[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SEA CHANGE: IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
ON OUR OCEANS AND COASTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-233PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
[email protected].
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
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas, Ranking
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania Member
PAUL TONKO, New York BRIAN BABIN, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BEN McADAMS, Utah VACANCY
DON BEYER, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
February 27, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Roger Marshall, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Witnesses:
Dr. Sarah Cooley, Director, Ocean Acidification Program, Ocean
Conservancy
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Dr. Radley Horton, Lamont Associate Research Professor, Lamont-
Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University Earth Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Dr. Thomas K. Frazer, Professor and Director, School of Natural
Resources and Environment, University of Florida
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Ms. Margaret A. Pilaro, Executive Director, Pacific Coast
Shellfish Growers Association
Oral Statement............................................... 60
Written Statement............................................ 62
Discussion....................................................... 72
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Sarah Cooley, Director, Ocean Acidification Program, Ocean
Conservancy.................................................... 92
Ms. Margaret A. Pilaro, Executive Director, Pacific Coast
Shellfish Growers Association.................................. 96
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 98
Letter submitted by Representative Bill Posey, Subcommittee on
Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 111
SEA CHANGE: IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
ON OUR OCEANS AND COASTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lizzie
Fletcher [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. The hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Good morning. Welcome to the Environment Subcommittee's
first hearing of the 116th Congress. This hearing is entitled,
``Sea Change: Impacts of Climate Change on Our Oceans and
Coasts.'' Building on the momentum of our first full Committee
hearing on the State of Climate Science, today we'll be
discussing how climate change is impacting our oceans and
coasts. This is an important topic, and I want to convey a few
things as we begin. First, every American should care about
changes to the oceans, even those who do not live along the
coasts. Second, we are already seeing visible changes and
paying a very real price. Climate change impacts are here,
happening now, not far-off events for future generations to
address. And those impacts can be seen in our oceans and
coasts.
According to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration), nearly half of Americans live along our 95,471
miles of coastline, which span three oceans, the Gulf of
Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific and Caribbean islands.
And more people are moving to the coasts each year. The Fourth
National Climate Assessment (NCA) found that coastal zones
employ 134 million people and contribute a staggering $16.7
trillion to our national gross domestic product. And for the
other half of Americans who don't live on the coast, the oceans
and coasts impact them directly and indirectly, too, providing
economic, recreational, and cultural opportunities. There's a
lot to lose--not only for the environment, but for our thriving
economy and communities--by failing to address climate change
impacts on our oceans and coasts.
As science has established, climate change is real, it's
happening, and it's caused primarily by human activity. NOAA
just reported last month that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year
on record. Many people don't realize that global warming would
be significantly worse without the buffering effects of the
oceans. Oceans act like a big sponge, soaking up much of the
excess carbon dioxide and heat in the atmosphere. In fact, the
International Union for Conservation of Nature found that if
the excess heat trapped by the oceans between 1955 and 2010
were released back into the lower atmosphere, the temperature
would warm up nearly 97 +Fahrenheit. The oceans are protecting
us from climate change's impacts by buffering against this
increase in temperature, but this buffering is causing major
changes to the oceans.
Increased carbon emissions alter the oceans in three main
ways: Making them warmer, more acidic, and less oxygenated.
These changes are occurring at unprecedented rates. For
example, according to research published in the journal
Science, the chemistry of the oceans is changing faster now
than in the last 300 million years.
Climate change has now claimed its first mammal in a way
directly related to today's hearing. Just last week, the
Australian Government reported that the Bramble Cay mosaic-
tailed rat, a small rodent, was driven to extinction. Their
island home became inundated with saltwater from rising sea
levels, causing their food and shelter to disappear. The
threats of sea-level rise, ocean warming, acidification, and
deoxygenation are far-reaching, and many marine species face
risk of extinction as these changes occur faster than most
species can adapt.
In Texas' 7th Congressional District, which I have the
privilege to represent, we're seeing some of the earliest
effects of coastal climate change, and we stand to face great
risks as the fourth-largest city and biggest energy exporter in
the United States. At just 50 feet above sea level and as one
of the flattest cities in America, Houston already experiences
heavy rainfall, and our region faces the threat of storm surge,
increasing the risk and the reality of flooding. Hurricane
Harvey set the record for total rainfall from a tropical
cyclone in the continental United States. Climate change is
intensifying storms--making so called 1,000-year storms like
Harvey more frequent--and causing sea levels to rise in
Galveston Bay. According to the Fourth National Climate
Assessment published in November, sea-level rise along the
Texas Gulf Coast is twice as large as the global average.
Experts are warning cities that cities like ours don't have
that much time to adapt.
That's why I am glad we're here today to hear from our
distinguished panel. I would like to welcome our witnesses this
morning. Some of our scientific witnesses have been involved in
writing and reviewing major climate change reports--the
National Climate Assessment and the IPCC (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report--and are here to
summarize some of the major findings on ocean and coastal
changes. We will also hear from a representative of a coastal
industry whose experience of these issues is instructive for us
all.
I was encouraged in our first Committee hearing to hear
interest from Members on both sides of the aisle toward
developing solutions and technologies to address climate
change. Adaptation and mitigation are very important. They're
important parts of this conversation, and with today's hearing,
we're laying the foundation for future discussions that will
lead us to legislative solutions.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Fletcher follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Marshall
for an opening statement.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Fletcher, for
holding this hearing today to discuss a nuanced and significant
issue. First off, I want to congratulate you on your
appointment to Chair the Environment Subcommittee. I look
forward to working with you.
In this Committee, we may not always agree on everything,
but I hope that we can agree on objectives and goals. Our
objectives should be thoroughly--be to thoughtfully listen to
the science and theories surrounding these topics. And our
goal, at least in my opinion, should be to leave this
environment of this country and the world better than we found
it for our children, our grandchildren, and future generations
so that we can all flourish.
I was just reminded this past week. I was--I got to help my
grandson catch his first fish in the ocean. One of my loves is
fishing and tasting the outdoors, so it was great to be able to
do that. But I have to be honest; the closest thing we have to
oceans in the State of Kansas are amber waves of grain. So this
is a unique opportunity for me to learn about the relationship
between climate and the ocean. I'm looking forward to hearing
from our witnesses today and hope we can find a way to talk
constructively about these issues and, more importantly, about
potential solutions.
Oceans cover more than 70 percent of the Earth and contain
more than 90 percent of life on our planet. Oceans, more
specifically phytoplankton, produce most of the oxygen that we
breathe and absorb most of the carbon dioxide from the Earth's
atmosphere, creating a constant cycle of oxygen and
CO2.
I have to tell you I was giddy when I got to read some of
your reports and go back to some of my biochemistry days. And
it just brought me back to my college days in so many ways and
just really, really enjoyed the papers. I know Congressmen
aren't supposed to be excited about science, but I really am.
Like plant and animal life on land, marine life and oceans
themselves evolve. The chemistry and ecology change and life
adapts. It's been happening for millions of years, but
unfortunately, scientific evidence suggests that the pace of
change, like the Chairwoman said, has increased over the last
century, adding more stress to our complex marine ecosystems.
Some of this stress is the result of increased levels of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
that are absorbed by the ocean. The result is a change in the
chemistry of the oceans in which researchers have noted
increased water temperature, lower pH levels, and decreased
oxygen levels in certain areas.
It's essential that we gain a better understanding of ocean
chemistry, effectiveness of potential solutions, and mitigation
of negative impacts. For instance, some species are proving
more resilient and adaptable to changing conditions. One of our
goals should be to better understand this resiliency and find
ways to translate this knowledge to broader ecosystem
sustainability.
One of our witnesses, Dr. Tom Frazer, is the Director of
the University of Florida's School of Natural Resources and
Environment. He will go into detail on his research to help us
all better understand the impacts and changes in aquatic
ecosystems, as well as discuss some of the potential solutions
to maximize environmental and economic value of our oceans.
I believe advancing technology is the best path forward. As
we speak, industry and governments around the world are
examining carbon removal and carbon storage technology. There
are some big ideas out there from direct air capture to
genetically modified phytoplankton and giant kelp farms, which
I'm especially interested to hear about, in the ocean that can
absorb carbon dioxide. We learned during our hearing 2 weeks
ago that moving entirely to renewables is not realistic or
sustainable, so we must consider solutions like these that can
help reduce or remove emissions generated around the globe.
Researching, developing, and deploying these technologies
will take a little time, but the payoff will be significant.
Innovating our way to solutions has been a trademark of the
American spirit since our country's inception. For example, in
my practice as an obstetrician I have seen how private
innovation and response to market demand have done more to
improve and drive down the cost of healthcare than any law or
regulation written here in D.C.
Just look at the evolution of medical imaging. Forty years
ago, MRI machines and CAT scanners were just hitting the
market. But now we have high-resolution, microscopic cameras
that reduce the need for invasive surgeries and provide us a
window into human health in ways that we never thought or I
dreamed possible.
Basic research, industry innovation, and thriving
marketplace are what brought these technologies and others like
it into our lives, not government regulation. We need to
prioritize instruments that target the most impactful areas of
research and provide specific steps for resiliency planning.
America must lead the way and partner with industry to develop
innovative technologies and solutions to the problems discussed
here today.
I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I yield the
balance of my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the full
Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Ms. Fletcher, and
congratulations on your first Subcommittee meeting. And let me
say, too, let me welcome the witnesses but also welcome to our
former Subcommittee Ranking Member Ms. Bonamici, who has
prepared legislation in this area. I'm pleased to join you this
morning.
Two weeks ago we had our first climate change-related
hearing on the ``State of Climate Science and Why It Matters.''
That fruitful hearing was a broad overview of the myriad of
ways climate change is affecting multiple aspects of the
environment and our society. Today, we continue in that same
vein and look specifically at the science and how the
anthropogenic carbon emissions are affecting our oceans and
coasts.
NOAA has found that almost 40 percent of the U.S.
population lives in coastal counties. I'm not one of those. We
have manmade lakes for drinking water where I live in north
Texas. But we do have a very large coastal area at the other
end of the State. From the white sand beaches of Florida to the
rocky shorelines of the Pacific Northwest, our coasts are not
only iconic, popular tourist destinations, but also economic
powerhouses of the Nation. Coastal counties contribute $6.6
trillion to our economy. Given the clear societal and economic
importance of our oceans and coastal communities, it is
imperative that we work to protect these resources.
But our coastal communities are already seeing impacts of
climate change. Ocean warming due to the anthropogenic carbon
dioxide emissions is responsible for rising sea levels, melting
sea ice, and lower oxygen concentrations in our seawater.
Warmer ocean temperatures also fuel stronger storms, which can
lead to additional coastal damage from hurricanes. The findings
from the Fourth National Climate Assessment were very clear:
Cutting our emissions of greenhouse gases will significantly
and quickly help stave off the most severe potential impacts of
climate change. Laying the foundation of the current state of
science on our oceans and coasts in this hearing will help us
better understand what we can expect to see if we do not act to
mitigate our carbon emissions now.
During the first hearing, many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle were excited to discuss potential solutions
to the climate challenges that many of us are starting to face
in our districts. However, in order to come up with robust
solutions to the rapid changes we are seeing in our oceans and
coastal communities, it is critical that we understand what is
driving these changes. Successful mitigation and adaptation
solutions will be based on robust science.
I'm looking forward to having another productive hearing on
climate change today, and I'm especially interested in
receiving testimony from our expert scientific witnesses on how
climate change is affecting sea-level rise, the physical and
chemical processes within our oceans, and marine ecosystems. I
am also glad to have a representative from the Pacific Coast
Shellfish Growers Association to speak about concrete evidence
of climate change impacts on their livelihood, and how they
utilized science to develop solutions to this pressing issue.
The diverse perspectives provided by our witnesses will
help guide the Members of this Committee as we work to develop
bipartisan policy solutions to address climate change and ocean
acidification based on sound science and ensure there is
significant Federal funding for climate research.
I thank you, Madam Chair, and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson.
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. Sarah Cooley, the Director of the Ocean
Acidification Program at the Ocean Conservancy. Dr. Cooley is
an expert on the impacts of ocean climate change on human
communities and her research spans ocean climate--and her
research spans ocean carbon cycling, science communication, and
science-based policy development. Dr. Cooley was a lead author
on the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report and review
editor on volume 2 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment,
both released last November. She's also a lead author on the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, or IPCC, which will be complete in 2021. Dr.
Cooley received her Ph.D. in marine science from the University
of Georgia.
Our second witness is Dr. Radley Horton, who is Lamont
Associate Professor--Research Professor at Columbia
University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. His research
focuses on climate extremes, sea-level rise, tail risks,
climate impacts, sea-level rise, and adaptation. Dr. Horton was
a convening lead author for the Third National Climate
Assessment. He currently co-chairs Columbia University's
Climate Adaptation Initiative and is Principal Investigator for
the NOAA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments-funded
Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast. He received
his Ph.D. in earth and environmental sciences from Columbia
University.
Our third witness is Dr. Thomas K. Frazer, who is Professor
and Director of the School of Natural Resources and Environment
at the University of Florida. His research examines water
quantity and quality, nutrient dynamics, biogeochemical
processes, fish population dynamics, food web interactions, and
ecological restoration of degraded ecosystems. He's conducted
field research in both freshwater and marine systems around the
globe and is intimately familiar with environmental and
resource challenges, including coral bleaching, ocean
acidification, and sea-level rise. He received his Ph.D. in
biological sciences from the University of California Santa
Barbara.
Our final witness is Ms. Margaret Pilaro, who has served as
the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers
Association, or PCSGA, since 2010. PCSGA represents over 100
shellfish companies who sustainably produce mussels, oysters,
clams, and geoduck in the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon,
California, and Hawaii. Prior to her current role, she worked
for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for 12
years and as a municipal planner in Rhode Island where she
dealt with storm and wastewater issues, restoring the fishery,
and harbor management. Ms. Pilaro received an M.A. in marine
affairs from the University of Rhode Island. Welcome to all of
you.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When you all have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. Thank
you so much for being here. We'll begin this morning with Dr.
Cooley.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SARAH COOLEY,
DIRECTOR, OCEAN ACIDIFICATION PROGRAM,
OCEAN CONSERVANCY
Dr. Cooley. Thank you, Chairwoman. Good morning. My name is
Dr. Sarah Cooley, and I'm a chemical oceanographer and Director
of the Ocean Acidification Program at Ocean Conservancy. I have
studied the ocean carbon cycle for 18 years. I'm an expert on
the impacts of ocean climate change on ecosystem services, a
lead author on the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report, and
the upcoming Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC, and I'm a
review editor on the Fourth National Climate Assessment.
That report, mandated by Congress, offers three key ocean
messages, which I'll explain in my testimony. First, the
Nation's ocean ecosystems are being disrupted by rising
temperatures, acidification, deoxygenation, and other aspects
of climate change, and this will worsen. Second, the Nation's
fisheries are at high risk from climate-driven changes. Third,
extreme events due to climate are already harming important
fisheries.
Our ocean is experiencing unprecedented changes. Rising
temperatures and absorption of greenhouse gases is impacting
the ocean's ability to sustain human communities and modulate
the Earth's climate. The ocean has absorbed 93 percent of the
heat energy trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Despite this, our planet has still warmed by 1.8 degrees
Fahrenheit since the turn of the last century. The ocean has
also absorbed 22 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide
released by human activity this decade.
While this has slightly reduced the planetary warming that
would have otherwise occurred, it's also changing the chemistry
of the ocean. When carbon dioxide dissolves, it lowers seawater
pH and alters chemical balances important for marine life. This
is called ocean acidification. In the mid-2000s, widespread
death of larval shellfish at hatcheries in Washington State and
Oregon was definitively attributed to ocean acidification.
We now know that ocean acidification causes many animals
with hard shells and skeletons like corals and shellfish to
grow more slowly and recover from damage less successfully.
Some fishes and sharks become less able to find prey or avoid
predators. Harmful algal blooms could become more frequent or
toxic. Complex and hard-to-predict interactions occur among
ocean acidification and other stressors, especially in the
coastal zone. All of this can and already does impact human
communities by disrupting fisheries, tourism, and more.
Ocean heat absorption is also warming seawater and melting
sea ice. This causes sea-level rise, and is changing ocean
ecosystems and their benefits to people. Warmer ocean water
holds less oxygen and allows less of the deep vertical mixing
that normally moves oxygen into the ocean. Without enough
oxygen in the ocean, ocean species will die. Warming oceans are
driving our marine life north at about 5 miles a decade, but
American lobsters have shifted north at 43 miles per decade.
Rapidly shifting fisheries are very hard to manage, and these
strain fishing-dependent communities. Sea ice is melting,
causing ice-dependent species to lose key habitats and Arctic
waters to warm even more. Subsistence hunting will become
dangerous and difficult, which threatens indigenous
communities' food security and ways of life. Decreasing sea ice
also allows more Arctic vessel traffic, bringing opportunities
and risks.
This Committee can make a difference immediately by
supporting science that focuses on solutions on how best to
apply them, as well as continuing to support research that
uncovers how the ocean-human system works. The common theme in
the research recommendations detailed in my written testimony
is that we need to understand how to apply individual findings
to ecosystem scales and how to use that knowledge in an
equitable, well-planned approach that will reduce the stress
from ocean climate change on marine ecosystems and the human
communities they support.
The fundamental solution to ocean climate change is to
decrease emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide. That is a
formidable global challenge. But the United States is the home
of modern oceanography. After the World Wars, we unraveled the
secrets of the deep oceans to gain a global military edge. In
doing so, we have learned how our planet works. With this rich
history, I have no doubt that the United States is up to the
task of understanding and addressing climate change, the ocean
challenge of today.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cooley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Cooley. We'll now hear
from Dr. Horton.
TESTIMONY OF DR. RADLEY HORTON,
LAMONT ASSOCIATE RESEARCH PROFESSOR,
LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH OBSERVATORY,
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EARTH INSTITUTE
Dr. Horton. Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Radley Horton. I'm a Lamont Associate Research
Professor at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
participate in this important hearing. I'm going to focus my
remarks today on how the anthropogenic activities that we've
heard about that have warmed the upper oceans are causing sea
levels to rise.
So there are two primary ways that global sea level rises
as a result of that ocean warming. First and foremost, the
upper oceans have warmed the surface of the ocean a degree
Fahrenheit since 1900. That warming has made its way down to
about 3,000 feet. That literally causes the ocean to stand
taller. It's called thermal expansion.
The second centrally important process globally is what's
happening to land-based ice sitting in Greenland, Antarctica,
and in high mountain glaciers. As the ocean warms, it's
literally wearing away at the dams or buttresses if you will
that are preventing that ice from sliding in part into the
ocean. As more and more of that ice on land melts and makes its
way into the water, we add mass to the ocean, causing further
sea-level rise.
So we've seen about 7 or 8 inches of sea-level rise
globally since 1900. And there--importantly, there's been some
acceleration over the past 2 decades or so. As we look to the
future, projections of sea-level rise for, say, 2100, we see a
big range. We hear about a most-likely range in the last
National Climate Assessment of 1 to 4.3 feet. In my remarks I'm
going to take an optimistic approach and just focus on what 1
foot of sea-level rise would mean, as I say, a very optimistic
take on it.
And really, you know, fundamentally what I want to
highlight is that even a little bit of sea-level rise means
much more frequent coastal flooding and much more intense and
higher-magnitude coastal flooding whenever you're having a
storm.
[Slide.]
And as we can see from figure 1 here, we're already seeing
that nuisance or sunny-day flooding is happening far more often
than it used to across the U.S. coastline. For many locations,
a five- or tenfold increase just over the last two generations
in how often we are seeing these high water levels from Miami
to Norfolk, for example. These are events that flood people's
basements, make it impossible for businesses to open for normal
operations, prevent people from being able to drive home along
their normal coastal routes. When these events are rare, we can
call them nuisances, but at what point if they're happening
more and more often do they become something more than that,
something that impacts real estate values, the ability to fund
key infrastructure?
Now, let's go to slide 2 and focus as we look out to the
future at what just 1 foot of sea-level rise by 2100 could
mean.
[Slide.]
What could it mean for the really extreme high water levels
that currently happen once every 100 years along various parts
of the U.S. coast? These are the high water levels that
determine insurance rates and zoning plans. And what we can see
is across the whole United States, events--high water levels
that used to happen once per 100 years become things that you
expect during the lifetime of the typical home mortgage. And in
many places every year or two you could be seeing those high
water levels occurring that used to happen once every 100
years. Again, this is with just 1 foot of sea-level rise and no
assumption about stronger storms. In reality, we expect--the
balance of evidence suggests that the strongest hurricanes
probably get stronger precisely because of ocean warming. That
would make these effects worse than what you see here.
It's not just more frequent coastal flooding, though. It's
also higher magnitudes of flooding whenever a storm happens.
One recent study found that if the New York region had been
precisely the same when Hurricane Sandy struck except somehow
the oceans had been a foot lower, as they were 100 years ago,
80,000 fewer people would have experienced flooding in their
homes. That's the impact of just a little bit of sea-level
rise.
So this is also obviously a public health and safety issue.
It means less time for people to evacuate around low-lying
coastal areas, and for those unable to evacuate, it means
greater risk of death, more damage to buildings as those water
levels are higher, waves are able to penetrate further inland.
Along our coasts are assets worth trillions of dollars:
businesses, homes, hospitals, I-95, Amtrak, our airports. But
the economic impacts are going to make their way further inland
as well. U.S. taxpayers bear the brunt of the bill for these
coastal flood damages, and our coasts are economic hubs for all
activities. There are also national security implications that
I hope we may have a chance to discuss.
Far inland from our coasts, extreme weather events are
impacted by that warming of the ocean as well. We're loading
the dice toward more heavy rain events and combinations of high
heat and humidity that harm our most vulnerable populations and
affect the economic productivity of our outdoor laborers as
well.
I've had the good fortune to learn a great deal from
decisionmakers, as well as young people eager to tackle these
problems and learn more. For example, investors are demanding
now that companies disclose their exposure to sea-level rise.
These experiences have convinced me that although we are fast
running out of time, a window still remains open for the
ultimate tipping point or surprise, specifically rapid societal
action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and prepare all
of us for these climate changes that are underway.
Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to
our discussion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Horton follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Horton. We'll now hear
from Dr. Frazer.
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS K. FRAZER,
PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Dr. Frazer. OK. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of
the Committee. So my testimony is a little longer than 5
minutes, so I think I'll cut right to the meat of it.
My background is in marine ecology and fisheries science,
and I draw on my academic training and other professional
experiences to provide here some examples of how and where
investments in science would yield substantial value.
Wild-caught fisheries yield approximately 90 million metric
tons of fish and shellfish per year. However, this bountiful
natural resource is already threatened with about 1/3 of global
fish stocks classified as overfished. And changing climate
introduces new challenges. Among those challenges are changes
in the ranges of exploited species, both expansions and
contractions, and changes associated with alterations to
habitats. As sea surface temperatures increase, some warm water
species can expand their ranges northward, but some colder
water species will be forced to contract their ranges.
As global climate changes, we will also see changes in
habitats. These changes range from shifts in major ocean
currents that will alter patterns in movement and recruitment
to potential loss of inshore structural habitats such as
seagrass meadows that provide food and shelter for a large
number of exploited fishery species.
In response to such challenges, managers will have to adapt
their strategies with the key thrust being a commitment to
ecosystem-based fishery management, as proposed by NOAA
Fisheries. For example, managers will need to be able to
differentiate between range expansions driven by increased
stock abundances that result from effective management actions
and range shifts driven by changes simply due to water
temperatures and ocean currents. Fisheries managers will also
need to factor habitat and other environmental variables into
stock assessments and stock projections because altered
habitats appear to be an inevitable consequence of climate
change.
Overall, managers will need to move from harvest quotas
established primarily on the basis of historical landings to
quotas that account for a changing or nonstationary
environment. In addition, managers will need to consider ways
to help, potentially even fund, adaptation by the recreational
and commercial fishing industry such as moving access points in
wholesale and retail outlets. Without such adaptations, we in
the United States stands to lose a substantial portion of more
than 1.7 million jobs, more than $212 billion in sales, and
$100 billion in gross domestic product generated by these
industries.
Science comes into play because it is the best base for
designing and implementing the necessary adaptations to
existing management of our Nation's fisheries. One way that
science can help us by providing timely and accurate
information on the status and trends of stocks and habitats. A
second way that science can help us is to transform the tools
and techniques needed to mitigate undesirable changes in fish
stocks or the habitats that support them.
Given the time constraints imposed on this hearing, I will
focus on one example in mitigating loss of habitat:
Rehabilitating coral reefs. Coral reefs occupy a relatively
small proportion of the ocean realm, but harbor more than 25
percent of marine biodiversity. Coral reefs also support
important recreational, commercial, and subsistence fisheries
around the globe. In fact, coral reefs yield approximately 25
percent of the total fish catch in developing nations and
contribute substantially to the economies of more than 100
countries that promote reef-related tourism, including our own.
They are, however, one of the most imperiled habitats on the
planet due to nutrient pollution, physical damage, overfishing,
and other local stresses.
Global climate change only exacerbates this problem.
Managers must continue to address local stresses and, as
already indicated, we need to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases to address global stresses. Regardless of our efforts,
nearly all coral reefs will be threatened by conditions
generated from existing levels of climate change by the year
2050. In fact, managers should prepare to mitigate both
existing damage and the damage that will occur from the
inevitable changes in global climate that have already been
initiated.
Rehabilitating and restoring damaged and degraded reefs
will require transformational innovations and advancements
based on sound science. Key questions to be addressed are
included in my written testimony. Answering those questions and
transferring the new knowledge into effective and efficient
innovations and investments will take time and a consistent
stream of resources. In fact, it is an investment that we
should begin now.
In conclusion, I reiterate my agreement with much of what
you have heard from others. Climate change poses significant
threats, and now is the time to begin addressing the human
activities that drive it. My goal today was to introduce a
potentially new topic, the need for consistent investment in
science that will support incremental adaptation to the effects
of climate change and build the basis for transformational
change in mitigating existing and future effects. My hope is
that this initial contribution might persuade you and the
Committee Members to include discussion of the risk and rewards
associated with long-term investments in science in your future
deliberations.
I will close by saying that I am happy to participate in
those discussions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Frazer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Frazer. We'll now hear
from Ms. Pilaro.
TESTIMONY OF MARGARET A. PILARO,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC COAST SHELLFISH
GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Pilaro. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for having me
here today.
I am--as the Director of the Pacific Coast Shellfish
Growers Association, I am extremely proud to represent some of
the hardest-working women and men on the West Coast. Shellfish
farming, which employs thousands of people in rural economies
on the West Coast, depends on the tides, with the most rigorous
work occurring at low tide, which half the year falls during
the winter months. And as a bit of a cruel joke from Mother
Nature, those tides occur during the middle of the night.
There is both significant amount of pride and
responsibility among shellfish growers because most of the
members of my organization are second-, third-, and fourth-
generation farmers, all of which depend upon a healthy
environment to farm, and therefore are avid protectors of
coastal and marine ecosystems.
Shellfish farming began commercially in the mid-to-late
1800s, and we know that oysters fueled the California gold
rush. In the 1920s the native oyster populations along the West
Coast became depleted from overharvesting but also due to poor
water quality, and this was one of the first periods of
adaptation that growers faced.
The shellfish industry turned west to Japan and brought
over the Pacific oyster, which naturalized well. However, in
part because of natural reproduction of that oyster was not
robust enough to support the growing demand, the industry in
the 1970s moved to hatchery production for larvae and seed, or
baby oysters. The largest of these hatcheries at the time was
Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in Oregon. It's a family run
business to this day, which at that time supplied over 70
percent of the West Coast farms with seed. The predictability
of hatchery seed allowed the industry to flourish well beyond
Oregon and Washington and now to California, Alaska, and
Hawaii, and beyond oysters to now clams, mussels, and a large
West Coast burrowing clam called the geoduck.
In 2007, Whiskey Creek stumbled upon the next chapter in
shellfish farming's path of adapting when the hatchery
witnessed a 70 to 80 percent mortality of oyster larvae. They
immediately tried to determine the cause, looking to natural
bacteria and disease, but in consultation with researchers at
the University of Washington understood that the issues related
to acidic water, or low pH, and carbonate concentration.
Buffering the water, Whiskey Creek Hatchery and a second
hatchery experiencing the same fate had begun to do, had been a
solid fix, although somewhat temporarily. A longer-term
adaptation needs to be considered and is necessary, especially
since oceanographers tell us that this change in pH is due to
older water, which has been absorbing the Earth's carbon
emissions for a century and that even stopping the carbon
emission inputs today would mean 30 to 50 years of acidic
waters in the future. It also means issues not just for oysters
but for all marine organisms.
During the past 10 years, we are beginning to learn that
other climate-related changes impact the growth and health of
shellfish beyond the hatchery and onto the beaches of farms. We
are experiencing hypoxic periods, increasing temperatures, a
decrease in available food in the water column, an increase of
disease and harmful algal blooms, changes in growth patterns
for the shellfish such as yield, size, and the way in which
they grow generally. One specific example is that we are seeing
impacts to the abyssal threads of mussels. These threads are
what allows mussels to attach to structure for them to grow.
Without healthy abyssal threads, mussels cannot grow. We are
also seeing a decrease in resistance to shellfish predators,
such as oyster drills, and an increase in intensity and
frequency of storm events. These are all things to which the
industry must adapt.
Real-time oceanography data collected by the Integrated
Oceanographic Observing System, or IOOS, plus the guidance of
NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program have been essential to the
industry. Shellfish farmers who had just been used to
consulting tide books are now looking at real-time temperature,
salinity, and carbonate data on their phones while they are on
the beach working. In addition, the industry on both coasts.
The industry on both coasts takes advantage of discussions at
local universities, nonprofits, and governments in finding ways
to help.
We need more. We need to better understand the interactions
of shellfish and other organisms such as kelp and grasses. We
need to look into genetics to see if there are families much
better suited to survive these changes, much like we've done in
the wheat and grain industry. We need to understand how rising
sea levels will impact where and how shellfish will grow. We're
in exciting times of technology, and shellfish farmers are not
easily discouraged because if they were, they wouldn't get out
of bed each morning. But we need help in policies and
leadership to allow the tradition of shellfish and the families
that have been farming shellfish for generations to continue
long into the future.
Thank you very much for inviting me here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pilaro follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. Pilaro.
At this point we will begin our first round of questions.
And the Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
So I want to ask a general question to everyone on the
panel. It seems that--to us that the scientific consensus that
we've heard in this hearing this morning and in our full
Committee hearing is pretty solid, but on the state of the
oceans it seems that there are major challenges to being able
to understand because of the breadth and the scope of the
research left to do.
There have been some major advances in our understanding of
how carbon emissions impact the oceans and coasts through ocean
warming, acidification, deoxygenation. But I think there's
still a lot that we understand is unexplored, inaccessible, and
expensive to study.
So my question, if each of you could share with us your
thoughts on what the biggest challenges to studying these
changes are and what are the ways that the Federal Government
can help in exploring these and addressing the challenges that
you experience in your research?
Dr. Cooley. I would say that one of the biggest challenges
is the ocean is vast. And as you note, it's very difficult to
be everywhere and understand all the processes. There have been
substantial advances in the last decades on remote observing
systems where autonomous devices can go out through the ocean
and measure different variables and then send back the data to
researchers on land. That's only one piece of it, though. We
have satellites that can help as well with that same type of
work. However, bringing that information together and making
sure that there's no drift in the instruments still requires
some individuals to be out there sampling.
So I think an integrated viewpoint of how to inquire what
is happening in the ocean is important to keep in mind. You
know, no one is more excited than oceanographers about cool
devices that go through the ocean, but we realize that there
is--there needs to be sort of a network to bring that
information together and put it to work.
Dr. Horton. Another piece I might highlight is the modeling
component, greater resources, and supercomputing that leverages
some of those observations and helps us understand processes at
various scales in the ocean, but also as we think about some of
the tail risks that I didn't have a chance to talk about, why
we might get more than a foot of sea-level rise, for example,
to really understand those risks, we have to understand the
interaction of things like changes in ocean currents with loss
of Arctic sea ice, what might that indirectly mean for the
Greenland ice sheet, for example, and how could changes in that
ice sheet feed back on ocean circulation? Those are where we
start to see the uncertainties, and the further we push
greenhouse gas concentrations, the bigger the risk of
unpleasant surprises, so we need models to help us understand
those risks more fully.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thanks.
Dr. Frazer. I would agree with what I just heard. Data are
key, and there are certainly observing systems that are
becoming better and better all the time. I think we need to
continue to improve on those and develop the technologies that
will allow them to advance further. Again, I come from a
fisheries background, right, and data in that regard, real-time
data collection or near real-time data collection is super,
super important. Right now, we assess stocks based on data that
might have been collected 5 years ago, but things are changing
much faster than that, and so we need to probably incorporate a
more regular sampling of fishes, to get the data that we need
to make good assessments to inform the industry as to what they
can do.
And I would agree also that modeling is key. Modeling
integrates all of that information and helps us to make
predictions so that we can adapt in a timely manner. Thank you.
Ms. Pilaro. Well, I will agree with everything else that
the panel has said. I will emphasize the relationship between
species is important, how does shellfish interrelate to other
organisms in the ocean?
Funding is harsh. There's a lot of competition for small
amount of funds. And getting the data, the information, the
output from models, all of what was mentioned into the hands of
someone who really can use it like the shellfish growers is
beneficial because: A) they're using it to solve real-world
problems, and B) it brings attention to the applicability of
the data and research, which then hopefully will reinforce the
need and the acceptance of funding these important activities.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you all. I yield back the
remainder of my time, and I now recognize Mr. Marshall for 5
minutes.
Mr. Marshall. All right. Thank you, Chairwoman.
I'm going to ask you all about innovation. I want you to
think about what's out there, the greatest, latest, don't be
afraid if it's a crazy idea. Think outside the box. What's
going on in the world that's innovative? I'm particularly
interested in phytoplankton farming or kelp farming, and I
think about, you know, the shellfish industry. Maybe we should
be trying to grow more kelp than worried about the genetic
editing of oysters or something like that. So maybe, Ms.
Pilaro, we'll start with you and go backward. Maybe take 30
seconds. What's out there that's great and late in innovation?
Ms. Pilaro. Well, I agree with you that there is some
really great innovation in kelp farming, and the relationship
between kelp and shellfish is fabulous.
Mr. Marshall. Right.
Ms. Pilaro. Multi-trophic farms, where shellfish and kelp
are growing together, have been difficult to permit. So when we
talk about policies, this is something that we'll need to talk
a little bit more about.
Also, to make a connection with your amber waves of grain,
I think there's a lot of fabulous genetics work for wheat and
grain that can also be applied to shellfish, which is a fairly
new approach, compared to other agriculture crops. We're not
looking to alter the organisms genetically, rather finding
families that are more resistant to some of these challenges.
Mr. Marshall. Great. If you can get to us your--what you
need. You mentioned some type of--some processes or--that would
help you to do more of the kelp farming. Let us know. And, by
the way, I think the Department of Agriculture would do a great
job overseeing the gene editing compared to the FDA (U.S. Food
and Drug Administration), just an aside. Dr. Frazer, you're up.
Dr. Frazer. Great, thank you. So I would agree as well. I
think that there are certainly molecular advances that we can
employ to help identify more resilient strains of particular
organisms and to focus on perhaps using those in mitigation
efforts.
I'm interested in your phytoplankton and kelp question. I
agree with you there that phytoplankton and kelp take up and
assimilate a large amount of CO2, and so do other
things such as seagrass beds. And I think what we should try to
do is safeguard those habitats so that they can continue to
perform like they're supposed to. The issue of actually trying
to increase their abundance or grow them, I think we do face
some challenges right now with regard to scalability, and it's
something that----
Mr. Marshall. Are people doing it? Are people researching
it? Is University of Florida leading the charge? Who's leading
the charge on it?
Dr. Frazer. I think there's--universities are--certainly
the University of Florida is doing some of that, and other
universities around the Nation are trying to invest to figure
out how to increase the capabilities of autotrophs, including
phytoplankton, and other organisms to grow, and sequester that
carbon.
Mr. Marshall. Thanks. Yes, Dr. Horton.
Dr. Horton. Yes, I like how your question about innovation
references both the potential for greenhouse gas mitigation,
measures that could take carbon out of the atmosphere but also
adaptation and resilience. I think we really do need both. By
reducing emissions, we can buy ourselves time for some of these
technologies to come into play with the right kind of
investments, as you say.
I guess one other quick thing to highlight within the
adaptation space is, again, from a modeling perspective, can we
test out some of these solutions, things like storm surge
barriers, dredging, so we can better understand costs and
benefits associated with those activities? There might be an
obvious benefit of preventing a storm surge, but what could be
some of the potential downsides? And some of that gets into the
social science, that sort of moral hazard, what if a barrier
fails? I think those are a whole bunch of social science
questions involved in those living at the coast, how they
perceive some of these emerging hazards, potential changes in
real estate value that are maybe sort of outside the realm of
the science component but deep social science questions that we
are engaging with communities and as they sort of lead the
charge in thinking about these resilience issues.
Mr. Marshall. Thanks. Yes, Dr. Cooley?
Dr. Cooley. I think it's a great question. Innovation is so
important, but technology and devices is just one piece. So the
other piece is innovation and decisionmaking and how we put
that information to work. You mentioned that you work in
healthcare. You've gotten a great front seat to what innovation
has done. What we see there is that new devices have given more
information for better patient care and better collective
decisionmaking. We're learning a lot more about how to do that
in the ocean environment.
The example that Ms. Pilaro outlined in the West Coast has
been a great example of how better technology for shellfish
growers has led to a better regional outcome. And I think we
need to take the best lessons from that and learn how to apply
it to the ocean common resources that we want and care about.
Mr. Marshall. All right. I'm going to go over my time here,
so I better yield back since this is a new Chairwoman in charge
here. I'll yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
I'll now recognize Ms. Bonamici for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Fletcher and Ranking Member
Marshall. And thank you to our witnesses. I've been looking
forward to this hearing, and I'm really glad, Mr. Marshall, to
hear you're excited about science. And this is an important
issue even for our colleagues and constituents who do not
represent coastal areas because, as we've heard this morning
and we know, the health of our oceans reflects the health of
our planet.
Oregon's economic vitality is dependent on the health of
the Pacific Ocean and the lower Columbia River estuary. We're
very vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially
ocean and coastal acidification. As Co-Chair of the House
Oceans Caucus, I know that the health of our natural resources
and marine resources is critical, and I'm advocating for
investments in research to predict and adapt these challenges.
I recently reintroduced the bipartisan Coastal and Ocean
Acidification Stressors and Threats, or COAST, Research Act,
with Representative Young, also the other Co-Chair of the
Oceans Caucus, Representative Pingree, and Representative Posey
to expand the scientific research and monitoring to improve our
understanding of ocean and coastal acidification. The bill
would improve research on ocean and coastal acidification in
the context of environmental stressors, assess adaptation and
mitigation strategies, and designate NOAA as the lead Federal
agency responsible for implementing the Federal response.
Additionally, the bill would increase our understanding of
the socioeconomic effects of ocean acidification and coastal
acidification in estuaries. It would engage stakeholders,
including the commercial fishing industry, researchers, and
community leaders through an advisory board, and provide for
the long-term stewardship and standardization of data on ocean
acidification from different sources, including the National
Centers for Environmental Information and the Integrated Ocean
Observing System. These efforts will help identify risks and
inform vulnerable communities, industries, and coastal and
ocean managers on how they can best prepare and, when possible,
adapt to changing conditions.
Dr. Cooley, I appreciate in your written testimony you
discuss some of the research gaps. Thank you for that. You also
discuss how the fundamental solution to ocean warming,
acidification, and oxygen loss is to decrease greenhouse gas
emissions, emphasizing the connection between ocean
acidification and greenhouse gas emissions. And I think we
heard that from everybody on the panel today.
How do you--Dr. Cooley, how do human-caused greenhouse gas
emissions change seasonal upwelling, when the winds cause
nutrient-rich deeper water to rise from below, especially on
the Pacific coast?
Dr. Cooley. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman, and
thank you for your leadership on introducing the COAST Research
Act.
The action of atmospheric warming tends to change or
enhance upwelling favorable winds. Winds that come from a
certain direction along the coastline will drive upwelling
naturally, and that can be enhanced when those winds become
stronger. And that allows deeper waters to move up along the
coast and reach coastal resources and fisheries decades sooner
than they would be expected to.
So in the Pacific Northwest, as Ms. Pilaro highlighted,
shellfish growers were experiencing waters that upwelled 50 to
100 years earlier than expected, and they were carrying water
that had an extra enhanced amount of carbon dioxide in it from
being exposed to the atmosphere this century.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I want to get two more questions
in. Dr. Cooley and Dr. Horton, how can Congress best support
adaptation and mitigation strategies to address the
socioeconomic effects? And if you could answer briefly because
I really want to get in a question for Ms. Pilaro.
Dr. Cooley. I think probably the most important piece is to
support structures that involve multiple stakeholders and set a
collective vision.
Ms. Bonamici. Great. Dr. Horton?
Dr. Horton. I would agree with that. Vulnerable
communities, just to give one example. When we think about the
combination of high temperature and high humidity, that's going
to affect the elderly, those with pre-existing health
conditions. It's not one-size-fits-all. We need science to help
us understand how different communities differ in their
vulnerability and in the adaptation strategies that make the
most sense for them because ultimately these are about long-
term decisions that are good for all of society.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And, Ms. Pilaro, at Oregon State
University Dr. Burke Hales developed the Burke-o-Lator, a
device the size of a piece of carry-on luggage that can analyze
when the shellfish growers across the Pacific Northwest should
grow larva based on the acidity and effects of calcium
carbonates needed for the shell formation. As you discuss in
your testimony, the shellfish hatcheries, especially Whiskey
Creek Shellfish in my home State of Oregon, have been on the
frontlines of responding. Why are Federal investments in tools
like the Burke-o-Lator and the data from the Integrated Ocean
Observing System necessary for our fishers and the shellfish
industry?
Ms. Pilaro. It's critically necessary because some of these
impacts are happening regardless of where the shellfish farming
happens and where hatcheries are, so it's not bound by a State,
it's not bound by a region. And so having that Federal
commitment and input is vitally important. We don't want to be
in a situation where a private entity builds something and then
keeps it to themselves. It would be helpful to have something
that all of the folks who are interested in harvesting from the
sea, whether it's kelp or shellfish or anything else could use.
Any other fisheries resource can gain access to that
information and that technology.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And, Chair Fletcher, I apologize
for going over time, but as I yield back, I request unanimous
consent to add several letters from ocean stakeholder groups to
the record in support of the COAST Research Act.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Without objection.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. I will now recognize my colleague from
Texas, Mr. Babin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. And
thank you, witnesses, for being here as well.
Dr. Horton, many of the Green New Deal proponents are
suggesting that greenhouse gas emissions are at a catastrophic
level, some of which are claiming that we have 12 years left.
Do we have 12 years in your opinion?
Dr. Horton. So----
Mr. Babin. Just keep it as brief as you can if you don't
mind. I've got some other questions, too. You need to turn on
your microphone.
Dr. Horton. The further we turn up the dial on greenhouse
gas emissions, the greater the risk of potential surprises that
are very hard to predict.
Mr. Babin. So it's--we're getting close to that point then
in other words? And also, do you think it's responsible for
some of our Nation's leaders and the media to suggest that
certain doom will arrive unless we adopt the Green New Deal
policies?
Dr. Horton. I can't speak to the specifics of Green New
Deal policies. What I can say is that to the extent that it
represents an appreciation of the urgent need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, I agree that's something that we
really do need to do, given the hazards I described in my
testimony.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. Because some of these policies
may cost some jobs, and some of the costs that we've heard have
been stunning.
And, Dr. Cooley, do you think that the Green New Deal
should be passed into law?
Dr. Cooley. Well, I'm not here to talk about the Green New
Deal, but what is----
Mr. Babin. Do you think it's a good idea that we--that it's
been put forward----
Dr. Cooley. The Green New Deal has started a conversation
about details, which we haven't had before. We're having
discussions across the aisle about the future we want and the
specific ways we can get there, and that is incredibly
inspiring as a scientist who's interested in details and
solutions. How do we get from here to there?
Mr. Babin. OK.
Dr. Cooley. That's a really tough question.
Mr. Babin. Yes, thank you very much.
Dr. Cooley. Thank you.
Mr. Babin. And, Dr. Frazer, what are some of the solutions
that you think will aggressively target climate change that
might not hurt American families or the economy? Because some
of the proponents of the Green New Deal have put forward these
provisions that would absolutely hurt my District 36 in Texas
and much of the economy. Give me some ideas that you have of
what might be some of these solutions that wouldn't be so
hurtful because of my constituents--concerns for my
constituents?
Dr. Frazer. Well, as I said in my testimony, I think that
there are lots of vulnerable habitats out there, for example,
that are affected by a large number of stressors. And if we
could make sure that we manage and maintain those habitats,
they would continue to play a role in ameliorating some of the
risk associated with climate change but not entirely. So I
would pay attention on proper management of the habitats so
they don't continue to degrade. Seagrass, this would be one of
those, kelp habitats, and others.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you.
And, let's see, Dr. Frazer, one more. If the United States
does implement the Green New Deal, how would we keep American
jobs here? In your opinion would costs rise as much as some of
these--we've looked at $93 trillion of costs to the American
taxpayer. In your opinion, would that--is that true? We've seen
time and again that green companies take their production
overseas for cheaper cost and production, so how do we address
this, you know, when the American taxpayer is expected to foot
the bill for some of the biggest polluters in the world, and
China being one of them? It doesn't seem fair. What is your
opinion there? What are your thoughts?
Dr. Frazer. So, again, I--what I would say is that what
we've heard today is that there's an investment that needs to
happen with regard to data collection, and it's all kind of
data collection from innovation and technologies, modeling, and
real-time data collection.
With regard to the area that I'm mostly involved in,
fisheries, that increased data collection actually increases
the certainty by which we can estimate the stocks that we can
access, and by increasing that certainty, we can actually
exploit more fishes. And that actually ends up being an
economic benefit. So sometimes in order to make money, you have
to pay money, right----
Mr. Babin. Sure, yes.
Dr. Frazer [continuing]. And so I think what we should be
thinking about is making wise investments and getting good
return on those investments.
Mr. Babin. Do you think the Green New Deal is a good thing
and should be passed into law?
Dr. Frazer. I'm not going to speak specifically to the
Green New Deal because I don't--I haven't read it. I apologize.
Mr. Babin. OK. All right. Well, Madam Chair, I think that
finishes me up. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
I'll now recognize Mr. Crist for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Marshall, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special
report that came out last year states that coral reefs are
projected to decline by an additional 70 to 90 percent with an
increase in global temperatures of 1.5 +C. A 99 percent loss
would be experienced with an increase of 2 +C. Florida, where I
live, which is home to the fourth-largest barrier reef in the
world, the Florida Keys reef system, is already experiencing an
unprecedented coral disease outbreak.
Dr. Cooley, can you discuss in more detail how global
temperatures increases to impact our coral reefs and what this
means for places like Florida that rely on these oceans and
coastal resources?
Dr. Cooley. Thank you for that question. Coral reefs are
extremely sensitive to temperature, and when they receive too
much of a heatwave effect or too much intense heating in a
short period of time, they will lose the cells that live inside
the corals that help them produce food. And so the corals are
without resources at that point. That's a coral bleaching
event. That can quickly lead to coral death. And at the same
time acidification is sort of decreasing the ability of those
corals to recover because it's decreasing the net growth rate
of corals. So when corals experience bleaching or breakage,
they're less able to recover. And that really is a one-two
punch. It's very, very serious for corals.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. My next question is addressed to all
of the panelists. What can we do to preserve our coral reef
systems overall? Whoever wants to go first.
Dr. Frazer. I'm happy to field that one for sure. I mean,
there's a tremendous amount of local pressure on coral reefs.
There's eutrophication that's a consequence of increased
nutrient delivery. There's physical damage, again, due to
anchoring and other activities. There's sedimentation due to
coastal development. All of those types of things contribute to
the degradation of coral reefs, and they make them more
vulnerable obviously to the stresses that are associated with
increasing warming temperatures. So I think you need to pay
attention to both the local stressors and certainly continue to
increase the greenhouse gas emissions problem.
Mr. Crist. Anyone else?
Ms. Pilaro. I would just add I'm not a scientist but one of
the things that's important in a situation like this be it
coral reef reduction or shellfish larvae mortality, is
education is education and communication and sharing that
information with a wide variety of people. To a certain extent,
it affects everybody, and you need to find the right message,
the right way to tell that story to as broad a population as
possible.
Dr. Horton. So maybe this is a window to talk a little bit
about correlation across different types of extreme events and
sort of compounding factors. So for those reefs if we're seeing
even just a little bit of an increase in rainfall and more
runoff as a result and if we're seeing just a little bit
stronger storms as those oceans warm, once we couple that with
sea-level rise, we see nonlinear combinations now where
suddenly there's a lot more standing water, a lot more runoff,
and maybe some unpredictable effects on coral reefs related to
that sort of linking of the global and more local scales. So
those are the kind of hazards we need to understand better, and
we need science to do so.
Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you. Dr. Frazer, as a fellow
Floridian, I know that you're extremely familiar with the red
tide outbreak that Florida suffered this past year. One thing
that struck me about the outbreak was the lack of information
as to why the--it was so severe this past year. Do you have any
suggestions as to that?
Dr. Frazer. Again, I--I'm super familiar with that as well,
and I--and one of the things that we don't understand about red
tides is why they actually establish themselves. And it gets to
this issue that we talked about earlier about data acquisition,
right? And we need to make sure that we have the data
collection systems in place so that we're not behind the eight
ball in this particular case. So that's my answer.
Mr. Crist. OK. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
I now recognize Mr. Gonzalez for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Marshall, for holding the hearing today. I also want to thank
the witnesses for being here. I know it takes a lot of prep and
can be stressful, so I appreciate your participation.
So I do believe climate change is real and global
industrial development has been a contributing factor, but I
also believe that the proposals that we've seen in the Green
New Deal quite frankly would devastate my community. I'm from
northeast Ohio, think steel country, a lot of manufacturing, a
lot of agriculture, these kind of energy-intensive businesses
if you will, and the proposals being presented would raise our
energy cost to such a level that I can't help but think that
our citizens, my constituents, would be making tradeoffs
between things like fueling up their car or putting food on the
table. And I think that is just fundamentally unsustainable.
That makes no sense.
But, again, the problem is real, and I'm committed to
finding a broad basket of market solutions to tackle the
challenges of the present and future. What I believe is that we
need to focus on technologies that are going to make consumers
and industry essentially neutral when it comes to the energy
source. And the only way we can do that is by making our energy
sources affordable and reliable. We ignore the reliability part
but--too often, but the Green New Deal and all those proposals
kind of ignore it, and I think that's wrong. So I believe we
need to focus on technology solutions that we can export abroad
that are going to make energy cheap and reliable, bottom line.
And so I represent, as I mentioned, a non-coastal district
located in northeast Ohio. We don't have an ocean reef or
coastal beaches. So my first question will go to Dr. Frazer or
anyone on the panel. But, you know, when I'm educating my
constituents on why this challenge, specifically the one we're
here to address today, affects them, what--you know, what would
you say for somebody from my district?
Dr. Frazer. Well, I'm again going to speak about fisheries,
right----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Dr. Frazer [continuing]. And there's--people tend to think
of fisheries as being a coastal resource, but those fisheries
products are--serve the Nation in its entirety, right? There is
a supply chain there. There are businesses, retailers,
wholesalers, restaurants, and I'm pretty sure that in Ohio
people eat lots of seafood. And so, again, it's something
that--it's not just a natural resource issue----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, right.
Dr. Frazer [continuing]. It's a food security issue as
well, right? So that's why you should care.
Mr. Gonzalez. We have the best walleye in the world by the
way.
Dr. Frazer. Excellent.
Mr. Gonzalez. So, again, Dr. Frazer, you discuss the
importance of long-term investment in science and state good
science can take a while to come to fruition. And again, that's
kind of where I think we need to be headed is technological
innovation that's going to bring cost down and reliability up.
In this instance how do you suggest we as Congress
differentiate between good science and bad science, and how do
we make sure the science is robust enough?
Dr. Frazer. I think that Congress--well, let me step back a
minute and say that we have organizations in the United States,
the National Science Foundation, for example, and NOAA that are
in the business of evaluating science in a peer-reviewed
process. I think you would--should depend on that. The
priorities can be established elsewhere, and they certainly
involve tradeoffs. And I think that's something that's best in
the hands of the policymakers.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK. And then where--and this is for anybody
if anybody wants to jump in. Where are we seeing the most
promise from a technological standpoint? Where is the research
saying, hey, you know, if we could double down on this set of
activities, I think we could really make some headway? Anybody,
feel free.
Ms. Pilaro. One way in which I think--and I spoke to it
earlier in Mr. Marshall's question is, in looking at how
animals respond to these climate-related changes and what
genetic traits they carry that make them more resistant to some
of the stressors that they are experiencing. As things are
changing, we need to better understand the physiology of the
animal and what they have. Growing shellfish with native
eelgrass is something that's been happening for a long time and
is a symbiotic relationship for both of those species, but, as
I mentioned earlier, with cattle and grain they've looked at
those families and their genetic make-up which allows them to
be more commercially viable under certain conditions. This
approach for fisheries is fairly new and for shellfish it is
very new; both of which would benefit from additional work. The
Animal Research Service under the USDA (U.S. Department of
Agriculture) is the most appropriate and would be a fabulous
place to invest some----
Mr. Gonzalez. Great.
Ms. Pilaro [continuing]. Funds.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr.
Casten for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Chair--Chairwoman. The--I'd like to
ask some questions of Dr. Horton, and I wanted to follow on--
you described in your testimony a delay between CO2
emissions and sea-level rise, and given how rapidly we are--on
an unprecedented basis we're increasing CO2, you can
appreciate that that makes me a little nervous. How far back in
the geologic record do you have to go to find CO2--
atmospheric CO2 levels of where they are right now?
Dr. Horton. Literally millions of years.
Mr. Casten. And if you look back in that time, do you have
any sense of what the temperature was then relative to what it
is now?
Dr. Horton. Well, our understanding is that, you know, as
we look back at sort of the deep paleo climate, especially
times when the planet was a little bit warmer, it--a couple
things appear clear. One, sensitivity--temperature sensitivity
to CO2 appears to be higher than it might seem if we
just looked at the climate models of today. And furthermore,
sea-level rise sensitivity over long timescales appears to be
very sensitive to even, say, 1 degree of global warming. So I
think consistent with your point, when we look at deeper
history, we can find times when it was a degree or two warmer
maybe, sea levels were tens of feet higher in some cases. And
likewise, when it was a little bit cooler, times when sea level
was far lower, not a little lower. So that suggests some of
these kinds of powerful positive feedbacks.
Mr. Casten. So if we were to look at the--you know, the
empirical data that we have and recognizing that the climate
models get better and better but are still models, the--what is
a reasonable assumption to make about where we might
equilibrate on an empirical basis at current CO2
levels with respect to both temperature and sea levels?
Dr. Horton. So I guess to be clear, equilibration we mean
over the long timescale, multi-centuries, maybe even out to
1,000 years potentially. Those numbers I think are
disturbingly, disturbingly high. I mean, one key question is
what carbon dioxide levels, concentrations would we assume as
the equilibration? I mean, even if we could somehow turn off
greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, not reduce emissions but
turn them off, we'd still be stuck with greenhouse gas
concentrations close to the levels they're at now for decades
to centuries. So even without future emissions, you know, as
we're starting to get out into multiple centuries out, you see
continued large amounts of sea-level rise. But of course we
need to not have those greenhouse gas emissions so that we
avert the risk of some of these tail responses, rapid change in
the ice sheet----
Mr. Casten. So----
Dr. Horton [continuing]. But we don't know exactly where
those thresholds are.
Mr. Casten. So when you talk about being--having, you know,
potential risk of 8 feet of sea-level rise, am I understanding
you correctly to say that it actually could be higher than that
if we--if we're sitting at current sea levels and saying if we
look at the historical record, where were those sea levels in
prior periods?
Dr. Horton. It depends on the timescale. In my personal
opinion sort of worst-case scenario for the year 2100 might be
about 8 feet. I can't say if it's a low--a little lower or a
little higher. That is not the most likely outcome. That's a
low probability but extremely high-consequence outcome should
it happen for society. So my personal opinion and also the
opinion of the last National Climate Assessment is that 8 feet
by 2100 is about the worst-case scenario with big uncertainties
on both sides. There's much less uncertainty in that sort of
lower end, 1-foot level that I highlighted and showed how even
that would have such a big impact on coastal flooding.
Mr. Casten. And does the 8 feet assume that we actually
take meaningful efforts to slow CO2 now or does that
assume a business case as usual?
Dr. Horton. For the most part, it assumes continued
greenhouse gas emissions at a relatively high level. The RCP
(representative concentration pathway) 8.5 scenario, if you're
familiar with that, high greenhouse gas emissions, but
especially as those concentrations get up higher and higher, we
run the risk that the ice sheets could give up a lot of ice
even if we then were to reduce our emissions. But for the most
part those 8-foot type scenarios do assume continued high
increases in greenhouse gases.
Mr. Casten. OK. My final question, and, Dr. Cooley, you may
have some thoughts on this as well. And I'm leaving this
hearing to go question Jerome Powell about our--among other
things, our housing policy. Talk to me about what housing in
the United States looks like over the realm of 30-year
mortgages in a world with 3- to 8-foot-level sea-level rise.
Dr. Horton. So talk about sort of unanswerable questions,
but I think the key point I'd say there is, is it really safe
to assume that property values don't start to drop before the
water arrives? You know, if people are sort of waiting on this
assumption that we have enough time until the water actually
gets there, given what we've been talking about how we're sort
of locked into additional sea-level rise, you know, that's an
assumption that could be questioned. And I think, you know, I
can't tell you exactly when, but towards your point, I think
there are a lot of assets potentially at risk, whether it's
homes, whether it's the ability to fund--underwrite certain
types of infrastructure. And if people start to move away from
some of these communities, who gets left behind? What happens
to the tax bases there? We're really opening Pandora's box the
further we increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Casten. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you. Thank you. The Chair will
now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Frazer, south Texas has
some of the best fishing in the world. Pardon me. I was
listening to your discussion with Dr. Babin, and you talked
about getting more data to exploit more fishes. I thought that
was an interesting choice of words, exploit. How about enjoy?
Would that be better?
Dr. Frazer. Either one would work.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, I'd like to request unanimous consent
to change that word in the record. I--no, I just want to make
sure that we have a lot of good fishing and that we do enjoy
those, and we do protect those fisheries.
Dr. Frazer. Can I explain that further? Would that be all
right?
Mr. Weber. I'm dying to hear.
Dr. Frazer. OK. So what happens is when we do a stock
assessment, there's some uncertainty surrounding that
assessment. And increased data collection allows us to increase
the certainty, right? And when we increase the certainty, it's
possible that we can adjust the quotas such that you can
actually harvest or enjoy more fish. And so it's a case where
increased data collection or an investment yield a positive
economic benefit.
Mr. Weber. I get it. That's the most egregious word you
could use to encourage that data collection. We're all adults
here. And that's fine.
But I have a question for all the witnesses. I'm from the
Gulf Coast of Texas. Galveston and Freeport, Texas are both
cities in my district with economic ties to shipping
industries. The ports located there are important to both our
local and national economy. We move 95 percent of the Nation's
LNG (liquified natural gas). We produce 65 percent of the
Nation's jet fuel, 20 percent of the Nation's gasoline east of
the Rockies. And that doesn't include the Port of Houston. So
we're a huge energy district.
Now, some of my colleagues like the gentleman to my right,
Mr. Posey in Florida, face a different challenge in adapting to
this rise when compared to the ports and the tributaries I
represent in some of our--in our areas, some of our district.
Ports would actually benefit from increased water levels.
So I guess my question to each of the witnesses is, how
could a more localized approach to mitigation help protect our
economy and better prepare individual communities? Should there
be a Federal role in helping communities prepare and address
these issues, and if so, what is it? How can we better address
local communities should there be a Federal role in doing this?
And if so, what is it? And Dr. Cooley, I'll start with you.
Dr. Cooley. Well, I think we know beyond a shadow of a
doubt that effects of climate change are regionally variable.
And so there's no one-size-fits-all solution. As you noted,
your region is going to have a different set of needs than
Congressman Posey's district. There are best practices,
however, that emerge from handling a particular issue, adapting
to a particular issue, type of issue, for example. For example,
we've learned quite a lot from the example of the shellfish
growers in the Pacific Northwest. Those growers are now sharing
their knowledge with growers in Maine, on the Gulf Coast so
that American aquaculture can thrive and grow with the benefit
of foresight. So I think that's one thing the Federal
Government can absolutely facilitate.
Mr. Weber. Thank you for the short answer. Dr. Horton,
you've got a hard act to follow.
Dr. Horton. Yes, I think a blend of scales, as we heard.
Each community is going to have unique solutions. But
similarly, some solutions are going to need to operate at
scales far beyond what a local community could afford, so I
think we do need consistent policies in that regard. We also
just more practically need to make sure that different
adaptation strategies across, say, different agencies or
different communities aren't operating at cross purposes,
right? The sort of superficial example would be if one
community, you know, builds a seawall, does that increase the
flooding for the nearby community? That's sort of an
oversimplified example, but I think it's emblematic of why we
need coordination----
Mr. Weber. Let's jump to Dr. Frazer. He seems to be the
fishing expert except for his one faux pas of exploit. And that
would be--oystering is huge in my district, so CO2
levels--and I read some of the testimony on the Japanese
oysters that were brought over and how they've suffered some
setbacks and stuff. So, Dr. Frazer, for you, for my Gulf Coast
district in Texas, what needs to be specifically aimed at the
Gulf Coast there?
Dr. Frazer. So I'm going to say that the Federal Government
could invest in the science that's going to allow us to take
some of these global-scale models and be able to downscale them
so that we can make predictions about specific regional areas
like yours. Those predictions would allow us perhaps to develop
the infrastructure that we need to deal with increased
flooding, for example, or other storm-related events.
Mr. Weber. Now, is it Pilaro? Is that how you say that? I'm
a little over time, but you've got 30 seconds with the
indulgence of the Chair, thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Without objection.
Ms. Pilaro. Well, Texas oysters are great. We'd like to
have them around for a long time because I think with anything,
diversity in the market is wonderful. And the----
Mr. Weber. You can stop right there, you know.
Ms. Pilaro. I think I will. I'll yield the rest of my time.
Thank you.
Mr. Weber. No, go ahead and say the rest of what you were
going to say.
Ms. Pilaro. I think, and as Dr. Cooley said, some of the
lessons learned from how shellfish are responding to these
changes in the Northwest is applicable to what you might be
seeing in Texas. And as people are seeing something that's
different than what they've experienced, they should be
encouraged to ask more questions to a broader audience because
it might be just the variability of something localized or it
might be something grander with some oceanographic element
that's happening. So I think it's really important to look
carefully and ask lots of questions about what might be
happening there.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
I will now recognize Mr. Posey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the
Ranking Member and the Chair for inviting me to participate
here today.
I live upon the Atlantic shores of the Florida peninsula.
My constituents understand in a very deep way the economic and
environmental importance of our oceans. We also have an
estuary. It's one of those special places, as you all know,
where the rivers meet the seas. And ours is named the Indian
River Lagoon. And it has been identified as the most diverse
estuary in the country. This is one of the important reasons
that I co-founded a congressional Estuary Caucus with
Chairwoman Bonamici, and we have re-chartered a caucus again
for this session.
I also want to thank the panel obviously for showing up and
say a special hello to Dr. Frazer from our University of
Florida.
In addition, I want to acknowledge the work of the Florida
Institute of Technology (FIT) on the ocean and estuary issues,
and I have received a statement from Dr. Robert Weaver,
Director of Indian River Lagoon research at FIT on matters
we're discussing today, and I ask unanimous consent to that
entered into the record.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Without objection.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. I'm also proud to be a co-sponsor of
the National Estuary Acidification Research (NEAR) Act. The
bill has the objective of focusing acidification research on
the impacts of our estuaries as well.
I'm also pleased to be a co-sponsor of the Coastal and
Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats Research Act, and you
all are familiar with that as well. I won't describe that for
the record.
I just make those points leading up to the questions that
are very vital to all of us in this Committee and everyone--
single one of my constituents, and that is how we solve the
problems that we have. And, you know, first and foremost, we
talk about our estuary, and I've always said that the answer is
very simple as two steps. One, stop putting bad stuff in it;
and two, start removing the bad stuff that is already there.
And a lot of people are offended by that, but that's the top
line.
It only gets confusing when you start delving into the
details of how to do that. There are so many different options
to do it, and it's one of those cases where it seems everybody
in the room knows how to make a baby stop crying except the
person holding it. And it's very hard to get a consensus on the
order and the way to do it. There are so many variable
solutions, and I'm guessing there's over 100. We could probably
list 100 different solutions. And I just wonder if there's ever
been any research that would quantify all the different
potential solutions for cleaning it up and, you know, the cost
roughly per the benefit or the amount of clean water in each of
those.
If any of you are aware of any research on that or a
source, I would really like to have your comments on it
generally speaking. Start with Dr. Cooley.
Dr. Cooley. Thank you. And thank you for your leadership on
the NEAR Act as well. That is--that solution--or assessment of
the solutions that we have is critically needed. I--having been
participating in the National Climate Assessment, I'm a big
believer in the process of scientific assessment where all of
the information is gathered and assessed as one to look at
risks and likelihoods. We have much fewer research studies
looking at the impacts of solutions partly because they take a
long time to apply----
Mr. Posey. Yes.
Dr. Cooley [continuing]. And then even longer to measure
how well they're doing. But I think that is a key knowledge gap
that this Committee can turn to and begin to address.
Dr. Horton. Very quickly, I'd second that. Evaluating
adaptation strategies but all--in the context of a changing
climate, but also the nuts and bolts of implementation, right,
working with the existing agencies, existing funding cycles,
bringing all that together to come up with solutions that work
for all.
Mr. Posey. Dr. Frazer?
Dr. Frazer. Thank you. I would agree with you. The problem
is complex, right, and there are certainly lots of issues that
we have to consider simultaneously. With regard to the issue in
your own backyard, I would point you to the TMDL process and
what that is is the total maximum daily loads, and that
incorporates input from all of the stakeholders and people that
might be involved in the way to identify what are the sources
of pollutants into the estuary and how can they collectively
reduce those inputs.
Ms. Pilaro. I agree we need to be working toward a
solution, and in the process of doing that, we need to really
keep this communication and collaboration open and engaged and
robust. We've learned quite a bit from our experience in the
Northwest. We have valuable information to exchange, and one of
the things that is happening that I think is most important,
and perhaps most exciting, is that we've got nonscientists
thinking about science and we've got nonfarmers thinking about
farming. In that, there is a wonderful opportunity for all of
us.
Mr. Posey. Right. Another moment? You know----
Chairwoman Fletcher. Sure.
Mr. Posey [continuing]. If somewhere there could just be
just, say, given a certain level of pollution, you know, or
certain measurements that you've taken, and here is a list of
every single thing from oyster beds to oxygenating to on down
the list, and then, you know, here's the cost of cleaning up 10
gallons of that water with this method and that method just as
a baseline so that, you know, there's just not such a food
fight over evaluating the different methods, that somewhere
there's a legitimate method of determining an economic return
or priority, which of these is most effective.
So anyway, I hope somebody will start that research
sometime. I'd be glad to help you pursue it and beat on doors
and raise money or whatever it takes. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Fletcher. I'll now recognize Mr. Beyer for 5
minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Madam Chair, thank you very much. Let me just
begin. Since entering Congress, I've been working with Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island on building up our ocean
resilience capacity. Following my dear friend, Congresswoman
Suzanne Bonamici, who's been leading ocean acidification for
years and years, the concern about it. And we've been working
both through the Regional Coastal Resilience Grants and with
the National Ocean and Coastal Security Fund, which have now
been combined into the National Coastal Resilience Fund. It's
obvious with climate change we need much more resilient
communities with increasing storms, incessant flooding worsened
by continued sea-level rise. I think Northrop Grumman has a
chart that shows Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia will be
underwater 50 percent of the year by 2050.
This means ensuring that our fisheries are healthy, that
we're adapting as those fisheries adapt to changing ocean
conditions, and it certainly means taking advantage of the
offshore wind potentials, which Virginia is moving forward on
right now.
Dr. Cooley, the Washington Post recently reported that the
White House is planning to create its own panel to, quote,
``reassess the government's analysis of climate science and
counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels
is harming the planet.'' Apparently, the President had not read
the Fourth National Climate Assessment before it came out.
And with Dr. Horton, you are contributing authors of
previous National Climate Assessments. How much concern do you
have that Dr. Professor William Happer is going to lead this,
one of the very few scientists who believes that most of the
warming is due to national--natural causes, that he disagrees
with the scientific consensus that--he wrote a paper called,
``In Defense of Carbon Dioxide,'' that it's a boon to planet
life.
Dr. Cooley. Well, what's interesting about the National
Climate Assessment is that it qualifies as a federally defined
highly influential scientific assessment. And so, as such, it
is required to go through a thorough review process. And it
needs to meet the standards of the Information Quality Act.
These rules have been in place for nearly 20 years to ensure
scientific accuracy, and so really review and assessment--
review of this assessment has been baked in all throughout its
creation. There were stakeholder engagement conversations,
there were expert reviewers at every step, there were Federal
agencies reviewing this report. And so really any reassessment
of this report with a small panel is bound to be narrower than
what it's been through already.
And, you know, I think it's just--it's not going to be as
transparent because we know that process is not subject to the
same reporting rules that the NCA has already been subject to.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Dr. Horton. In Dr. Cooley's
testimony, she wrote something I had not really focused on
before, that the oxygen loss from the ocean will affect the
global nitrogen cycle and that since nitrous oxide production
is actually a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, a lot
of the predictions we've been making we're underestimating. And
this ties in with your comment about tipping points, about
something James Hansen has warned us about for years and years
at NASA. Can you talk about what some of the surprises are?
And I say this having just come back from the Northern
Triangle of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador where they say one
of the big reasons why they're moving from Guatemala to our
southern border is because of the extreme drought, extreme
heat, and climate change, one of those surprises.
Dr. Horton. Absolutely right. I think there are really
three types of surprises. There's climate change happening
faster than we thought, right, so a greater sensitivity to
greenhouse gases than we thought. Then there's society being
more vulnerable to a given amount of warming than we thought,
which you just alluded to. And then hopefully maybe some
potential for surprises where we as a society move quickly to
deal with this problem.
In terms of physical hazards, some of the tipping points
that are getting so much attention, marine ice cliff
instability, this idea that perhaps paradoxically as you move
inland in parts of Antarctica the land actually slopes downward
due to the incredible weight of all that accumulated ice. If
you start that process of water beginning to make its way down
due to warming and melting, over long timescales it can be a
runaway. That's one tipping point.
Arctic sea ice, we've lost more than 50 percent of the
volume of late summer sea ice in the last 35 years or so,
another possible tipping point because there's a feedback
there, right, where you remove that white surface, dark surface
that absorbs more sunlight and causes more warming. Those are
just a couple of them that we worry about.
But I like how you highlighted the sort of impact side,
too. You know, what if we're underestimating how sensitive our
crops might be to real extreme temperatures, our vulnerable
populations to combinations of heat and humidity, the potential
for conflict around the world as sea levels rise. Could we lose
control of this narrative, the ability to even deal with the
problem in a collective way? That's another risk the further we
push the system I think.
There are also these possibilities for tipping points on
the solution side, too. I think, you know, we have to keep hope
because we can't rule out the extent to which, for example,
young people may really sort of rise up and demand that their
institutions address these hazards. And they pick the companies
they want to work for ultimately, the businesses they want to
invest their money in. They may be looking to see which
companies are disclosing their vulnerability to the risks and
the extent to which they are contributing to some of these
problems, too.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
And before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank
all of my colleagues for their questions, their thoughtful
questions, and especially Ranking Member Marshall for his
opening the hearing with our shared value that we all want to
leave the world better than we found it. And I think we all
agree on that, and we have a lot of work ahead of us.
So I appreciate the witnesses coming today to testify
before the Committee and also for submitting their written
testimony.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for any additional questions
the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
So I thank you all for your time here today, for your
valuable contributions and look forward to working with the
entire Committee and with you as we move forward. The witnesses
are excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]