was in great demand. I will tell you this:
The more the Department of Energy raised energy ratings and
required that manufacturers build higher-efficient equipment,
the more that those units cost. And the more they cost--air
conditioning went up--the more the demand for that high-
efficient equipment went down because people were already hard-
pressed in living their lives and they couldn't afford higher
prices. And on the Gulf Coast of Texas you don't want to be
without air conditioning. Now, I don't know how many of you all
live in the southern part of the country, but it's extremely
important to us.
Applying this same developing concept to clean-energy
technologies, Dr. Majkut, how do we show innovators that there
is a demand and a market waiting for them?
Dr. Majkut. Well, it depends on the area in which you're
working, right?
Mr. Weber. Did I mention I live on the Gulf Coast of Texas?
Dr. Majkut. Sure did, sir.
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Majkut. There's a lot of things government can do to
create markets for innovation. A lot of them fall into other
committees' jurisdiction, right? You can use tax policy, you
could use incentive policies. I can't speak to the air-
conditioning example largely because it's not my area of
expertise, but I do know that we can look at cost-cutting
measures, we can look at technological innovation to make more
efficient air conditioners as an example, less costly at the
front. We can look at financing mechanisms that amortize a more
efficient air conditioner costs less to use over time, so how
do you find ways to help people make an upfront capital
investment, et cetera.
Mr. Weber. OK. I'm going to move along a little bit. That's
a great thought. As Ranking Member Lucas said, the push down
from the top was the last thing we want to do because it would
dramatically raise energy prices. And then there was some
discussion between the witnesses with one of the Members about
raising those energy prices. Do we raise those energy prices to
whatever it takes? I know, Dr. Kopp, you didn't have an exact
price, but do we just commit to raising them to whatever it
takes? Dr. Kopp?
Dr. Kopp. I would say a number of the policy solutions
you're talking about would raise the per-unit energy price, but
the idea behind trying to get the markets to work is that you
wouldn't necessarily be raising the amount that people are
spending on energy because, to take the air-conditioning
example that Dr. Majkut was talking about, right, it costs a
little bit more up front just like solar costs a little bit
more than a coal-powered plant upfront----
Mr. Weber. But the----
Dr. Kopp. But you spend less over time----
Mr. Weber. OK. I----
Dr. Kopp [continuing]. And so not--a lot of these policies
wouldn't necessarily----
Mr. Weber. So----
Dr. Kopp [continuing]. Increase----
Mr. Weber. Let me move down. So, Dr. Francis, whatever
price it takes to get to that point, is that kind of the
philosophy here? Does it matter if we raise energy prices?
Dr. Francis. I don't think it's fair to say that whatever
cost it takes, but I think we need to have a strategic plan
for----
Mr. Weber. Would you put a percentage on that? Raise them
10 percent, 20 percent, 15 percent?
Dr. Francis. Energy policy is not my area of expertise----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Dr. Francis [continuing]. And economics is not in my field
of expertise----
Mr. Weber. Fair enough.
Dr. Francis [continuing]. But I feel that putting a higher
price on energy----
Mr. Weber. Let me jump----
Dr. Francis [continuing]. Would do what we want it to do.
Mr. Weber. Let me jump over to Dr. Ebi here. Any price, 10
percent more, 15 percent more?
Dr. Ebi. The question is partially what's the price but
also how do you manage that. And is some of that price turned
back----
Mr. Weber. Well, that's a growing technology, and we want
America to be in the lead, American business and enterprise,
right, to be in the lead for this, but I think there is a price
where you make it so untenable for Americans that all of a
sudden they kind of get turned off to the idea, and we don't
want to do that. That's my point.
Let me move on. Mr. Lucas said that in his State, he's got
lots of windmills. And I think you said you could see them from
one horizon to the next. Have you ever noticed that on the
hottest day of the year the windmills aren't turning, and
that's why it's the hottest day of the year? I mean, it's
unbelievable that--we can't rely on those.
When it comes to national security--and you mentioned this,
Dr. Kopp, actually in your comments--we're going to need a
backup that our country can depend on, and it's going to have
to be fossil fuel. I can tell you about requirements for
energy. I'm working on nuclear energy capability. It needs to
be at the table. It needs to be a major part of our portfolio.
So we've got to take these things into account. And I
appreciate you all being here today. And I'm out of time, Ms.
Fletcher.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr. Foster for
5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair. And first, I'd like to
thank Chairwoman Johnson for convening this important hearing.
The climate challenges facing humanity are large, and
unfortunately, serious debate on the best paths forward has
often been stifled by the politization of this issue, at least
in this Committee.
For years, too often we found ourselves wasting time
arguing with non-technical witnesses about, for example,
whether or not it's a matter of scientific debate, whether or
not it would be a good thing if the Greenland ice sheet melted.
But--and so I was really thrilled to see some of the changes
that appear to be occurring in this Committee.
Over the last several years I have to say on a personal
note I have grown truly tired of introducing myself as the only
Ph.D. natural scientist in the U.S. Congress. And to that end,
I am thrilled to welcome onto the Committee and into Congress
Dr. Jim Baird as the second Ph.D. national--natural scientist
in the U.S. Congress. And I would also like to congratulate my
Republican colleagues on their wisdom in appointing him as the
Ranking Member of the Research Subcommittee.
More to that point, I'd also like to thank Ranking Member
Lucas and my Republican colleagues for selecting Dr. Majkut as
their witness for this hearing. He's someone with a Ph.D. in
relevant science and someone with views who are--which are
inside the scientific mainstream, and that's refreshing. He is
also someone obviously who understands that the question here
is not whether or not this problem is real but rather what is
the most cost-effective way of solving it, and that is a
refreshing change because on this Committee, we have to look
deeply at the balance of research and policy spending to solve
this problem.
In terms of that, the best way forward, particularly the
newer Members on the Committee will be faced with just a
mountain of things that have been written on this, and what I
consider the best synthesis that I've seen was actually
presented by former Energy Secretary Moniz in his testimony to
the Senate last week. In a report that he highlighted by the
Energy Futures Initiative, which he's one of the leaders on,
entitled, ``Advancing the Landscape of Clean Energy
Innovation'' really to my mind touches the main points of what
knobs we should be operating in our government both in terms of
technological research, private-sector efforts, and public-
private partnerships to solve this problem.
And so with that, I would at this point like to ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record the report of the
Energy Futures Initiative entitled, ``Advancing the Landscape
of the Clean Energy Innovation.''
Mrs. Fletcher. Without objection.
Mr. Foster. And so now I actually have one technical
question for the entire panel. It seems to me that one of the
changes in the last several years in the thinking on climate,
is the rising of the profile of methane as a significant
greenhouse gas, that if you look at the impressive progress,
apparent progress in the decarbonization of the United States,
a big part of that is by converting coal to natural gas use.
And it now appears true that a significant--a large single-
digit percentage of the methane that we burn actually gets
vented, wasted, vented directly to the atmosphere without--
before combustion. And so if that is true, the fact that it's
such a potent greenhouse gas really negates a lot of the
progress in converting coal to natural gas. And apparently the
technology to detect the thousands of small methane leaks is
tough, and it's not going to be cheap. So I wonder if you had
any thinking on what we do about the methane problem and where
the research that could really make a difference there would
be. We can just go down the line if you want.
Dr. Kopp. Yes, I mean, I think we're sort of throwing money
away and hurting the environment when you have natural gas
leaks and there has been a lot of discussion about how much--
how large those leaks are. All the incentives are there to try
to solve those problems, and if it's not happening, that might
be a good area for this Committee to figure out how to push it
along.
Mr. Foster. Yes, I think one of the difficulties I've heard
pronounced is that it's simply finding a very large number of
small leaks is not cost-effective in terms of the savings in
natural gas, and that's one of the things that makes it tough
at least with current technology.
Dr. Francis. So I would just like to bring up another issue
related to methane, and that is the fact that the permafrost
areas in the high Arctic are warming dramatically. We expect to
see a lot more thawing happen. And when permafrost thaws, the
biological material that's frozen in those soils can decompose
then and become either methane or carbon dioxide. And we're
seeing the warming happening much faster up there in general
and in the Arctic overall. And the loss of sea ice, which is a
clear symptom of global warming, is contributing to the
acceleration of that thawing of the permafrost. So this is
another issue that I think we need to take very seriously,
especially in the methane discussion.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And it appears my----
Mrs. Fletcher. Mr. Foster, your time has expired.
I'd now like to recognize Mr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. Thank
you all for being here as expert witnesses.
And we heard a little history a while ago. I had to leave
the room for a minute, but I did catch the end of it, very
interesting because I love history. Are you familiar, Dr. Kopp,
with the Norse settlements in Iceland and Greenland but--in and
around the year 1000 and that there was farming and animal
husbandry in Greenland for nearly 300 years, which lasted up
until about 1300 and then we had what we call the Little Ice
Age, which lasted up until about 1700, and then the Greenland
colony disappeared. But it's archaeologically sound evidence
that told us that it did last that long. What could have
possibly caused the climate to change so much that we would
have farming and animal husbandry in Greenland for a period of
2-1/2, 3 centuries? Could you have blamed that on human
emissions or can you give me an answer to that question?
Dr. Kopp. So there are fluctuations that we see in
circulation in the North Atlantic. There's something called the
North Atlantic oscillation. That might have had a role to play
there. The Little Ice Age, which was then triggered, may have
had something to do with volcanic emissions. The details of
that are still an area of research. A lot of that is more of a
localized phenomenon in the North Atlantic. There's some global
temperature change, but that global temperature cooling
actually starts around 1000 just so you----
Mr. Babin. What you're saying is we don't really know, but
in the opinion of everybody sitting at the table up there, was
it more advantageous to have a little warming going on around
the globe or was it more advantageous to have a little cooling
going around the globe? Because during the Little Ice Age we
lost lots and lots of humans to various causes that are in
response and as a direct result of dropping temperatures. How
would you answer it?
Dr. Kopp. Well, it's a----
Mr. Babin. I would say that it would be more advantageous
to have lived in a climate that was a little bit warmer.
Dr. Kopp. Yes, so I would say that over that period we're
talking about a very small change in global temperature,
roughly .3 +F, so it's worth keeping that in context when we're
talking about the
2 +F, so almost 10 times as much than we've seen over the last
century.
Mr. Babin. Anybody else want to answer that?
Dr. Majkut. Yes, Mr. Babin, I think the way I think about
it is not that there is an ideal temperature that we know for
certain that human flourishing will be maximal. Science can't
really tell us that in a meaningful way. What we do know is
we've built our society around the temperatures that we've
encountered over the last 200, 300 years. And as Dr. Kopp says,
we're fixing to change those temperatures quite a bit. And that
rapid transition is the cause for concern.
Mr. Babin. But we do know that when Canada and the eastern
part--upper part of the United States was uninhabitable during
the Ice Age, that it certainly wouldn't have been conducive to
economic development. I just feel like, you know, there's no
question that our climate is changing, no question whatsoever,
but to blame everything on human activity and expect the United
States of America, the taxpayers in our country, to pick up the
tab to pay carbon taxes and for carbon footprints and lower
their quality of life and standard of living and increase the
cost of living while our biggest polluters around the world
absolutely go scot-free and continue. So it's hard for me to
justify how we could be expected to pay that kind of a price.
And I want to ask one more question, too. Do you support a
transparent and full accounting of cost, benefits, and
projected impacts to the global climate of individual climate
policy proposals? I'm going to ask Dr. Ebi. Is it the way you
pronounce your name? I'm sorry.
Dr. Ebi. That's fine. It's a difficult name. But thank you
for the question.
Mr. Babin. OK.
Dr. Ebi. We do need a full accounting, and that does happen
under the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate
Change at least in terms of emissions. And we know the United
States alone is responsible for 25 percent of all emissions.
There are efforts to try and understand better how much the
cost of those emissions are in terms of impacts on our health,
impacts on our ecosystems, our livelihoods, on our economies.
And there's a growing amount of work looking at what the
benefits of action would be.
Just from the health sector we know that the health
benefits of many mitigation policies are of the same order of
magnitude as the cost of mitigation, that if we get more people
to ride their bicycles, to walk to work, to change their diets,
to have less exposure to particulates, the avoided premature
deaths, the avoided hospitalizations are a very large amount of
money that would offset the cost of emission reductions. So we
do need to look much more broadly at the cost and the benefits,
taking into account who bears the cost and who reaps the
benefits and how to make sure that this is done in a way that's
as fair as possible.
Mr. Babin. But if we are responsible for 25 percent of the
emissions, as you say, then why should we pay nearly 100
percent of the cost? Because it sounds like that's the
direction that you folks would have us go. And I think my time
is over and expired, so----
Mrs. Fletcher. Yes, sir, I believe your time is expired.
Mr. Babin. Thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Now, I actually am going to recognize myself
for 5 minutes for questions.
And I represent the western side of Houston and the greater
Houston area along the Texas Gulf Coast along with some of my
colleagues on the panel. It is also the heart of the energy
industry. And Dr. Francis mentioned hurricane Harvey in her
remarks this morning. Harvey, as we all know, was one of the
most devastating disasters in our history. It was also our
third 500-year storm in a span of less than 3 years, so we are
seeing increased frequency and intensity of weather events. We
are also seeing the risks of sea-level rise and concern about
storm surge in our community.
And in our district, we understand that climate change is
real, and we believe working together in a collaborative way is
the best approach for us to tackle this challenge. That means
collaboration between research institutions, industry, and
governments at the Federal, State, and local levels. So we
believe that everyone has to be a part of the solution and a
part of addressing this challenge.
And with that in mind, I have a few questions relating to
these topics, first for Dr. Francis. Can you tell us briefly
what the science tells us now about the intensity of the
extreme weather events that we've experienced and how that
might or will change in the future?
Dr. Francis. Yes, thank you for the question. As I
mentioned in my oral testimony, there are certain things that
we know for sure are happening in the climate system. And
Houston is probably in the crosshairs of a lot of those. You
have seen, as you said, increased flooding. We know that heavy
precipitation events are increasing dramatically. You've seen
heat waves increasing. You've even seen drought increasing. And
we also expect to see tropical storms intensifying more
rapidly, and potentially we expect to see more of the very
strongest tropical storms. A lot of those things are very
clear, and what is a little less clear relates back to Harvey
and some of the extreme events that you all have witnessed and
experienced, and that is we're also seeing an increase in the
persistence of weather regimes. So it could be dry, it could be
hot, it could be cold, it could be wet, but we're seeing an
increased persistence, and we believe that that is also related
to climate change.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much. And, more broadly for
the panel, we do believe it's important to include everyone in
working together on these solutions, so, in particular, do any
of you have experience with or suggestions on how the energy
industry can work together with your institutions and with
those of us who are making policy to be part of the solution
toward climate mitigation? And I should also add I believe that
they already are, and certainly in my district most of the
industries have acknowledged and are working to combat climate
change, but any specific ideas you have of policies or programs
you think would be helpful for this Committee to know?
Dr. Kopp. Well, so there's sort of a style of doing science
that I think very much gets at this, and that's science that is
sort of stakeholder-engaging and the jargon is
transdisciplinary, but basically the idea is start with a
problem, right? The problem is the resilience of the energy
system off of Houston. And then you're going to get together
the different disciplines that you need to address it, you're
going to get together stakeholders, and you're going to do the
research together in a partnership. And that's a very different
style of doing research than what's traditionally happened in
universities. And I think we need to be rethinking a little bit
of that part of the climate science enterprise to sort of make
this more of a problem-focused thing.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. Dr. Ebi?
Dr. Ebi. Thank you. It's a very good question, and I want
to echo that working with stakeholders is critically important
in this process. And to step back more broadly and say that
companies want to have healthy workers and healthy communities.
They don't want to see their workers flooded, they don't want
to see the impacts on their workers and on their families. And
so there are ways that one can work together to try and ensure
the resilience of the community while the companies work to
ensure their own resilience to make sure that, as these extreme
events occur, they are not affected, that their facilities are
not affected, so facilitating those partnerships at the
Federal, State, and local levels is critically important.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much. My time has expired, so
I will yield back the remainder and now recognize Mr. Baird for
5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is my first
congressional Committee hearing, so I hope you'll excuse me if
I make any procedural errors. And I'd prefer you not express
those to me. I'll just take that. I'm honored to be here in
that capacity and to be able to have the discussion that we're
having today about climate change. I do appreciate my colleague
Dr. Foster for those kind words.
But as a farmer and an animal scientist, I know the
importance of leaving the land healthier than how we found it
for our next generation. I've got grandchildren, but I think
it's important to those children and grandchildren. And so the
health of the land has always been a concern for agriculture
people, and that is important to our ability to feed ourselves.
But in that vein, I also recognize that the natural
evolution process over time, the tremendous ability of
mammalian tissue or mammals and plant tissue to adapt to their
environment, I don't see much discussion about that in some of
the presentations. But I do find your presentations extremely
interesting and very insightful.
I would like to just point out a couple things. Dr. Ebi,
not picking on you in any particular reason, but, for example,
we mention 729 children died from heatstroke from 1990 to 2014,
so I guess my question there is, is that because the
automobiles were better, or the children are less exposed to
their environment than we have in previous centuries and so on?
So I think we need to take those kind of factors in when we
make those predictions about the impact of the climate on some
of the issues we're concerned about.
For example, the elderly, are we older as a generation, so
we're becoming more susceptible as we age and so compared to 50
years ago we're living a lot longer. And so those are just
things that if you want to respond to that, you're welcome to.
It was really more of a comment than anything, but I'll give
you that option.
Dr. Ebi. Well, thank you. And thank you for those comments,
and I do have a couple of short responses. On the evolution,
the climate now is changing faster than it's been in 10,000
years, and so it is a challenge for many of our plants and
other species to try and evolve fast enough in the face of this
rapid rate of change.
In terms of the children dying in cars, the data were only
collected over a certain period, so we don't have data from
before then. But the point is as temperatures are going up and
we're seeing more heat waves, we're seeing higher temperatures
in summer, people don't realize how quickly cars heat up. And
so it's terribly unfortunate how many infants are dying in cars
because people don't realize, as they say I'm only going to be
gone for a minute, that that minute may be too much for an
infant in the higher temperatures we're experiencing now.
Mr. Baird. I really understand that and can appreciate
that, and I think that's a tremendous mistake that parents
make. But my question comes back to, is that because the cars
are tighter, the windshields are better, the glass heats up
more, and so on? No excuse for leaving those children, and I
don't want to comment about that. That's OK. We're OK there.
But I do have some questions for Dr. Majkut. In the
developing field of technology, the United States, I think we
ought to be a leader in that because we have the ability and
the talent to do it. We have the research capability. So my
question to you is, are we behind other countries in our
developing a cleaner environment, cleaner energy sources?
Dr. Majkut. It's a tough question to answer. I think the
answer probably varies on exactly where you answer. I think in
bulk, no. The U.S. research enterprise is really strong. We
provide a lot of resources to that enterprise. And if you look
at environmental performance not just on climate but on other
issues over the last decades, we're doing pretty well.
Mr. Baird. So would it be fair to say that our country
makes a lot more investments in cleaner energy sources than
another country around the world in terms of reducing our
pollution even though we use a lot of the fossil fuels?
Dr. Majkut. I don't know. I don't know the relative
spending, sorry.
Mr. Baird. OK. Agriculture is extremely important, as I
expressed. It's extremely important to my district, and so we
have Purdue University in the area, and Dr. Dukes has also
provided some assessment of what the climate change has on
agriculture, but it can impact growing season, plant growth,
animals, and some of the things that's already been discussed.
So what do you think we ought to be doing right now to correct
these areas? What are some of the things you think you might be
able to do relatively rapidly?
Dr. Majkut. On farming specifically?
Mrs. Fletcher. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Baird. All these procedures, I tell you. Thank you very
much.
Mrs. Fletcher. I now recognize Mr. Bera--Dr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher. You look good in
that chair, by the way.
First off, it is glad that we're kicking off this Congress
and this Committee with a hearing on climate science, on
climate change and really taking a look at what we can do to
try to mitigate this. And you will hear aspirational goals. You
can call them whatever you want, if it's a Green New Deal or
something, but aspirational goals are not things that we should
shy away from as the United States.
If we look at our own legacy and our own history going back
to the--throughout our history but, recent history in the 1960s
when President Kennedy challenged us to go to the moon, we had
no idea how we were going to do it. It was an aspirational
goal, but we put all of our intellect, industry into that, and
we accomplished it. And we accomplished it faster than the
President challenged us, so let's not be afraid of setting
these aspirational goals. And we know from going to the moon
and the whole Apollo program, it was economically sound as well
because we can think about all the industries and innovation
and discovery that came from that.
I'm proud to be a Californian. I'm a lifelong Californian.
And in our State we did pass legislation recently that moves us
to the goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2045. That is an
aspirational goal. But we also know we're the fifth-largest
economy in the world. It hasn't stifled our economy. In fact,
there's over 500,000 clean and renewable energy jobs in
California, and that's growing. So, again, we don't have to be
afraid of setting those goals.
Dr. Kopp, I think you mentioned getting to that goal of
net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions. I think that's an
aspirational goal, but let's set that goal out there and then
let's work toward it and use our innovation and intellect to
get there.
I've got from a science perspective and a question--and
I'll let all the witnesses comment on this--there's also the
issue of the carbon that is already sequestered in our
atmosphere. And from the scientific perspective, what are the
things we're not talking about mitigating future emissions, but
are there ideas out there for us to degrade the carbon that
already is up there that is trapped?
Dr. Kopp. I don't know if Dr. Mahowald wants to take first
crack at that.
Mr. Bera. Sure, whoever wants--go ahead.
Dr. Mahowald. I'm happy to speak if I'm able.
Mr. Bera. Yes, please.
Dr. Mahowald. The removal of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere is--innovative new technologies are moving in this
direction, and we do need more investment in this type of
research development and deployment of these technologies.
There are some sectors that are going to be very difficult to
cut the CO2 emissions from, and removing carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere is a very good method of reducing
climate risk at the same time as we are working to mitigate as
well as adapt in other areas. So, for example, if you want to
sequester more carbon in agricultural soil, this not only
reduces the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it also makes the
agricultural soil more resilient to climate change as an
example. But there's two recent National Academies reports on
how to look at carbon dioxide removal, and I think it's an area
that the United States should invest more research and set up
the business environment to allow companies to invest more in.
Thank you.
Mr. Bera. Great, thank you. Dr. Kopp?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, just to add onto that, there's a wide range
of approaches you can take from expanding forests, which is
slow but we know works, to a variety of technological
approaches. As I said in my opening remarks, they're sort of
new and untested. I think one thing to keep in mind is that the
amount of warming we have is roughly proportional to the--all
the CO2 we've emitted, so if we want to reverse
warming by removing CO2 from the atmosphere, we're
going to have to talk about building infrastructure that's of a
scale comparable to that that we're currently using to put
CO2 into the atmosphere, right? So the first use of
these technologies is going to be, as Dr. Mahowald mentioned,
for areas where it's hard to get the CO2 out. But if
we want to talk about reversing climate change, you're talking
about a huge growth of this area using technologies that are
still really to be developed.
Mr. Bera. Right. Any last comments, please?
Dr. Ebi. One last comment to go to what you said at the
beginning, I'm at a very large State university, and students
are so excited about the possibilities of working in this area.
Students want to contribute to the solutions. They want the
training so that they can be part of this transition that we're
going to undergo.
Mr. Bera. So it's a lot like those of us who were growing
up in the 1960s during the space race. It's inspiring. And
let's not be afraid of setting those aspirational goals.
I'll yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. And before we move on to our next
questions, I would like to enter into the record without
objection a consensus letter to Congress from 31 nonpartisan
scientific societies that acknowledge and affirm human
contributions to climate change and notes the severity of
climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to
increase substantially in the coming decades.
And with that, I recognize Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
So my district's in northeast Florida. I grew up on Florida
beaches. The seas are rising. Anyone who's grown up there knows
that the beach is smaller than when I was a child. I just don't
see how that's disputable. But I do want America to lead this
effort. We've led the world in coal, oil, and gas development.
Now we need to do it with rapidly growing clean-energy markets.
I think to succeed we need a very broad portfolio of--emphasis
here--low-cost technologies to speed the transition to
renewable cleaner energy. I think that includes nuclear
undeniably.
I would caution my colleagues, we have seen a lot of
aspirational goals lately. I think we need to be very careful
about crossing the line from aspirational to outlandish goals
that could harm our economy and frankly give the edge to our
global competitors in doing so and frankly take us backward in
this effort.
So I'm very concerned as a veteran as well about the
national security implications of global warming. I have first-
hand seen and unfortunately could not count the amount of
soldiers that have died carrying diesel fuel back and forth to
outposts that we could have sustained through clean
technologies. I've seen--not to mention our global supply
chains and not to mention I've spent a lot of time in Africa,
Lake Chad basin where we're dealing with the destabilizing
effects in Nigeria, Niger, what have you.
So my question for each of the panelists is what R&D--I
mean, Dr.--did I say this right--Majkut?
Dr. Majkut. Majkut.
Mr. Waltz. Majkut, excuse me. You said we're doing pretty
well in our investments, particularly relative to the rest of
the world, and my question for each of you is, where are we
not--across the menu of clean-energy technologies, where do we
need to do more? And again, keeping this in the context of our
broader economic base that I think we need to sustain all of
these efforts. So where could we do more? Geothermal--and I'd
ask you to choose. The answer can't be yes, all of the above.
Dr. Majkut. Let me say first we could be doing more, right?
Like the scale of the challenge and a lot of the concerns that
your colleagues point out about increasing costs with present-
day technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, those are
real and valid concerns. And in particular, you can't expect
these things to scale unless the prices at which they're
trading are competitive. So on the whole, doing more is not
necessarily a bad thing, and then doing more smartly is
probably the thing that the Committee should really pay
attention to.
When I read these IPCC reports or the National Climate
Assessment or these other documents, the places where it seems
like the technology hasn't caught up with the need, carbon
capture and storage is one, right? This allows us to use fossil
fuels without--for power generation and take advantage of all
of their desirable characteristics without emitting----
Mr. Waltz. To make it more cost-effective or just to do it?
Dr. Majkut. In large part simply to do it. There are very
few facilities----
Mr. Waltz. OK.
Dr. Majkut [continuing]. At which this is happening.
Mr. Waltz. But just in the interest of time, my
understanding is the majority of our dams in the United States
do not generate electricity. Nuclear accounts for about 1/5 of
the United States' electrical generation right now. And then of
course, we're seeing just a boom in natural gas and where we
can go with it. Would you agree that those are all areas where
we can make greater investments that would make a difference on
this issue?
Dr. Majkut. Yes.
Mr. Waltz. Would any of the other panelists want to weigh
in on either of those questions?
Dr. Francis. Thank you. So I'm from Massachusetts, and in
Massachusetts we've had incentives for solar energy for about a
decade now, and many roofs have solar panels on them. To put a
solar array on your roof now, the payback period is about 6
years before you start basically making money on your
investment. It saddens me to fly over your State frankly
because I look down and I see almost no roofs with solar panels
on them, and you're just missing a huge opportunity. And yes,
it took some incentives to get the ball rolling down the hill,
but now, the incentives in Massachusetts are disappearing and
still people are putting solar on their roofs.
Mr. Waltz. I would point out to that in Samsula, Florida,
Florida Power & Light has a 1,200 solar facility, and it's
estimated to provide electricity to 14,000 homes, 30 million
solar panels by 2030, but I'm sure we could all collectively do
more. Those are State incentives to be clear----
Dr. Francis. That's--yes.
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. At the State level or local level.
Dr. Francis. Yes.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you so much. I yield my time.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Bonamici for
5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to thank Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas
for holding this hearing, and I also wanted to take just a
moment to say congratulations to the environmental--Environment
Subcommittee Chair Representative Fletcher and wish her a very
happy birthday. Thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. So thank you to the witnesses for being here
today. The science is clear. I've been on this Committee the
entire time I've been in Congress. We've had this conversation
many times. This--consequences of inaction on climate change
will be serious and swift. The findings of the recent report
from the International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, and
the Fourth National Climate Assessment are not just a wake-up
call; they are an alarm. At the time when the world is facing
record heat waves, droughts, more acidic oceans, rising sea
levels, and a surge of--in extreme weather patterns, we must
fight for comprehensive policies to protect the health of our
oceans and our planet.
I was concerned when the Trump Administration appeared to
be burying the Fourth National Climate Assessment. They
released it late on a--like late on a holiday weekend, so I
shared findings from the assessment on Twitter every day for 6
weeks to call attention to the assessment when the President
dismissed the findings in a Washington Post interview last
year. I worked with my colleague on this Committee, Mr. Beyer.
We led 96 of our colleagues in urging the President to heed the
dire warning of the assessment and work with us to protect the
health of our planet.
The assessment is the most comprehensive science-based
evaluation of the consequences of climate change, the risks of
inaction and potential adaptation strategies for the United
States to date. We cannot and should not dismiss its findings.
Dr. Ebi, according to the air quality chapter, volume 2, of
the assessment, more than 100 million people in the United
States live in communities where air pollution exceeds health-
based air quality standards. Climate change will increase the
risk of unhealthy air quality. How are children, older adults,
low-income individuals, communities of color, and those
experiencing discrimination disproportionately affected by
climate change, and what could we do to mitigate the health
consequences of climate change for these vulnerable
populations?
Dr. Ebi. Thank you for the question. And this is a very
serious concern that there are people who are differentially
exposed to poor air quality. It's from particulate matter, it's
from ozone, and it's also from things like pollen. And so
people in the groups that you mentioned often live in
communities that have much higher exposure, and it's an
opportunity, going back to the question we had a few minutes
ago, of looking at issues like energy efficiency to make sure
that we reduce how much comes out of our tailpipes so that
people don't have so much exposure.
I will note that the United States cannot sell cars in
China because we cannot meet their emissions standards. So
there's lots of opportunities to reduce emissions. Reduced
emissions also from coal-fired power plants is incredibly
important to protect people's health.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. We also save healthcare costs, and
we want to do that obviously.
Dr. Kopp, I noticed in your written testimony there's a
sentence that you have in there about in 1990 President George
H.W. Bush signed the Global Warming Response Act of 1990. I
just want to note that that was a long time ago, and we still
need to respond.
The coastal effects chapter of volume 2 of the Fourth
National Climate Assessment states that 13.1 million people are
potentially at risk of needing to migrate because of sea-level
rise by the year 2100, creating drastic consequences for
socially and economically marginalized and low-income groups.
In your testimony, you discuss how climate change is an
infrastructure challenge. We're having a lot of infrastructure
conversations here on the Hill. What infrastructure investments
and strategies should Congress address now to prepare for
rising sea levels and avoid catastrophic damage?
Dr. Kopp. Well, of course, that's a complicated question
because infrastructure is fundamentally local, and so the
answer is going to differ depending on where you are. The
fundamental thing is if you're building infrastructure that's
going to be around for 80 years like--it is foolish not to take
into account changing climate conditions and changing sea-level
rise for that period and know when you build that what you're
going to do if it turns out we're on a relatively, say, low
sea-level rise course and what we're going to do if it turns
out we're on a relatively high sea-level rise course. We
aren't--we don't know yet because it depends both on ice sheet
physics that are still being studied and on greenhouse gas
emissions that we haven't admitted yet whether we're going to
see 2 feet of sea-level rise over the course of this century or
more than 6 feet. And those have very different implications,
and so we need to be thinking about we can build flexibility
into our designs and coupling the infrastructure designs and
deployment to the science that will tell us that information as
soon as it can.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and I
am just about out of time, so I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr. Norman for
5 minutes.
Mr. Norman. I want to thank the panel for taking the time.
Mr. Majkut, I think what's been said here--and I'll ask all
the panel--this country's--and I'm from South Carolina. I'm a
real estate developer. Is the figure right? We contribute 20
percent to emissions as opposed to other countries?
Dr. Majkut. If I'm correct, it's slightly less than like,
maybe 15, 16, but ballpark it's right.
Mr. Norman. OK. And I've heard the other comments that
everybody needs to pay. How do we--if we're 16 percent--pick
your figure--how will we make the other 82 percent pay their
fair share?
Dr. Majkut. So like, first of all, we can generate a lot of
innovative technologies here in the United States using our
research enterprises that are exportable. We can share that
knowledge through formal arrangements or informal ones or
simply through exports. We can also demonstrate using a variety
of policy instruments that it is possible to have a thriving
economy and a healthy society with lower greenhouse gas
emissions, and we can export those models as well.
Mr. Norman. OK. Anybody--any of the other panelists have
any comments on that?
Dr. Mahowald. I'd be happy to comment.
Mr. Norman. Yes, ma'am.
Dr. Mahowald. The other thing to recognize with this very
good question is that under the Paris Agreement, countries have
voluntarily agreed to cut emissions, and people have evaluated
the cost of these and the relative cost to gross domestic
product (GDP). And actually the United States' voluntary
contribution is actually quite low compared to its GDP. So
other countries are volunteering to do more than their fair
share. Thank you.
Mr. Norman. If that's the case, then it's really apparent
now we need to put a price tag on--prioritize or put a price
tag, is that right, on what this is going to cost like the
green energy deal that--we're probably going to vote on. It's a
nonbinding resolution. But before we go doing away with
flatulent cows, airplanes, we need to put a price on it, don't
we?
Dr. Majkut. Yes, from a public policy perspective we should
always be cognizant of the costs and benefits of the choices
we're making and try to be judicious in moving forward, seeking
low-cost options.
Mr. Norman. Yes. And in my world, you find your goal, put a
price tag on it, and then move from there. And I think everyone
would agree this is going to cost dollars. It's going to cost
and I think Mr. Kopp--Dr. Kopp, you wouldn't put a figure on
how much we're going to have to pay for gas, but it's going to
be more expensive than what we've been paying, is that right?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, so I think certainly the upfront cost of
energy will go up, but average costs may go down. And I think
it's really important that when we look at the costs, we're
looking at the costs of climate change in comparison; there's a
lot of economic work going on to try to evaluate those two, and
these have to be balanced against one another.
Mr. Norman. They have to be balanced. And would it not be
fair with increased costs, whatever figure we end up with,
you're going to rule out some of our most vulnerable
communities that are not going to have access to energy, as an
example. What kind of cost would that be to them and their
health through PTSD, through their mental health? How would we
put a number on that?
Dr. Majkut. Well, I mean, I think the intent is not to like
overly punish any particular class of people or any particular
technology. It's to put in place a system that we all are going
to benefit from in the long-term. And that means that for day-
to-day activities that people are going about, that they're
able to do that in a low-carbon way. Great. What we need to do
as a society is find ways that that doesn't end up being too
costly. And frankly, I don't know that it is going to be too
costly. It's just a matter of making smart investments, leading
the way to innovation, and then scaling those up through the
private sector.
Mr. Norman. Dr. Majkut, if, as an example, this Green New
Deal were implemented immediately, wouldn't you agree it's
going to devastate our economy, and other countries are going
to take up the practices that we are eliminating as in the cows
that they grow, the other areas that we are going to have to--
they will make the difference up in this even though we don't?
Dr. Majkut. Yes, in fact, the Green New Deal is a moving
target, not sure what it is, but based on my understanding from
the resolution that's been introduced, as well as the things
that have been said by its primary backers, the
decarbonization, that is reducing the CO2 associated
with economic activity, is one of the cheapest elements of the
Green New Deal.
Mr. Norman. Thank you so much. I'm out of time. I yield
back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair and I thank the witnesses
this morning.
Natural gas sounds great compared to coal, but the more
effectiveness of natural gas and reflecting infrared radiation
compared to carbon dioxide means that if just 2 percent of the
produced gas escapes into the atmosphere, the efficiency
benefit over coal is lost. Does anyone on the panel disagree
with that? No? Does anyone want to make a remark about that?
OK. Thank you.
Dr. Mahowald. If I could say something?
Mr. McNerney. Sure, go ahead.
Dr. Mahowald. Well, thank you for the question. One of the
differences between methane and carbon dioxide is how long they
reside in the atmosphere, so in the short-term methane can be
very bad for the climate, as well as for air quality, but most
of the impacts of methane are actually on air quality. But
methane only lasts about 10 years in the atmosphere whereas
carbon dioxide, 20 to 30 percent of it is going to last
centuries to thousands of years.
So in terms of trying to solve the really big climate
problem, we should focus on CO2. Methane is a big
problem for air quality, especially and a little bit for
climate, but we should try to mitigate the methane as much as
possible. But it is actually lucrative to capture, so it's a
much easier target.
Mr. McNerney. That's a good point. We need to capture it--
--
Dr. Mahowald. Studies show that it's economic--that it's
actually economically feasible----
Mr. McNerney. OK.
Dr. Mahowald [continuing]. To capture much more methane if
people were careful about it.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Kopp, how can positive
feedback loops accelerate climate change?
Dr. Kopp. Well, there--positive feedback loops are sort of
a core part of how the climate system works, so to take one
example, if we put more CO2 into the atmosphere,
that causes some amount of the warming. It causes melting of
ice in the Arctic. It makes the Arctic less reflective, so that
causes more warming. When we talk about, say, tipping points in
the climate system, which is language I don't love but is used,
there--all of those tipping points are driven by positive
feedbacks having to do with things like, for instance, ice
sheet ocean interactions leading to rapid loss of the Antarctic
ice sheet.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Dr. Ebi, briefly, would you identify some
research that the Federal Government should be engaged in on
climate change it's not doing right now?
Dr. Ebi. Thank you for the question. There are so many
opportunities to increase the research enterprise in this area.
I'll speak specifically for health. There is almost no Federal
research dollars going into research on the health impacts of a
changing climate and how we can adapt more effectively to that,
so any kind of investment would be very beneficial for the
health of Americans and for our healthcare infrastructure.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Kopp, I understand that most
or all climate models underestimate or even grossly
underestimate the rate of climate change. Do you agree with
that?
Dr. Kopp. So I think what you're referring to is the
statement in the climate assessment looking at the ability of
climate models to reproduce past warm periods, and there's
definitely a systematic tendency of climate models if we
compared them to the geological record, not to produce as much
warming as we see evidenced in the geological record.
Mr. McNerney. Well, given the state that we're in that the
climate effects we're seeing now are due to carbon dioxide that
was introduced into the atmosphere decades ago, do you think we
can avoid a 1.5 +C increase by just reducing carbon emissions
alone?
Dr. Kopp. As I think the 1.5 +C report tells us it is
possible physically but it may be challenging. If we--we have
to get greenhouse gas emissions to net zero very quickly if we
want to do that.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I think because of that, we need to
expand our research into climate intervention, and not that I
want to go there, but given that 1.5-degree change is almost
inevitable and 2-degree change is likely in my opinion, we need
to understand the tools that would be available to avoid
catastrophic change if it comes to that. Would you comment on
that?
Dr. Kopp. Yes, so I think it's very clear it would be very
helpful to have more effective technologies for removing carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere, so that's one category of climate
intervention. There's another category that has to do with
putting--sorry, pollution in the stratosphere to make the
planet more reflective, and I think that needs a lot of careful
analysis to see what the risks are and whether that would be
feasible from both a technological and policy perspective.
Mr. McNerney. Right. So we need to do research in order to
understand what the risks and what the potential benefits of
that would be?
Dr. Kopp. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
Gonzalez for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to
everybody for being here.
As a newly elected Member of Congress, I just want to
mention first how excited I am to serve with everyone on this
Committee and look forward to working on bipartisan solutions
that will make the American people proud.
So I believe that climate change is real, and global
industrial development is a contributing factor. I also believe
that my first responsibility and my unyielding loyalty is to
the hardworking men and women of Ohio's 16th District and the
economy that allows us to heat our homes, fuel our vehicles,
and build our businesses. As I look at the most recent
proposal, the Green New Deal, I cannot help but believe that
this would put a tremendous burden on my community.
My community is proud of our blue-collar roots. We are
proud of the products we make, the crops we farm, and the jobs
that we hold. Simply put, the Green New Deal would threaten all
of that.
And we only really need to look to Germany and their what
I'll call ``Green New Deal Lite,'' for an example. Since 2000,
Germany has spent an estimated =189 billion or about $220
billion in renewable energy projects while emissions have been
stuck at roughly 2009 levels and even rose recently. According
to the Wall Street Journal, taxes and rising power generation
costs have made Germany's electric rates the highest in Europe.
In sum, they've spent a lot of money, raised taxes and energy
prices, and nothing really happened.
The proponents of the Green New Deal are proud to admit
that their plan represents a fundamental remaking of America's
economy. They believe in a system that relies on a near full
government takeover of some of our most important industries to
solve our most pressing problems. With Germany's example and
common sense as our guide, we simply know that this will not
work.
But it's not enough to point fingers. As I said, this is
real. We do have a problem, and the government can play a role
in helping solve it. What I believe is the most reasonable path
forward is a path that does not focus on a Federal takeover of
our economy but rather a path that fosters a diverse set of
energy sources and seeks to make alternative energy as
affordable and reliable as the traditional sources we use
today. And for that I do not wish to rely on government
takeovers of our biggest industries but rather I want to focus
on empowering the American people and unleashing the most
powerful economic force in human history. If we do this, then
we will be able to reduce carbon emissions at home but also
abroad as we are able to commercialize these to-be-developed
technologies and sell them around the world. And best of all,
we will do that without having to ask my communities to pay a
very steep price.
With that, Dr. Majkut, could you comment briefly on the
extent to which this is a global issue versus one we can solve
on our own? And based on your understanding of global
development patterns specifically in China, India, and Africa,
how feasible and realistic is it to exclude fossil fuels from
all sources of energy globally?
Dr. Majkut. Thank you for the question. I think you've
really hit the nail on the head, right? The science tells you
this is a global issue. Atmosphere doesn't care where carbon
dioxide molecules come from. They have the same warming affect
no matter where their source was combusted if it's a fossil
fuel source.
What the United States can do is work to innovate the
technologies we believe we'll need to have not just an economy
similar to today's but one that is much larger globally and
finding smart ways to make sure those technologies make it to
market. And that's an advanced research agenda, that's
industrial policies, and it's market and finance design
questions.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK. And then cost is obviously very
important, and I think we focus a lot on that, which is right.
But when I speak to our manufacturers, one of the issues that
they talk about a lot is reliability of the grid. So if we were
to switch to these technologies, the renewable technologies
today exclusively, we turned the Green New Deal on today, would
we even be able to manufacture? Would our manufacturers be able
to rely on the grid as it's currently constructed?
Dr. Majkut. I don't think so, no. It seems like the lights
would go off. But that doesn't mean that you couldn't change
over the course of a few decades, which is what we're trying to
do.
Mr. Gonzalez. Right. And then my last question and I hate
these up or down ones, so I apologize, but when you think about
the Green New Deal as you've seen it--and I know the details
need to be fleshed out--do you believe that is a realistic path
forward?
Dr. Majkut. No, sir. I think----
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
Dr. Majkut [continuing]. It's a broad progressive agenda
greenwashed by some climate details.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
Cohen for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I believe the New
Green Deal is aspirational, and I think it's important that it
puts attention on the dangers to our planet at this time and
the urgency of our actions. Some of the specifics certainly
aren't going to happen any time soon. Some of them will
probably never happen at all. But the concept of putting
people's minds and attentions to climate change is very
important. Does anybody disagree that it's not an important
matter to inform the public of the urgency of the changes that
will occur to our planet? Thank you.
That's why I'm a sponsor of the bill because it brings
attention to the issue. It's getting warmer and warmer, hotter
and hotter, more violent weather, hurricanes because of the
warming oceans and currents, and rising levels--the sea level,
endangering what we've known. I've read that Miami Beach could
very easily be underwater and it oftentimes has water on
Collins Avenue that they have to pump. I think where we ought
to concentrate on is Mar-a-Lago and what are the climate
consequences to Mar-a-Lago if we don't act? Can anybody give me
an idea about how long it might be before the oceans rise to a
level to where Mar-a-Lago might be underwater?
Dr. Kopp. So I don't recall exactly how high Mar-a-Lago is.
Mr. Cohen. It depends on the night and who's sponsoring the
party I understand.
Dr. Kopp. But we could be looking at sea-level rise
anywhere between 2 and 6 feet, and I think under--in this
century, depending partially, as I said, on ice sheet physics
and partially on how much CO2 we put into the
atmosphere. And my suspicion--because I have actually looked at
this before; I just don't recall the details--is that certainly
under those higher scenarios you might be looking at permanent
flooding to some of that property. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on Climate Central's Surging Seas Risk Zone Map
(sealevel.climatecentral.org), much of the golf course at Mar-a-Lago
floods at a water level about 3 feet above the current high-tide line,
and the swimming pool floods at a water level of about 5 feet above the
current high-tide line. Currently, the water level reaches about 1 foot
above the high-tide line about once a year. Thus, the Mar-a-Lago golf
course would be expected to flood annually with about 2 feet of sea-
level rise, a level that will most likely be exceeded in south Florida
in the 2060s or 2070s under a high-emissions scenario and around the
end of the century in a low-emissions scenario. The swimming pool would
be expected to flood annually with about 4 feet of sea-level rise.
Under a high-emissions scenario, we would estimate that the 4-foot
threshold has between a 15 and 83 percent chance of being exceeded by
the end of the century, depending on the approach used to estimate how
fast Antarctica will melt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cohen. What if the--if this happened, your 2 to 6
feet--and I know it's decades and whatever, but they're going
to be----
Dr. Kopp. Oh, yes.
Mr. Cohen [continuing]. Generations of people to be Mar-a-
Lagites. Do they--what if they built a big seawall, a big
beautiful seawall at Mar-a-Lago? Would that do any good against
the ocean?
Dr. Kopp. So the challenge in south Florida is that a lot
of it is limestone that has--is porous, and so that means that
the ocean water isn't just coming from the side, it's coming
from underneath. So it's sort of hard to protect south Florida
only with seawalls.
Mr. Cohen. That's kind of like El Chapo. He came from
underneath, he came from over, so the walls wouldn't do any
good there either.
People have talked--the gentleman from South Carolina
talked about the cost of all this and there are costs to doing
things with industry, but there are tremendous costs if we
don't do anything. The air-conditioning bill at Mar-a-Lago
would have to go up as it gets hotter and hotter and hotter.
Has anybody done a study on the dollar cost, the fiscal cost to
business if we don't take action?
Dr. Kopp. So we're part of a collaboration called the
Climate Impact Lab together with the University of Chicago,
Berkeley, and Rhodium Group, and those are exactly the sort of
questions we are working on. We're still working toward some of
that, but the approach we use is sort of to look at things
like, for instance, how different years in the past have led to
different air-conditioning expenditures, take the energy sector
as an example, and how that varies based on how hot it is
usually and how wealthy people are and use that to project
forward. So this is a really cutting-edge area in climate
research we're sort of working toward using big data approaches
to do--answer those sorts of questions.
Mr. Cohen. So a lot of the issues that will arise like the
use of more air conditioning really militates against poor
people because they won't have air conditioning at all often or
can't afford the utilities, and so they bear the brunt of
climate change in a larger, greater way than wealthy people in
a climate change burden.
Dr. Kopp. Yes, and so generally what you find is that the
poor suffer and the rich can spend to adapt, so they both bear
costs, but in some cases it's more personal costs, suffering,
and the other is more monetary.
Mr. Cohen. And somebody mentioned--which I pretty much
understand, if we correct certain issues here and improve our--
reduce our reduction--production of CO2, that you--
if it doesn't happen in the rest of the world, we've still got
problems, but isn't the best way to do that the Paris climate
accords or some climate accords? Does anybody disagree with the
fact that we ought to a climate treaty where we come together
and have an accord? We're all in agreement on that? Kumbaya.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
Cloud for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Madam Chair. And may I again wish you
happy birthday. Thank you all for being here. Mr. Majkut, at
the beginning of your written testimony, you say that ``There's
no better innovative force than the private sector, but if you
really want energy innovation, you need to show innovators that
there's a market waiting for them.'' Can you speak to what
recommendations you would encourage for energy innovation in
the market?
Dr. Majkut. Sure. I think a lot of things are already in
place showing energy innovators that there is market access for
them. The Paris climate agreement is a great example, right? A
lot of countries are saying they want to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and that incentivizes people to innovate ways of
doing it.
Speaking of more at a U.S. national level, I think there's
a lot of things that could be done on the fiscal side, whether
that's a carbon price or smarter regulations than we have today
to create a competitive marketplace. There are intermediate
steps that can be taken when things aren't quite ready to scale
into the market. A good example of that would be the 45Q tax
credits that are presently offered for producers--or people who
capture carbon and sequester it or use it in some manner at new
facilities. That gets you your first few. And then on the
backend there is the scientific and engineering enterprise,
which reduces the cost of doing all of this.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I hail from Texas, specifically the
27th District of Texas. It's Gulf Coast. My district includes
nuclear power. We had the number-one energy-exporting port in
the Nation. We have wind energy. We have LNG, crude exports,
very diverse as far as an energy portfolio is concerned. Texas
is a leader in that, also a leader in wind energy and just
having generally speaking a diverse portfolio. The Green New
Deal, however, seeks to limit that to specifically noncarbon-
produced energy in the next 10 years. Is that feasible without
crippling innovation and economy, or do you think that with new
technologies, fossil fuels could play a part going forward?
Dr. Majkut. Two things. One, I'm not a big fan of
timetables generally. I think we know enough that we should be
trying to bring low-carbon technology to market. Setting super
ambitious goals--I understand the impulse. I totally agree, but
I think you can get in your own way. And where we find
ourselves today, that's a very ambitious goal for where we've
been.
I think the climate doesn't particularly care where energy
comes from so long as it's not emitting CO2, and
that means that there are a lot of reasons why you'd want to
pursue a diverse innovation portfolio.
Mr. Cloud. You say that climate doesn't necessarily care
where emissions come from. In a sense, too, the market doesn't
care where the energy source comes from, and the appetite
globally for energy is growing. And it seems like one can make
the case in a sense that we've now become the leading exporter
of energy to the world, which is in essence creating stability
in the world. People are able to buy energy from us instead of
countries that hate us. U.S. companies generally also are more
likely to care about being good stewards of creation so to
speak than other energy-producing nations. Could the case be
made that this continued progress in this sort of realm would
actually have more of a beneficial environmental effect going
down the line?
Dr. Majkut. Yes, if I interpret you correctly, I think so.
Generally, U.S. practices are at the higher end on lots of
environmental compliance issues. It also means freely available
low-carbon energy is the thing that's going to power the 21st
century and make everybody better off.
Mr. Cloud. And could you also speak to how important a
thriving economy is to creating innovative solutions?
Dr. Majkut. It's totally essential. What we seek in the
Niskanen Center, what I think is best for this issue is an
economy that's flexible to new information, that provides
routes for people to finance new projects and find profits
where they can make them and then generally we want those--as
long as those are low-carbon options, everybody is better off.
That's exactly what we're looking to achieve.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I yield my 4 seconds back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
Casten for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. Look, there is--there is no greater
threat to our economic well-being, our national security, and
even our survival as a species than climate change, and I want
to thank Chair Bernice Johnson for taking it seriously, making
it a priority of this Committee meeting, and I want to thank
all of our guests today for your implicit acknowledgment that
while we have the authority in this room to debate and
ultimately change the laws of the United States, we have no
such authority when it comes to the laws of thermodynamics, so
thank you.
I'd like to address my first question to Dr. Francis. We--I
represent the 6th District of Illinois. We recently experienced
a rather extreme cold snap. And as I think you know and we
appreciate, these extreme low temperatures have in fact been
attributed counterintuitively to warming in the Arctic that
disrupts the jet stream. And yet we have a President who seems
to think that a cold snap in one location disproves global
warming. Could you please educate us on how global warming in
aggregate can lead to periodic polar vortex events in the
United States?
Dr. Francis. Yes, thank you very much. It's not a simple
story, and it's an emerging science research question, although
the science has been progressing very rapidly in this
particular connection between what's happening in the far north
with weather patterns more generally and particularly with
these extreme cold events in the winter. And what we're
learning is that there's a region in the Arctic just north of
western Russia where sea ice has been disappearing probably
faster than anywhere else. And that particular location is
special in the sense that when we lose ice in that area, it
absorbs a lot of extra heat from the sun, which then gets
returned to the atmosphere, and tends to create a pattern in
the jet stream that can then influence the true polar vortex,
which is much higher up in the atmosphere.
When these conditions all align, it can topple if you will
the polar vortex, which is a spinning river of air around this
pool of cold air that sits over the Arctic in the wintertime.
And when it's a powerful enough punch to that polar vortex, it
can cause it to deform or even split into different
circulations, and that's exactly what happened this past winter
that brought you a new record cold temperature for Illinois.
One of these pools of cold air from the Arctic drifted down
over North America and reinforced the cold air that's already
there during the wintertime. So this connection back to sea ice
loss is the climate-change connection because that sea ice is
disappearing because of global warming.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. While Illinois has seen an increase
in extremely cold weather, we're also seeing an increase in
extreme heat events. We saw it back in 1995 with the great heat
wave in Chicago. A lot of the focus has been on urban impacts.
There was a recent 2017 study in Environmental Health that
analyzed heat waves in Illinois and found that there were
actually significantly higher increases in hospitalizations per
capita in rural areas.
And with the consent of the Chair, I'd like to ask
unanimous consent to enter this study into the record.
Mrs. Fletcher. Without objection.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. The--my next question is for Dr.
Mahowald. The cost of climate--of inaction on climate change is
high, but over the last two decades we've seen cost of
renewable technologies fall, lots more opportunities for energy
efficiency, and at least some initial decoupling of economic
growth from CO2 emissions. This is frankly not that
surprising to me. I don't think--nor to the business community
because I think we all recognize that when we buy less fossil
fuel, we actually save money and we have a little bit more
money in our pocket, notwithstanding some earlier conversations
about air-conditioner economics. If you invest a little bit
more capital today to save a lot of money later, that's a good
thing.
Dr. Mahowald, you had mentioned in your testimony that
limiting warming can in fact go hand-in-hand with increasing
economic prosperity, which I hope means that you agree with the
points that I just made. I would welcome your thoughts on some
of the policy changes you would encourage us to take up that
would both lower CO2 emissions and incentivize more
investment in the United States and economic growth.
Dr. Mahowald. Well, thank you for the question. I want to
be honest here. I'm actually a physical science expert, but I
will talk a little bit about what the special report 1.5 has to
say on the issue. The important thing that we looked at in this
report is where one can cut emissions in the most economic way
that also has benefits locally, for example, on air quality or
ways that you can change people's behavior that makes them
healthier, as well as address this climate change. For example,
if Americans and Europeans actually ate the amount of meat and
dairy that their doctors recommended they do, they would be
healthier. In addition, this would cut emissions of greenhouse
gases. So there are a lot of ways that you would save money
because you're healthier, humans would be better off, Americans
and Europeans would be better off and always, less hospital
visits, feel healthier, and at the same time we're trying to
address climate change. So there's quite a bit in the report
where there's benefits from climate mitigation that we can feel
right now.
In addition, the--just the switch in some policies would
make it easier for businesses in these innovative new sectors
to have a stable business environment. And what's happening in
the United States now is the fragmentation a little bit. Some
States are more aggressive than others. And so at the Federal
level it would help trade within the United States if there was
a little more leveling of the terrain.
But overall, there are a multitude of policies and
techniques and technologies that are proposed in this special
report 1.5 that each individual State and local government, as
well as the Federal Government, should evaluate that can make
it so that it's economically beneficial to address climate
change. Thank you.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. And I yield back my negative 1
minute, 30 seconds of time.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
McAdams for 5 minutes. Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. McAdams. Thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. I'm sorry, Mr. McAdams.
Mr. McAdams. Yes.
Mrs. Fletcher. I didn't see you, Mr. Marshall.
Mr. McAdams. OK.
Mrs. Fletcher. I didn't see that you were sitting--hadn't
gone. I'm sorry. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Marshall for
5 minutes and then Mr. McAdams.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me make
my first official words as Ranking Member to wish you a happy
birthday as well. And I'm looking beside me here--I was going
to ask all the Members to join me in singing happy birthday so
the people in the audience are going to have to help me here,
Lizzie, OK? Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy
birthday, dear Lizzie, happy birthday to you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Marshall. You're welcome.
Mrs. Fletcher. Your 5 minutes can begin now.
Mr. Marshall. OK. All right. Well, I want to just take a
second and focus on innovation. I'm a physician. I think
innovation has done more to improve healthcare probably than
anything I can think of. It has the potential to drive the cost
of healthcare down more than any legislation that we can write
up here. And I think of some of the great learning
institutions, research institutions in Kansas, Kansas State
University, Kansas University, Wichita State University.
So, Dr. Majkut, let me ask you. If I'm going to go back,
I'm going to be visiting with my leaders in those universities,
what would you be telling them to think about for innovation,
for research, and where do you see us going? Just give you some
free rope here and chat a little bit.
Dr. Majkut. I'm sure I would have a lot of ideas to share
with them. I think we have a good grapple on the nature of this
issue, and we have a good sense of what it is that we still
need, right? Renewable energy is--we talked a little bit about
today. It's doing well. It's market-competitive in a lot of
cases, but it's intermittent, right, not just because like the
sun doesn't shine at night, but sometimes, over the space of
months or years, you're going to get different weather
patterns, and that's going to affect things.
So really what we need to think about are what are the
characteristics in energy sources that we want going forward
that we don't already have? So that might be easily
dispatchable, very resilient, low-carbon energy sources, for
example. Identify those, understand where you can find the most
scale, both here in the United States and internationally, and
pursue them with speed and vigor.
Mr. Marshall. OK. I think about innovation across the
country, fracking, some of those types of things are
opportunities, carbon capture. Would you suggest us developing
innovation here to help other countries? Do you think we should
just send money to other countries to help them do things?
Dr. Majkut. I think we should focus on innovation. All of
our policies should be--at least as a side benefit, incentivize
people to innovate new ways of doing things because what we
really want is for people to do a lot more globally while
emitting a lot less, and that's an innovation challenge
primarily.
Mr. Marshall. OK. What's the coolest innovation thing out
there that we haven't talked about today?
Dr. Majkut. Oh, that's interesting. Energy storage, the
idea that we can find lots of interesting ways either through
mechanical or chemical means to store a lot of energy is a
very, I think, an interesting thing. My favorite example is
very large flywheels like you have in the clutch of your car.
You can, when you have excess energy, spin them up and when you
need to take energy out of the storage system, you generate it
from this massive spinning wheel.
Mr. Marshall. OK.
Dr. Majkut. I don't know that that's being deployed, but
it's a great idea.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr. McAdams
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McAdams. I was going to sing happy birthday to you. You
beat me to it.
Mr. Marshall. Oh.
Mr. McAdams. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm happy to be
here for this hearing and for putting climate science at the
top of our Committee's priorities for this Congress. I think
it's an important issue for the entire Congress and happy to
see us taking it up here on the Science Committee as well.
Thank you to our witnesses for your--providing your expert
testimony and really enlightening this conversation.
I'm excited to join this Committee and to have an
opportunity to understand the latest in climate research and
highlight its importance in shaping our policies that will
result in clean air, better environmental health, and a clean-
energy economy.
As the former Mayor of Salt Lake County, a county in Utah
that often sees schoolkids kept inside for recess because the
air's not safe to breathe. I have four kids myself and was
shocked to learn that part of their common vocabulary is ``it's
an air day,'' meaning they have--they don't play outside at
recess. They come home bouncing off the walls because they've
been kept inside all day.
I know how important it is that we address our winter
inversions in Utah, our summer ozone pollution, but while
climate change is certainly real and important to us as a--to
our global--to us as a planet, it's also very important locally
and the impacts that we feel locally vary from place to place,
but we see it locally even in Utah. I know how important and
imperative it is for Utah families to apply sound science to
the solutions that we seek.
Utah remains the youngest State in the country, and
numerous studies document the risk to pregnant mothers, to
their newborns, and to those with respiratory problems such as
asthma when they're exposed to dirty air. We've long been aware
of the harm to older adults with heart and lung ailments as
well, even the likelihood of premature death.
Utah is keenly aware of the economic costs of climate
change as well. When the Wasatch Mountains are not visible due
to smog, our ability to sell our region to--we're a region
where tourism is an important part of our economy. The ability
to sell our region to a new lifestyle-oriented businesses, it's
greatly diminished.
Utah has had its share of environmental issues as well,
devastating environmental issues from last summer's
catastrophic wildfires to extended drought to the shortening of
a ski season, first-world problems I recognize, but it does
have an impact on us when snow melt comes late and melts early.
We also--in a desert area, much of our watershed is captured
and stored in the form of snowfall, and then as snow melts, we
have reservoirs, but as we have less snowfall and more
rainfall, the ways in which over the last couple of centuries
we've adapted to living in a desert, will not be adequate as
climate patterns change and will be expensive for us. We can
adapt fortunately. Unlike some places, we can adapt, but it
will be expensive to us locally.
So I think Utahns support efforts to protect our air, to
protect our water, to protect our quality of life that we
experience in our Rocky Mountains, and in fact our early
pioneer settlers in Utah understood that in an arid landscape
water is life itself, and anything that threatens the climate
threatens our ability to sustain life over the long-term.
As elected leaders, we have the capacity and the
responsibility to have fact-based discussions about the issues
of climate and environmental protection, and it is critical to
our Nation's goals for environmental sustainability, for
economic prosperity, and our national security.
So I believe that hearings such as the one today shows that
we are serious about protecting health and spurring innovation
to address the challenges that we face to transition to a
clean-energy economy, and I'm proud to be here and to be part
of the solution.
I'm looking forward to working with this Committee to
advance solutions to our climate crisis and to jumpstart, as
I've said, a clean-energy economy.
So my questions--I guess I'm almost out of time, so my
first question and it may be my only question is to Dr. Ebi.
The Fourth National Climate Assessment explains how the health
of vulnerable populations such as older adults and children
will be disproportionately affected by climate change. What are
investments in research, not only technology research but also
research to the health and other areas of research should we
make to further identify, to mitigate, and maybe even remedy
these risks?
Dr. Ebi. Thank you for the question. It is such an
important issue. As I mentioned before, the total Federal
investment in this area is really incredibly small. A review by
the Office of Management and Budget several years ago said that
the NIH (National Institutes of Health) budget in this area is
less than 0.02 percent of the budget, and it's likely fallen
since then. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
gets a little bit of money to work with communities. So what
we're seeing are communities who are disadvantaged and don't
have access to those who can help them. They don't have access
to the research. Very few Departments of Health have access to
the kinds of tools that they need. And we've got enormous
opportunities to build on the research enterprise to improve
the health of Americans right now. And it would be excellent if
that investment would take place so that that could start soon.
Mr. McAdams. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Ms. Hill
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to our guests I want
to thank you so much for your testimony, and I apologize for
jumping between hearings this morning. But I--based on what
I've heard so far, my impression is that in this Congress we
should focus on setting the stage and laying the groundwork for
the next 20 to 30 years of addressing this issue. I'm hearing
that we should focus on research, on infrastructure, on
regulation, on public and private partnerships, and on global
partnerships and leadership. And I'm wondering from you if you
can talk--this question is to all of you--about in each of
those areas, what are just the biggest gaps in research where
we need to prioritize, the highest priority when it comes to
infrastructure as we're working on an infrastructure package,
the biggest concern or need when it comes to regulation, the
most significant impact we can have in terms of corporate
incentives related to the public-private partnerships, and when
it comes to the role of foreign policy on global partnerships
and leadership. I realize those are a lot of questions, but
pick the area you want to focus on and then just give it to me.
Dr. Kopp. So quickly to give everyone--everybody have some
time, I agree with all of the things you raised. One thing I
think we need to think about is that this is a
multigenerational challenge, so as we make the investments
today--and I'm going to talk about the research enterprise--we
need to think about, well, how are we building the research
enterprise to help us deal with the fact that this is a problem
that's not going away; it's a chronic problem? And so I would
argue we need to be investing in something comparable to the
agricultural extension program in our country where we have
networks of researchers deployed throughout the country who
serve as bridges from the research community to the people on
the ground and help build those partnerships and sustain them
so that they're not dependent upon a grant here or there or
personality here or there but we're really building the
sustainable research infrastructure to build a link between
science and people making adaptation and mitigation decisions
on the ground.
Dr. Francis. And maybe just a little more specifically more
related to my field would be some research priorities perhaps
that this country has fallen behind in my opinion in terms of
model development for climate modeling, and I think this is one
of our primary tools for understanding what our future holds
based on different scenarios for the future. And also seasonal
forecast models, so understanding how the climate change is
going to affect weather patterns, so not so much what the
weather's going to be tomorrow but getting a bigger lead time
in weather patterns that will affect agriculture, which we
talked about earlier, and other aspects to infrastructure, that
sort of thing.
Dr. Majkut. I think on the advanced research side focusing
on having a portfolio of options available. This problem looks
a lot different today than it did 10 years ago. I think we can
reasonably expect it'll look pretty different 10 years from
now. And we want to leave our future policymakers or when
you're all much senior--more senior, a lot of options on the
table. I think that's a really important thing because the
scale of the change that will be needed to meet the goals in
these reports is substantial, not impossible, but it's
substantial.
Ms. Hill. Well, and I think for you in particular, Doctor,
I was curious about your thoughts on the public-private
partnerships and the corporate incentives that we might be able
to put into place.
Dr. Majkut. I personally--and as an institution we see a
fairly limited role for public-private partnerships. Largely, I
think we should be focusing more on market design and
particularly we support carbon tax in lieu of regulatory
approaches----
Ms. Hill. OK.
Dr. Majkut [continuing]. Which we presently have.
Ms. Hill. OK.
Dr. Ebi. I'll add an issue that hasn't been raised is
multidisciplinary. We've talked about a whole range of risks of
a changing climate. Those all interact. They don't happen at
once. They happen together. We're seeing heat waves and
wildfires. And so making sure that we have the partnerships not
only with our stakeholders but across the scientific community,
which requires different thinking about how we conduct our
research and frankly then how universities are organized to do
that research. And so there does need to be significant
incentives to move from a disciplinary-based focus to a much
broader focus of how we can collectively put together our
wisdom, working with the knowledge from our stakeholders, to
come up with the innovative solutions that we need.
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
Dr. Mahowald. If I can speak?
Ms. Hill. OK. I can't quite hear. Yes. I'm looking at the
TV. I have no idea if you know that I'm talking to you.
Dr. Mahowald. So I did see you, but thank you for the
question. I just want to mention also the area of carbon
dioxide removal, we not only need to be working on mitigation
and adaptation but a new area of carbon dioxide removal,
there's a lot of potential in this area, and there's very
little research money being put into this so far from the
Federal Government, for example, or from companies. So this is
a new area that could also be very beneficial for reducing
climate risk in the future. Thank you.
Ms. Hill. Thank you so much. Do any of you have anything to
add in the last 30 seconds? Great. Thank you so much. I yield
back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
Lipinski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just speaking
at an Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day event, and I was
saying we need everyone that we can get on board to work on the
solutions to the big problems that we face. And I mentioned
specifically climate change being one of these major problems
that--where we're going to need all of the work that--all the
best minds and brightest to figure out how we move to a clean-
energy economy. One thing I think that we can do a good job at
is from the government side is putting more funding into ARPA-E
(Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy) to help move some
of these--get some of these innovations developed, moved
forward.
But another thing that I have been supportive of--and 10
years ago I actually introduced the first bipartisan carbon fee
bill that was introduced where all the money would go back to
the public, a fully refunded carbon fee. So I want to ask Dr.
Majkut, you just briefly mentioned it. Why do you think that
that would be an especially good way to approach this issue?
Dr. Majkut. Three reasons. The first is when you take a
direct run at the problem, which is greenhouse gas emissions,
you are hopefully finding the lowest-cost option. That way
you're not playing favorites, renewables versus carbon capture
versus nuclear, and you're not pre-committing to things.
Rather, decisionmakers throughout the country, whether they are
engineers at Exxon Mobil or utility executives, are making
decisions to favor low-carbon options. And all their efforts
add up relatively quickly. So there's a strong cost-
effectiveness and a strong efficacy argument there.
The other reason is--or the second reason is that insofar
as this is a question of how do we get affordable, reliable,
low-carbon energy out at scale, mechanisms like carbon pricing
are the easiest way to achieve scale incentives for all those
decisionmakers I just mentioned.
And the third is I think importantly the signal that comes
from there being congressional intent on climate change for
problems of these timescales, decades, is very important. It
provides a lot of certainty for economic firms out in the world
both here and abroad that the United States is moving in a
particular direction. In the environment we have now, we don't
have that.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Some of the questions have focused
on, well, what are going to be the negative economic
consequences from doing something on climate change. I want to
focus from a scientific standpoint on what are the consequences
to the U.S. economy that--if we fail to address this and slow
the rise of greenhouse gases. What do you think--what would you
worry about the most? So who wants to start? Mr. Kopp?
Dr. Kopp. Sure. Thank you. So we actually had a paper out
on that a couple years ago, and we looked at several different
types of impacts. The two that floated to the top were both
public health impacts, so the effects on mortality and the
effects on the ability of people to work outdoors. Both have
quite large economic impacts. We also see economic impacts
associated with the stresses that warmer temperatures put on
the energy system. We see economic impacts from the damages
that storms cause to the coast. We see economic impacts from
the effects of warmer temperatures on agriculture. And those
are just the sort of sectors where we can sort of look at past
behavior and say something about the future. We also have a
fair bit of concern about the things that we haven't observed
yet in the past that might cause risk. So when we start having
more extreme events happening simultaneously, that's a
potentially large impact that's harder to assess.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Who--anyone else want to add
anything? Dr. Francis?
Dr. Francis. So just to follow up with--on that a little
bit, we know that in 2018 the losses due to extreme weather
were roughly $160 billion just to the United States, and the
year before, 2017, they were up around $300 billion, so we're
not talking about small numbers here.
But I think what keeps me up at night is thinking about my
own daughter and the world that she's going to face if we do
nothing, and it--for me the scariest thing is thinking about
the security issues overseas and how people are going to be
more miserable and therefore more unhappy, and we're going to
be dealing with a lot more migration and wars that are the
result of people just being very unhappy in their situation.
Mr. Lipinski. That's very sobering, but I think it's a good
way to end on that concern as we work on moving forward to
solve this. And I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today and testifying before the
Committee.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements for the Members and for any additional questions the
Committee may want to ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Robert Kopp
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Jennifer Francis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Joseph Majkut
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Kristie L. Ebi
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Report submitted by Representative Bill Foster
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Full report can be found at: http://www.b-t.energy/reports/
advancing-the-landscape/
Article submitted by Representative Sean Casten
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]