[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS:
NATURAL SOLUTIONS TO CUTTING POLLUTION
AND BUILDING RESILIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
CLIMATE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
OCTOBER 22, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-12
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-375 WASHINGTON : 2020
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
JULIA BROWNLEY, California MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
JARED HUFFMAN, California GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
climatecrisis.house.gov
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Prepared Statement.......................................... 3
Hon. Garrett Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
WITNESSES
Joseph Fargione, Science Director, North America Region, The
Nature Conservancy
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
Frankie Myers, Vice Chairman, Yurok Tribe
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Prepared Statement........................................... 20
Jennifer Howard, Director, Oceans and Climate, Conservation
International
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Prepared Statement........................................... 30
Andy Karsner, Executive Chairman, Elemental Labs
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Prepared Statement........................................... 38
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Report, The Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: Five
Opportunities for Action, submitted for the record by Ms.
Castor......................................................... 61
SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: NATURAL SOLUTIONS TO CUTTING POLLUTION AND
BUILDING RESILIENCE
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in Room
1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley,
Huffman, Casten, Neguse, Graves, Palmer, Carter, and Miller.
Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
Welcome, everyone. Natural climate solutions are ways of
storing carbon and avoiding greenhouse gas emissions through
conservation, restoration, and improved management of
landscapes and wetlands. And today we will examine the
potential of natural climate solutions to help meet emissions
reduction targets by sequestering carbon in roots and soils and
reducing emissions from the land sector by protecting natural
resources and natural spaces.
We will also discuss the co-benefits of nature-based
climate strategies to create resilient ecosystems and
communities from the increasingly severe impacts of climate
change.
And I would like to welcome everyone. We have all been
quite interested in getting to this topic. So I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
The climate crisis is a complex problem, and there is no
single, easy way to solve it. We have to explore every
opportunity we have to keep carbon pollution out of the air and
reduce climate risks and the rising cost to people and their
communities. Over the past few months, this community has
gathered information through hearings and site visits, so that
we can build commonsense solutions to the climate crisis. We
have examined the transportation sector, the electricity
sector, the building sector, the industrial sector. We have
discussed the importance of innovation. We have discussed
investing in clean energy, rebuilding our infrastructure in a
smart way, and creating good jobs in the process.
Today we are switching gears to discuss a powerful solution
that is all around us--nature. The world's ecosystems can help
us solve the climate crisis. Protecting and restoring our lands
and our waterways and our natural spaces can provide a
tremendous opportunity to capture and store significant amounts
of carbon.
As you will hear from our terrific witnesses today,
America's forests, grasslands, wetlands, and agricultural lands
can store more carbon. Such carbon sequestration and sinks have
the potential to store the equivalent of over one-fifth of the
net emissions in the United States every year. And America's
farmers are likely to develop solutions for the land that can
be shared across the globe.
Nature can help solve other climate change challenges as
well. Take wetlands, for example. Whether it is mangroves in
Florida or marshes in coastal Louisiana, wetlands are highly
effective at storing carbon. They also make our coastal
communities more resilient by buffering the impacts and
reducing the costs of storm surge, of sea-level rise, and
flooding.
Trees are another key natural climate solution. In fact,
recent studies show that forests have the greatest potential to
mitigate climate change. Trees can also help in the fight for
climate justice. It turns out that urban forestry can reduce
the effects of urban heat islands, protecting low-income
communities from extreme heat.
And investing in better forest management practices to
reduce carbon pollution can also help protect communities from
destructive wildfires. Oceans, bays, and lakes are helping us
store and absorb more carbon, but they are stressed by
acidification and warming. We must be mindful not to overload
them and trigger ecosystem collapses that would harm everything
dependent on them, including us.
Nature offers us plenty of incredible resources to mitigate
climate change, but only if we work to protect it. Every 30
seconds our country loses a natural area the size of a football
field to human development. When ecosystems are degraded or
used for development, the carbon that they store is released
into the atmosphere, contributing to a warming climate that
will transform the way we live.
On the other hand, when natural spaces and ecosystems are
protected and restored, they have the capacity to do incredible
things, like filter our air and our water, reduce heat in our
cities, and help protect our communities from extreme weather
events.
So the choice is clear, protecting nature provides
immediate cost-effective opportunities to dramatically reduce
emissions and create more resilient communities. Local
communities are hungry for a deeper partnership and resources
to adapt to the rising cost and impacts of the climate crisis.
So I look forward to hearing from you on the best natural
solutions to solve the climate crisis. Thank you all for being
here today, and I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Graves, our ranking
member.
[The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
Opening Statement of Chair Kathy Castor
Hearing on ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting
Pollution and Building Resilience''
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 22, 2019
As prepared for delivery
The climate crisis is a complex problem and there is no single,
easy way to solve it. We have to explore every opportunity we have to
keep carbon pollution out of the air and reduce climate risks and
rising costs to people and their communities.
Over the past few months, this committee has gathered information
through hearings and site visits so that we can build common-sense
solutions to the climate crisis. We've examined the transportation
sector, the electricity sector, the industrial sector, and the
buildings sector. We've discussed the importance of innovation,
investing in clean energy, rebuilding our infrastructure in a smart
way, and creating good jobs in the process.
Today, we're switching gears to discuss a powerful solution that's
all around us: nature.
The world's ecosystems can help us solve the climate crisis.
Protecting and restoring our lands and our waterways--and our natural
spaces--can provide a tremendous opportunity to capture and store
significant amounts of carbon.
As you'll hear from our witnesses today, America's forests,
grasslands, wetlands and agricultural lands can store more carbon. Such
carbon sequestration or sinks have the potential to store the
equivalent of over one-fifth of the net emissions in the United States
every year. America's farmers likely will develop solutions for the
land that can be shared across the globe.
Nature also can help solve other climate change challenges. Take
wetlands, for example. Whether it's mangroves in Florida, or marshes in
coastal Louisiana, wetlands are highly effective at storing carbon.
They also make our coastal communities more resilient by buffering the
impacts and reducing the costs of storm surge, sea level rise, and
flooding.
Trees are another key natural climate solution. In fact, recent
studies show that forests have the greatest potential to mitigate
climate change. Trees can also help in the fight for climate justice.
It turns out that urban forestry can reduce the effects of urban heat
islands, protecting low-income communities from extreme heat. And
investing in better forest management practices to reduce carbon
pollution can also help protect communities from destructive wildfires.
Oceans, bays and lakes are helping us store and absorb carbon, but
they are stressed by acidification and warming. We must be mindful not
to overload them and trigger ecosystem collapses that would harm
everything dependent on them, including us.
Nature offers us plenty of incredible resources to mitigate climate
change, but only if we work to protect it. Every 30 seconds, our
country loses a natural area the size of a football field to human
development.
When ecosystems are degraded or used for development, the carbon
that they store is released into the atmosphere, contributing to a
warming climate that will transform the way we live. On the other hand,
when natural spaces and ecosystems are protected and restored, they
have the capacity to do incredible things, like filter our air and
water, reduce heat in our cities, and help protect our communities from
extreme weather events.
The choice is clear.
Protecting nature provides immediate, cost-effective opportunities
to dramatically reduce emissions and create more resilient communities.
Local communities are hungry for a deeper partnership and resources
to adapt to the rising costs and impacts of climate change.
I look forward to hearing from you on the best natural solutions to
solve the climate crisis. Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank you
once again, 2 weeks in a row, for holding a really good,
topical hearing. I think this is an issue where we have much
opportunity to work together to make a lot of progress.
Madam Chair, you noted that this hearing is all about
natural systems, how do we take advantage of our biogenic
environment and help to enhance its ability to uptake
greenhouse gases.
And I think that it is often an overlooked part of the
overall solution, that we need to be maximizing. I think that
when you look at the opportunities that we have in our natural
systems, to be able to uptake greenhouse gases, it is an
extraordinary tool in our tool chest and one that we probably
ought to take a fresh look at 45Q and determine how to make
tweaks or perhaps do a complementary component. It might be the
one provision of the tax bill that my friend, Mr. Huffman,
actually supported. But I think that it is an opportunity for
us to once again work together.
Madam Chair, as you know, a few lives back I worked on
resilience and sustainability for south Louisiana, and back
then, we developed one of the first clean development
mechanisms in the world--we started before anyone else, and I
think ours was really comprehensive--but the first clean
development mechanism in the world that actually quantified the
uptake of greenhouse gases resulting from our coastal wetlands
restoration projects and from preventing the loss of coastal
wetlands.
And as we have talked about at previous hearings, by
restoring our coastal wetlands and our coastal systems, you
complement what also we have talked about here, which is
adaptation strategies and using our natural systems to help
improve the resilience of our communities. As I think I have
said at every hearing we have had, we lost 2,000 square miles
of our coast in Louisiana. That is like the State of Rhode
Island disappearing. Which means when storms and hurricanes
come, we no longer have that buffer. They don't evacuate
Arkansas during hurricanes because Louisiana is the buffer. We
have lost ours, which means we are more vulnerable to
hurricanes. So you get a two-fer. You get the ability to uptake
greenhouse gases and sequester those, and you also improve the
resiliency of your communities. And I guess a third is the
ecological productivity.
So I do think that we have a big opportunity to work
together on this topic, as well as a few others that we have
discussed in the past.
I am looking forward to hearing the testimony from the
esteemed panel today. I had a chance to look over your
submitted testimony. I certainly appreciate all of you being
here and looking forward to hearing your oral presentation.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Terrific. Without objection, members who wish
to enter opening statements have 5 legislative days to do so.
At this time, I want to welcome our terrific witnesses. We
have an outstanding panel today. I will go down the line, each
of you, and I know Mr. Huffman wants to make a special
introduction as well.
First, we have Dr. Joe Fargione--I think that is right,
okay--is the lead scientist for The Nature Conservancy's North
America region. He is an expert in land use, conservation, and
nature's benefits to people, including climate change
mitigation.
Our next witness is from Yurok, the Yurok Tribe, whose
reservation is located in Mr. Huffman's district, and I will
turn it over to you, Mr. Huffman, to introduce him.
Mr. Huffman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am
really proud to introduce the vice chairman of the Yurok Tribe,
Frankie Myers. The Yurok is the largest tribe in California,
and it is also a tribe that is deeply and authentically
connected to the beautiful lands of the Klamath River Basin
that are its ancestral territory.
Their stewardship of these lands, and especially the
forests and the fisheries, has been noted and appreciated by
folks all over California, for sure, but their leadership has
also been recognized by the United Nations Development Program
which gave the Yurok Tribe the Equator Prize, honoring
innovative nature-based solutions for tackling climate change,
environment, and policy challenges.
I am sure that we have a lot to learn from hearing from
hearing from Vice Chairman Myers, and we welcome you to the
committee, sir.
Ms. Castor. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Huffman.
Next is Dr. Jennifer Howard. She is the executive
chairman--or excuse me--she is the marine climate change
director at Conservation International. Her work focuses on
protecting coastal and marine ecosystems to mitigate climate
change and create resilient coasts and communities.
Next, Mr. Alex Karsner is the executive chairman of
Elemental Labs. He is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute
at Stanford University and a member of the Hoover Institution's
energy policy task force. He previously served as DOE's
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
under President George W. Bush.
Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will
be made part of the record.
With that, Dr. Fargione, you are now recognized to give a
5-minute presentation of your testimony.
Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF DR. JOE FARGIONE, LEAD SCIENTIST, NORTH AMERICA,
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY; VICE CHAIRMAN FRANKIE MYERS, VICE
CHAIRMAN, YUROK TRIBAL COUNCIL, THE YUROK TRIBE; DR. JENNIFER
HOWARD, MARINE CLIMATE CHANGE DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION
INTERNATIONAL; AND THE HON. ANDY KARSNER, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN,
ELEMENTAL LABS
STATEMENT OF DR. JOE FARGIONE
Dr. Fargione. Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak
today.
Climate change is no longer a distant threat. We are
currently living with its impacts, and our actions now will
determine if we can create a world where both people and nature
thrive.
The Nature Conservancy is committed to doing our part to
tackle climate change by mobilizing action for a clean energy
future, accelerating the deployment of natural solutions, and
building resilience through natural defenses.
Today I would like to talk to you about the critical role
that nature can play in fighting climate change, what I refer
to as natural climate solutions. If you remember one thing from
my testimony, please remember that we can help fight climate
change by planting trees, promoting soil health, and protecting
our wetlands and coastal ecosystems.
These natural climate solutions are affordable, they
provide many cobenefits, and they are available now. You may
wonder, what does nature have to do with fighting climate
change? As you may recall from biology class or at least from
watching ``Star Trek,'' life on earth is carbon-based. Plants,
for example, are about half carbon. This means that we can help
fight climate change by storing more carbon on the landscape in
our trees and soils, and by reducing the emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases from our natural and working
lands.
Last year I led a study with 37 other experts from 22
institutions that assessed the potential for natural climate
solutions to reduce emissions in the United States. Our study
shows that natural climate solutions can play a significant
role in fighting climate change, with a maximum potential
benefit equivalent to one-fifth of our Nation's current net
emissions. That is the same as if every car and light duty
truck in the country stopped emitting carbon. The largest
opportunities have to do with planting trees, improved forest
management, the avoided conversion of forest and grasslands,
and building soil health in our agricultural lands.
Significantly increasing our investments in natural climate
solutions, in addition to a rapid transition to more zero
carbon energy and energy efficiency, is our best hope for
dealing with the climate crisis.
Natural climate solutions not only fight climate change,
they provide many other benefits. They clean the air we breathe
and the water we drink. They protect our lives and our property
from storms and floods. They build soil health, restore forests
for recreation and wildlife, and increase the productivity and
resilience of our working lands.
For example, investments in cover crops and other
conservation practices on farm fields help improve the soil
health and water quality, in addition to storing more carbon in
the soil.
Improved nutrient management can reduce the cost of
fertilizers and save farmers money in addition to reducing
emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.
Urban reforestation increases people's quality of life and
property values and reduces the cooling costs for their homes.
And protecting and restoring coastal wetlands can help reduce
storm surges and reduce flooding.
Another promising finding of our study is just how
affordable many natural climate solutions are. Specifically,
there are hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide per
year that can be kept out of the atmosphere at just $10 per ton
of carbon dioxide or less, well under the price of other
technologies that can remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. And that is the price just for carbon. All of the
other benefits of clean air and water, flood protection, and
wildlife are thrown in for free. In short, they are a very good
deal.
And while we talk about this as a cost to reduce carbon,
for the land owners and producers, this would be revenue. They
would be getting paid for reducing pollution and helping
provide a stable climate that benefits everyone.
There are many ways to pay for natural climate solutions.
Money could come from voluntary payments by companies that want
to meet their emissions goals, by providing Federal support
directly to land owners and producers such as through existing
Farm Bill programs, or from new policies like a price on
carbon.
Natural climate solutions are gaining traction, because
there are so many good reasons to invest in nature. From
reducing costs for farmers and creating jobs for foresters, to
improving air quality and protecting coastal communities from
flooding, the benefits are numerous.
For all these reasons, the time is right for us to make a
significant investment in natural climate solutions. Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Fargione follows:]
Testimony of Dr. Joseph Fargione
Science Director, North America Region, The Nature Conservancy
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution
and Building Climate Resilience''
October 22, 2019
Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify on natural solutions to cutting
pollution and building resilience. I am Joseph Fargione, Science
Director for the North America Region of The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
Founded in 1951, TNC is a global environmental nonprofit working to
create a world where people and nature can thrive. Thanks to more than
a million members and the dedicated efforts of our diverse staff and
more than 400 scientists, we work in all 50 U.S. states and impact
conservation in 72 countries across six continents.
Climate change is no longer a distant threat. We are currently
living with its impacts, as Americans are seeing chronic drought,
rising seas, record high temperatures, more frequent extreme storms and
fires, and significant economic losses (USGCRP 2017). The climate
crisis is endangering people, livelihoods, and decades of work on the
conservation of America's wildlife and environment.
Addressing climate change is necessary to create a world where both
people and nature thrive, where we provide food and goods for our
growing population, design healthy and livable cities, and conserve and
protect lands, freshwaters, and oceans. To create this world, American
innovation and leadership is both capable and necessary.
The Nature Conservancy is committed to tackling climate change and
to helping vulnerable people and places deal with the impacts of a
changing climate, including increasingly extreme weather conditions. We
are doing this by mobilizing action for a clean energy future,
accelerating the deployment of natural solutions, and building
resilience through natural defenses.
Today, I'd like to talk to you about the critical role nature can
play in fighting climate change, what I refer to as Natural Climate
Solutions. If you remember one thing from my testimony, remember that
we can help fight climate change by planting trees, promoting soil
health, and protecting our wetlands and coastal ecosystems. Landowners
and producers can be incentivized and rewarded for voluntarily engaging
in practices that remove carbon while helping to provide clean water,
clean air, and wildlife habitat. If fully realized, Natural Climate
Solutions could have a climate benefit up to one fifth of our current
net emissions.
You may wonder `what does nature have to do with fighting climate
change?' As you may recall from your biology class, or from watching
Star Trek, life on Earth is carbon-based. Plants, for example, are
about 50% carbon. The plants on Earth contain almost as much carbon as
the atmosphere. And the soil contains nearly 4 times as much carbon as
the atmosphere. This means that we can help fight climate change by
storing more carbon on the landscape in our trees and soils and by
reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from
our natural and working lands.
Last year, I led a study, with 37 other experts from 22
institutions that assessed the potential for Natural Climate Solutions
to reduce emissions in the United States (Fargione et al. 2018). Our
study shows that Natural Climate Solutions can play a significant role
in fighting climate change, with the potential benefit equivalent to
one fifth of our nation's current net emissions--that's the same as
eliminating emissions from all cars and light duty trucks in America.
In other words, nature provides much greater potential than most people
realize. Significantly increasing our investments in Natural Climate
Solutions, in addition to increased energy efficiency and a rapid
transition to zero-carbon energy sources, is our best hope for dealing
with the climate crisis.
Natural Climate Solutions are not a silver bullet--it may be better
to think of them as a collection of silver BBs. The largest
opportunities include planting trees, improving forest management,
avoiding conversion of forests and grasslands, and building soil health
in our agricultural lands. Collectively, these efforts can be deployed
across hundreds of millions of acres, in every state in our nation. All
regions of the country have a role to play in implementing Natural
Climate Solutions. Before I describe each Natural Climate Solution in
detail, there are several important characteristics of Natural Climate
Solutions worth pointing out.
ncs provide multiple benefits
Natural Climate Solutions have strong co-benefits. They not only
fight climate, they also help provide clean air and water, they improve
quality of life, and they help store floodwaters and protect our coasts
from storm surges. Further, they build soil health, increasing the
productivity and resilience of our working lands. For example,
investments in cover crops and other conservation practices on farm
fields help improve soil health and water quality, in addition to
storing more carbon in the soil. Improved nutrient management can
reduce the cost of fertilizer and save farmers money. Urban
reforestation increases quality of life and property values and reduces
air pollution and mortality from heat waves. Restoring fire-prone
forests will reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires that threaten
homes and air quality. And protecting and restoring coastal wetlands
can help reduce storm surges, flooding and coastal erosion. Often, it
is these other benefits that inspire people to invest in Natural
Climate Solutions, and that is a big part of why I think this approach
is so promising--because there are so many good reasons to invest.
ncs are affordable
Natural Climate Solutions are also cost-effective. Specifically,
there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide per year
that can be kept out the atmosphere for an investment of just $10 per
tonne of carbon dioxide. And that is the price just for the carbon -
all of the other benefits of clear air and water, flood protection, and
wildlife are thrown in for free. For comparison, the cost of Natural
Climate Solutions is well under the price of other technologies that
can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (e.g. Keith et al. 2018).
While we support continued investments to help drive the commercial
deployment of technologies to capture carbon, we know that Natural
Climate Solutions are cost-effective today and can be implemented
immediately. Therefore, they present an important near-term opportunity
to reduce carbon emissions while efforts continue to bring new
technologies online.
ncs provide new revenue to farmers, ranchers and foresters
While we talk about the `cost' of reducing carbon through Natural
Climate Solutions, for landowners and producers this would be revenue--
they would be getting paid for reducing pollution and helping provide a
stable climate that benefits everyone. There are many ways to pay for
Natural Climate Solutions: funds could come from voluntary payments by
companies that want to meet emissions goals; by providing federal
support provided directly to landowners and producers, such as through
existing Farm Bill programs; or from new policies, like a price on
carbon, that create an incentive for payments.
ncs pathways
Below I describe the specific opportunities that my colleagues and
I have identified for the United States (see Figure 1 and Table 1).
Figure 1: Climate mitigation potential of 21 Natural Climate
Solutions in the United States. Black lines indicate the 95% confidence
interval or reported range. Ecosystem service benefits linked with each
Natural Climate Solution are indicated by colored bars for air
(filtration), biodiversity (habitat protection or restoration), soil
(enrichment), and water (filtration and flood control).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 1. Natural Climate Solutions available in the United States.
CO2e refers to the carbon dioxide equivalent, because
methane and nitrous oxide are converted to their CO2
equivalent, in terms of their global warming potential.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
specific natural climate solutions
Reforestation--We identified 156 million acres in the United States
that are potentially reforestable. If reforested, these lands would
sequester, on average, nearly two tonnes of CO2 per acre per
year, or over 300 million tonnes of CO2 per year. We first
identified all the areas in the United States that used to be forest
but have now been converted to some other land use (Hansen et al.
2013). Next, we excluded areas with intensive human development,
including all major roads (Open Street Map 2016), impervious surfaces
(Xian et al. 2011), and urban areas (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). To
eliminate double counting with the wetland restoration pathway, we
removed Histosol soils (Soil Survey Staff 2017). To safeguard food
production, we removed most cropland and pasture. To estimate the
carbon sequestration rate, we used the US Forest Service's estimates
for forest growth for each forest type in each region, averaging growth
rates over the first twenty years of reforestation (Smith et al. 2006).
We discounted the carbon sequestration mitigation benefit in conifer-
dominated forests to account for albedo effects. (Conifer-dominated
forests are dark and absorb solar radiation, which offsets some of the
cooling effect that they provide by sequestering carbon.) The Nature
Conservancy and partners are currently analyzing reforestation
potential to identify the most feasible opportunities for
implementation, such as in floodplains, riparian buffers, burned areas,
marginal agricultural lands, and critical wildlife migration corridors.
Natural Forest Management--The maximum mitigation potential of 267
million tonnes of CO2 per year is based on a ``harvest-
hiatus'' scenario starting in 2025, in which natural forests are
shifted to longer harvest rotations. This could be accomplished with
less than a 10% reduction in average timber supply (i.e. within the
range of historic variation in supply volume) with new timber supplied
from thinning treatments for fuel risk reduction until new timber from
reforestation is available in 2030. Alternatively, selective harvest
practices that remove competing vegetation, reduce ``collateral
damage'' from felling, and stimulate the growth of remaining trees can
achieve approximately 60% of the maximum carbon benefits that we
identified, with minimal reductions in short term harvest volume (Ellis
et al. 2019). The Nature Conservancy and partners are currently
piloting these practices in the Central Appalachian region through the
Family Forest Carbon Program (https://www.forestfoundation.org/carbon).
Avoided Forest Conversion--We estimate that almost one million
acres--940,000 acres--are converted from forest to other land uses in
the United States every year, based on the North America Forest
Database (Goward et al. 2015). This emits at least 38 million tonnes of
CO2 per year, which could be avoided with better land use
planning and incentives to maintain this valuable carbon storage and
other ecosystem services that forests provide. Most forest clearing is
followed by forest regeneration, rather than conversion to another land
use. While remote sensing is good at detecting forest clearing, is not
able to predict whether this clearing will be followed by conversion to
a new land use or whether it will be allowed to regenerate to forest.
To estimate the proportion of cleared that that returns to forest, we
examined land cleared before 2000 and quantified the proportion that
had returned to forest by 2010, in each forest type and region of the
United States. We then used these proportions to discount observed
rates of forest clearing between 2000 and 2010. We used estimates of
avoided carbon emissions from above and below ground biomass that are
specific to each region and forest type. We did not count forest loss
due to fire to avoid double counting with wildfire risk reduction. We
did not count forest loss due to pests because it is unclear whether
this loss can be avoided. We reduced the benefit of avoided conversion
in conifer-dominated forests to account for their albedo effects. Our
results are conservative because they do not count the loss of ongoing
sequestration that protected forests would continue to provide.
Although rates of carbon sequestration slow over time, available
evidence suggests that forests continue to sequester carbon for at
least 200 years (Luyssaert et al. 2008).
Urban Reforestation--We found that, across the 3,535 cities in the
conterminous United States, roughly 8 million acres of trees could be
added (Fargione et al. 2018, Kroeger et al. 2018). We considered the
potential for additional street trees and, for those cities not in
deserts, we also considered the potential for park and yard tree
plantings. The potential percent increase in tree cover was estimated
based on high-resolution analysis of 27 cities, which excluded sports
fields, golf courses, and lawns (Kroeger et al. 2018). These trees
would sequester carbon at a rate of roughly 2.8 tonnes per acre per
year (Nowak et al. 2013), or around 23 million tonnes of CO2
per year. This estimate is conservative in that it only considers the
carbon stored in the tree and does not consider any additional benefits
of trees. Trees in urban areas have additional co-benefits that are
important to consider. For instance, urban trees in the United States
already save around 1,200 lives a year during heat waves (McDonald et
al. 2019), and many more lives could be saved with additional urban
forest canopy. Additional forest canopy would also help clean the air
by reducing particulate matter concentrations, reduce electricity
consumption during the summer (Akbari et al. 2001, Akbari 2002), and
help cities mitigate stormwater and floodwater.
Wildfire Risk Reduction--Prescribed fire and fuel reduction
treatments can reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire, such that
that the initial increase in emissions associated with treatment is
more than made up for over time by the avoided impacts of wildfires. We
considered the effect of prescribed fire treatments on 42 million acres
of fire-prone forests in the western United States. Over 20 years,
these treatments would avoid emissions of 240 million tonnes of
CO2, an average of 12 million tonnes per year. These
treatments also have substantial benefits to society, such as improving
water quality and quantity, reducing loss of wildlife habitat, and
protecting communities and forest dependent businesses like tourism,
recreation and forest products. The impact of wildfires includes both
direct emissions from combustion and the suppression of forest growth
following wildfires (Collatz et al. 2014, Williams et al. 2016).
Investing in targeted controlled burning and selective thinning can
achieve long term carbon sequestration while helping to restore forest
ecology and reducing the risk of severe wildfires.
Improved Plantations--We quantified the benefits of extending
rotation lengths in even-aged, intensively managed wood production
forests. Specifically, rotation lengths were extended from current
economically optimal rotation length to a biological optimal rotation
length in which harvest occurs when stands reach their maximum annual
growth. To understand the carbon benefits of extending rotations,
imagine if all plantations are harvested when they are twenty years
old--the average age of plantations would be ten years. If rotation
lengths were extended to forty years, the average age would be twenty
years, roughly doubling the amount of carbon on the landscape. These
longer rotations grow just as fast and produce just as much, if not
more, timber product. However, because the percent increase in capital
value slows slightly in later years, there would be some economic cost
to plantation owners, which could be compensated for via carbon
payments.
Avoided Conversion of Grassland--Conversion of grassland to
cropland emits about 62 tonnes of CO2 per acre. Most of this
is from soil carbon, which we estimate is reduced by 28% down to 1
meter after conversion to cropland (Sanderman et al. 2017).
Additionally, there is a loss of root biomass when grasslands are
converted to cropland: annual crops don't store carbon long-term in
roots, whereas grasslands have about 4 times as much root biomass as
they do aboveground biomass (Mokany et al. 2006). About 81% of
emissions are from the soil, and 19% from root biomass. The conversion
of grassland to cropland is an ongoing issue in the United States.
While the total amount of cropland in the United States fluctuates
slightly with commodity prices, it is not going up in the long term.
However, loss of farmland to development and urban sprawl (Sorensen et
al. 2018) spurs the expansion of cropland into areas that are more
marginal for crop production such as native rangeland (World Wildlife
Fund 2018). Between 2008 and 2012, about 1.7 million acres of grassland
and shrubland were converted to cropland each year (Lark et al. 2015).
With hundreds of ranchers on federal waiting lists to receive easements
to protect their grasslands from conversion in the Prairie Pothole
region alone (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2012), additional
investments in easements would protect these important carbon stores,
in addition to the ecosystem services that they provide for water
quality (Johnson et al. 2016), pollinator habitat (Hopwood 2008), and
waterfowl nesting (Reynolds et al. 2006), among others.
Cover Crops--Cover crops are grown in the fallow season between
main crops; they can roughly double the number of days each year that a
living cover is pulling carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it
in the landscape. Cover crops add about half a tonne of CO2
per acre per year to the soils (Poeplau and Don 2015). We estimate that
cover crops can be added to the 217 million acres of cropland used for
the five primary crops (corn, soy, wheat, rice, and cotton) that are
not already using cover crops (Conservation Technology Information
Center et al. 2017). It is possible to use cover crops on cropland
planted to crops other than these five primary crops, but agronomic
research demonstrating the successful use of cover crops is limited
outside of these primary crops, so we conservatively limited the
maximum area of cover crop use to these five crops. The benefit that
cover crops provide varies from place to place. The amount of
sequestration depends on interactions between the climate, soils, the
cropping rotation of cash crops, and which cover crops are used.
However, on average, researchers consistently find soil carbon
sequestration of 0.3-0.6 tonnes of CO2 per acre under cover
crops (Tellatin and Myers 2018).
Biochar--Biochar is made by heating biomass while restricting the
amount of available oxygen, which creates charcoal. This charcoal can
be incorporated into agricultural soils, where it increases soil
carbon, increases water holding capacity, and can boost crop yields
(Aller et al. 2018). Unlike biomass that has not been turned into
biochar, the majority of carbon in biochar does not decompose after
being incorporated into the soil. We estimated the carbon sequestration
benefit from turning 144 million tonnes of biomass into biochar, the
amount of additional biomass from agricultural residue that could be
sustainably harvested in 2025 (U.S. DOE 2016). We assumed that 79.6% of
biochar carbon persists on a timescale of >100 years (Liang et al.
2008, Dharmakeerthi et al. 2015) and that there are no effects of
biochar on emissions of nitrous oxide or methane (Song et al. 2016,
Wang et al. 2016). While biochar is not yet in widespread use, the
science is clear that it could effectively store carbon. Improved cost-
effective biochar production equipment and techniques and additional
in-field agronomic research quantifying the benefits of biochar
application are needed in order to provide both the means and the
motivation for farmers to start building soil carbon using biochar.
Alley Cropping--Alley cropping is one way to incorporate more trees
in agriculture. Alley cropping is planting widely spaced rows of trees
with an annual crop grown in the alleyways between the rows. Trees
considered for alley cropping include black walnut, hazelnut, chestnut,
and pecan, which can provide timber and/or nuts, or pine trees that can
provide pine straw for landscaping (Garrett et al. 1991, 2015, Revord
et al. 2019). These added revenues mean that alley cropping offers
increased profitability in many cases (Garrett et al. 2015, Wolz and
DeLucia 2019). We estimated a maximum potential of alley cropping on
10% of U.S. cropland, or 37 million acres (Udawatta, Ranjith P., Jose
2011). Alley cropping sequesters about 2.2 tonnes of CO2 per
acre per year (Fargione et al. 2018).
Cropland Nutrient Management--Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse
gas that is about 300 times as powerful as CO2. Of the
nitrogen fertilizer added to farm fields, about 2.5% ends up being
emitted to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, either directly from the
farm field or indirectly after nitrogen leaks from farm fields to
streams and wetlands (Davidson 2009). We estimated the benefit of the
implementation of best practices that can maintain yields, increase
profitability, and decrease nitrous oxide emissions. We considered four
improved management practices: (1) reduced whole-field application
rate, (2) switching from anhydrous ammonia to urea, (3) improved timing
of fertilizer application, and (4) variable application rate within
field. Because these practices improve efficiency, they decrease the
total amount of fertilizer production that is necessary, reducing the
fossil fuel emissions necessary for its manufacture, which we also
account for (Snyder et al. 2014). Based on these four practices, we
found a maximum potential of 22% reduction in nitrogen use, which leads
to a 29% emission reduction, including emissions from fertilizer
production.
Improved Manure Management--Manure lagoons from dairy cows and hogs
release methane, a potent greenhouse gas about 34 time more powerful
than CO2. For large farms, it can be economical to capture
this methane to use for on-farm heating or for electricity generation,
although cost sharing for initial capital costs may be necessary
(Klavon et al. 2013, Lauer et al. 2018). We estimated that there are 24
million tonnes of CO2 per year of potential for emissions
reductions from improved manure management on dairy farms with over 300
cows and hog farms with over 825 hogs. Our calculations are based on
improved management practices described in Pape et al. (2016).
Windbreaks--Windbreaks help reduce soil loss from wind erosion and
can increase crop yields by sheltering crops from damaging winds and
creating favorable microclimates that increase yields (Brandle et al.
2004). We estimated that windbreaks could be planted on about 2 million
acres, calculated assuming that 43 million acres of cropland that would
benefit windbreaks and that windbreaks would be planted on 5% of that
cropland (Pape et al. 2016). We estimated that windbreaks provide 5.28
tonnes of CO2 per acre per year of sequestration in tree
biomass and soils (Kort and Turnock n.d., Sauer et al. 2007,
Schoeneberger 2008, Wang et al. 2013, Chendev et al. 2014).
Grazing Optimization--Well-managed grazing lands store more carbon
in their soils than grasslands that are either over-grazed or not
grazed at all (McSherry and Ritchie 2013, Hewins et al. 2018). In
general, more productive systems store more carbon, suggesting that
practices that avoid degradation and promote plant growth will maximize
grassland productivity, rancher profit, and carbon storage. A global
study (Henderson et al. 2015) estimated that ``grazing optimization''
could be applied to 131 million acres in the United States with a
modest soil carbon sequestration benefit of 1/14th of a tonne of
CO2 per year. Grazing optimization prescribes a decrease in
stocking rates in areas that are over-grazed and an increase in
stocking rates in areas that are under-grazed, but with the net result
of increased forage offtake and livestock production. While there is
increasing interest and enthusiasm around various rotational grazing
practices that may achieve more significant soil carbon storage per
acre in some instances (Teague et al. 2015), additional research is
needed to be able to predict which practices will have a strong carbon
storage benefit in particular climates and soil types (Briske et al.
2008, 2011, Hawkins 2017).
Grassland Restoration--Since 2007, over 13 million acres have been
lost from the federal government's Conservation Reserve Program. Much
of this former conservation set-aside land has been put back into row
crops (Morefield et al. 2016). Restoring marginal cropland to
grassland, e.g. through increasing the acres enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program, sequesters about 1.8 tonnes of
CO2 per acre per year in soils and root biomass. Grassland
restoration also helps support conservation goals for water quality
(Johnson et al. 2016), pollinator habitat (Hopwood 2008), waterfowl
nesting (Reynolds et al. 2006), and wildlife habitat.
Legumes in Pastures--Legumes help increase soil fertility by
converting nitrogen in the atmosphere into a form that is available to
plants; this increased availability of nitrogen helps both fertilize
the soil and further store soil carbon. Seeding legumes in pastures
increases both the amount and quality of forage, increasing
productivity for beef and dairy cattle. A global study (Henderson et
al. 2015) estimated that legume planting could be applied to 14 million
acres of pastures in the United States with a soil carbon sequestration
benefit equivalent to half a tonne of CO2 per year (after
accounting for the potential for legumes to increase nitrous oxide
emissions). We do not recommend seeding legumes into native prairie
rangeland, as this could negatively impact the diversity of native
prairie plants. Rather, this practice should be implemented in planted
pastures, which are already comprised primarily of introduced species.
Improved Rice Management--Flooded rice paddies emit methane, a
potent greenhouse gas that is about 34 times more powerful than
CO2. There are roughly 3 million acres of rice in the United
States. Practices including mid-season drainage, alternate wetting and
drying, and residue removal can reduce these emissions by roughly 40%,
with an average avoided emissions benefit equivalent to 1.4 tonnes of
CO2 per acre per year (Yan et al. 2009, Pittelkow et al.
2014, Sander et al. 2015, Peyron et al. 2016). We used an EPA analysis
that projects the potential for improvement across U.S. rice fields, in
comparison with current agricultural practices (US EPA et al. 2013).
Tidal Wetland Restoration--In the U.S., 27%, or roughly one million
acres, of tidal wetlands (salt marshes) have limited tidal connection
with the sea, causing their salinity to decline to the point where
methane emissions increase (Kroeger et al. 2017). We estimated the
potential for reconnecting these tidal wetlands to the ocean to
increase salinity and reduce methane emissions. This opportunity avoids
emissions of the equivalent of almost ten tonnes of CO2 per
acre per year. Reconnecting these wetlands can be accomplished by
widening culverts or installing tide gates (http://www.edc.uri.edu/
restoration/html/tech_sci/restsalt.htm). Restored salt marshes act as
fish nurseries, provide bird habitat (Barbier et al. 2011, Correll et
al. 2017) and reduce flood risk and shoreline erosion. We note that our
estimate omits drained tidal marshes due to lack of information about
the extent to which they could be restored. Many drained tidal marshes
are developed and thus are unlikely to be restored. However, drained
tidal marshes that were cropped have the potential to recover large
amounts of soil carbon (Anderson et al. 2016, Holmquist et al. 2018).
Inclusion of these additional restoration opportunities would reveal
even greater potential for tidal marsh restoration than quantified
here.
Wetland Restoration--Wetlands store large amounts of carbon,
because wet soils inhibit decomposition. When wetlands are drained,
these large stores of carbon begin to decompose. Protecting existing
wetlands and restoring drained wetlands helps store carbon and protects
what carbon remains in these systems. Wetlands also emit methane, a
potent greenhouse. After accounting for these methane emissions, there
is still a net greenhouse gas benefit to wetland restoration, which we
estimate at the equivalent of roughly 1.2 tonnes of CO2 per
acre per year. Our estimate of mitigation potential accounted for
changes in soil carbon, biomass, and methane emissions, considering
regional differences, the type of land use of the converted wetland,
and whether or not the wetland was originally forested. We estimated
that there are about 7 million acres of restorable wetlands, based on
the difference between historic wetland extent [as determined by the
extent of Histosols in soil maps (Soil Survey Staff 2016)] and current
wetland extent.
Avoided Seagrass Loss--Seagrass traps and stores sediment in
shallow ocean waters. Seagrass stores, on average, 211 tonnes of
CO2 per acre, and of this, an estimated 132 tonnes of
CO2 per acre are released to the atmosphere when seagrasses
are lost (Pendleton et al. 2012). Seagrass habitat is being lost due to
nutrient pollution and other human impacts (Orth et al. 2006). An
estimated 1.5% of seagrass extent is lost every year (Waycott et al.
2009). Applying this to the estimated 3.6 million acres of remaining
seagrass in the United States (CEC 2013, 2016), we estimate about
50,000 acres of seagrass loss per year. Such losses could be avoided by
efforts to reduce nutrient pollution in seagrass habitat, as has
successfully been achieved in Tampa Bay through waste water treatment
plant upgrades, stormwater treatment, phosphate industry best
management practices and fossil fuel power plant upgrades for nitrogen
control (Morrison and Greening 2011, Cooper 2012, Sherwood 2017).
Seagrass Restoration--We estimate that there are 4.5 million acres
of lost seagrass habitat that could be restored (Waycott et al. 2009).
Restoration techniques include natural recolonization, seeding, and
transplanting in locations where pollution has been sufficiently
reduced to enable restoration (van Katwijk et al. 2016). Restored
seagrass sequesters an estimated 1.3 tonnes of CO2 per acre per year
(Thorhaug et al. 2017).
conclusion
I'm optimistic that we can implement Natural Climate Solutions
through targeted investments and policies at a scale that will
meaningfully contribute to fighting climate change. These approaches
are gaining traction because there are so many good reasons to
implement Natural Climate Solutions, even beyond climate. From reducing
costs for farmers to improving air quality for people to protecting
coastal communities from flooding, the benefits are numerous. Natural
Climate Solutions are low cost and are available now. For all these
reasons, the time is right to invest significantly in Natural Climate
Solutions.
references
Akbari, H. 2002. Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2
emissions from power plants. Environmental Pollution 116:119-126.
Akbari, H., M. Pomerantz, and H. Taha. 2001. Cool surfaces and
shade trees to reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban
areas. Solar Energy 70:295-310.
Aller, D. M., S. V. Archontoulis, W. Zhang, W. Sawadgo, D. A.
Laird, and K. Moore. 2018. Long term biochar effects on corn yield,
soil quality and profitability in the US Midwest. Field Crops Research
227:30-40.
Anderson, F. E., B. Bergamaschi, C. Sturtevant, S. Knox, L.
Hastings, L. Windham-myers, M. Detto, E. L. Hestir, J. Drexler, R. L.
Miller, J. H. Matthes, J. Verfaillie, D. Baldocchi, R. L. Snyder, and
R. Fujii. 2016. Variation of energy and carbon fluxes from a temperate
freshwater wetland and implications for carbon market verification
protocols. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeoscience 121:1-19.
Barbier, E. B., S. D. Hacker, C. Kennedy, E. W. Koch, A. C. Stier,
and B. R. Silliman. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem
services. Ecological Monographs 81:169-193.
Brandle, J. R., L. Hodges, and X. H. Zhou. 2004. Windbreaks in
North American agricultural systems. Agroforestry Systems 61-2:65-78.
Briske, D. D., J. D. Derner, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf, W. R.
Teague, K. M. Havstad, R. L. Gillen, A. J. Ash, and W. D. Willms. 2008.
Rotational grazing on rangelands: Reconciliation of perception and
experimental evidence. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:3-17.
Briske, D. D., J. D. Derner, D. G. Milchunas, and K. W. Tate. 2011.
An Evidence-Based Assessment of Prescribed Grazing Practices.
Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment,
recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps:21-74.
CEC. 2013. North American Blue Carbon Scoping Study. Montreal,
Canada.
CEC. 2016. North America's Blue Carbon: Assessing Seagrass, Salt
Marsh and Mangrove Distribution and Carbon Sinks. Montreal, Canada.
Chendev, Y. G., L. L. Novykh, T. J. Sauer, and C. L. Petin,
Aleksandr N Zazdravnykh, Evgeny A Burras. 2014. Evolution of Soil
Carbon Storage and Morphometric Properties of Afforested Soils in the
U.S. Great Plains. Pages 475-482 in A. E. Hartemink and K. McSweeney,
editors. Soil Carbon Progress in Soil Science. Springer International
Publishing, Cham.
Collatz, G., C. Williams, B. Ghimire, S. Goward, and J. Masek.
2014. CMS: Forest Biomass and Productivity, 1-degree and 5-km,
Conterminous US, 2005.
Conservation Technology Information Center, Sustainable Agriculture
Research & Education, and American Seed Trade Association. 2017. Annual
Report 2016-2017 Cover Crop Survey.
Cooper, S. 2012. Integrating Nitrogen Management with Planning.
Correll, M. D., W. A. Wiest, T. P. Hodgman, W. G. Shriver, C. S.
Elphick, B. J. McGill, K. M. O'Brien, and B. J. Olsen. 2017. Predictors
of specialist avifaunal decline in coastal marshes. Conservation
Biology 31:172-182.
Davidson, E. A. 2009. The contribution of manure and fertilizer
nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860. Nature Geoscience
2:659-662.
Dharmakeerthi, R. S., K. Hanley, T. Whitman, D. Woolf, and J.
Lehmann. 2015. Organic carbon dynamics in soils with pyrogenic organic
matter that received plant residue additions over seven years. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry 88:268-274.
Ellis, P. W., T. Gopalakrishna, R. C. Goodman, F. E. Putz, A.
Roopsind, P. M. Umunay, J. Zalman, E. A. Ellis, K. Mo, T. G. Gregoire,
and B. W. Griscom. 2019. Reduced-impact logging for climate change
mitigation (RIL-C) can halve selective logging emissions from tropical
forests. Forest Ecology and Management 438:255-266.
Fargione, J. E., S. Bassett, T. Boucher, S. D. Bridgham, R. T.
Conant, S. C. Cook-Patton, P. W. Ellis, A. Falcucci, J. W. Fourqurean,
T. Gopalakrishna, H. Gu, B. Henderson, M. D. Hurteau, K. D. Kroeger, T.
Kroeger, T. J. Lark, S. M. Leavitt, G. Lomax, R. I. McDonald, J.
Patrick Megonigal, D. A. Miteva, C. J. Richardson, J. Sanderman, D.
Shoch, S. A. Spawn, J. W. Veldman, C. A. Williams, P. B. Woodbury, C.
Zganjar, M. Baranski, P. Elias, R. A. Houghton, E. Landis, E. McGlynn,
W. H. Schlesinger, J. V. Siikamaki, A. E. Sutton-Grier, and B. W.
Griscom. 2018. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Science
Advances 4:1-14.
Garrett, G., W. (Dusty) Walter, and L. D. Godsey. 2015. Alley
cropping: Farming between the trees. Green Horizons 19.
Garrett, H. E., J. E. Jones, W. B. Kurtz, and J. P. Slusher. 1991.
Black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) agroforestry--its design and potential
as a land-use alternative. Forestry Chronicle 67:213-218.
Goward, S. N., C. Huang, F. Zhao, K. Schleeweis, K. Rishmawi, M.
Lindsey, J. L. Dungan, and A. Michaelis. 2015. NACP NAFD Project:
Forest Disturbance History from Landsat, 1986-2010.
Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. a.
Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R.
Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L. Chini, C. O. Justice, and J. R.
G. Townshend. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest
cover change. Science 342:850-853.
Hawkins, H. J. 2017. A global assessment of Holistic Planned
GrazingTM compared with season-long, continuous grazing:
meta-analysis findings. African Journal of Range and Forage Science
34:65-75.
Henderson, B. B., P. J. Gerber, T. E. Hilinski, A. Falcucci, D. S.
Ojima, M. Salvatore, and R. T. Conant. 2015. Greenhouse gas mitigation
potential of the world's grazing lands: Modeling soil carbon and
nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 207:91-100.
Hewins, D. B., M. P. Lyseng, D. F. Schoderbek, M. Alexander, W. D.
Willms, C. N. Carlyle, S. X. Chang, and E. W. Bork. 2018. Grazing and
climate effects on soil organic carbon concentration and particle-size
association in northern grasslands. Scientific Reports 8:1-9.
Holmquist, J. R., L. Windham-Myers, N. Bliss, S. Crooks, J. T.
Morris, J. P. Megonigal, T. Troxler, D. Weller, J. Callaway, J.
Drexler, M. C. Ferner, M. E. Gonneea, K. D. Kroeger, L. Schile-Beers,
I. Woo, K. Buffington, J. Breithaupt, B. M. Boyd, L. N. Brown, N. Dix,
L. Hice, B. P. Horton, G. M. MacDonald, R. P. Moyer, W. Reay, T. Shaw,
E. Smith, J. M. Smoak, C. Sommerfield, K. Thorne, D. Velinsky, E.
Watson, K. W. Grimes, and M. Woodrey. 2018. Accuracy and Precision of
Tidal Wetland Soil Carbon Mapping in the Conterminous United States.
Scientific reports 8:9478.
Hopwood, J. L. 2008. The contribution of roadside grassland
restorations to native bee conservation. Biological Conservation
141:2632-2640.
Johnson, K. A., B. J. Dalzell, M. Donahue, J. Gourevitch, D. L.
Johnson, G. S. Karlovits, B. Keeler, and J. T. Smith. 2016.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service
benefits that exceed land rental payment costs. Ecosystem Services
18:175-185.
van Katwijk, M. M., A. Thorhaug, N. Marba, R. J. Orth, C. M.
Duarte, G. A. Kendrick, I. H. J. Althuizen, E. Balestri, G. Bernard, M.
L. Cambridge, A. Cunha, C. Durance, W. Giesen, Q. Han, S. Hosokawa, W.
Kiswara, T. Komatsu, C. Lardicci, K. S. Lee, A. Meinesz, M. Nakaoka, K.
R. O'Brien, E. I. Paling, C. Pickerell, A. M. A. Ransijn, and J. J.
Verduin. 2016. Global analysis of seagrass restoration: The importance
of large-scale planting. Journal of Applied Ecology 53:567-578.
Keith, D. W., G. Holmes, D. St. Angelo, and K. Heidel. 2018. A
Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere. Joule 2:1573-1594.
Klavon, K. H., S. A. Lansing, W. Mulbry, A. R. Moss, and G. Felton.
2013. Economic analysis of small-scale agricultural digesters in the
United States. Biomass and Bioenergy 54:36-45.
Kort, J., and R. Turnock. (n.d.). Carbon reservoir and biomass in
Canadian prairie shelterbelts. Agroforestry Systems 44:175-186.
Kroeger, K. D., S. Crooks, S. Moseman-valtierra, and J. Tang. 2017.
Restoring tides to avoid methane emissions in impounded wetlands: A new
and potent Blue Carbon climate change intervention. Scientific Reports
7162:1-23.
Kroeger, T., R. I. Mcdonald, T. Boucher, P. Zhang, and L. Wang.
2018. Where the people are: Current trends and future potential
targeted investments in urban trees for PM10 and temperature mitigation
in 27 U.S. cities. Landscape and Urban Planning:277-240.
Lark, T. J., J. Meghan Salmon, and H. K. Gibbs. 2015. Cropland
expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United
States. Environmental Research Letters 10:044003.
Lauer, M., J. K. Hansen, P. Lamers, and D. Thran. 2018. Making
money from waste: The economic viability of producing biogas and
biomethane in the Idaho dairy industry. Applied Energy 222:621-636.
Liang, B., J. Lehmann, D. Solomon, S. Sohi, J. E. Thies, J. O.
Skjemstad, F. J. Luizao, M. H. Engelhard, E. G. Neves, and S. Wirick.
2008. Stability of biomass-derived black carbon in soils. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 72:6069-6078.
Luyssaert, S., E. D. Schulze, A. Borner, A. Knohl, D. Hessenmoller,
B. E. Law, P. Ciais, and J. Grace. 2008. Old-growth forests as global
carbon sinks. Nature 455:213-215.
McDonald, R. I., T. Kroeger, P. Zhang, and P. Hamel. 2019. The
Value of US Urban Tree Cover for Reducing Heat-Related Health Impacts
and Electricity Consumption. Ecosystems.
McSherry, M. E., and M. E. Ritchie. 2013. Effects of grazing on
grassland soil carbon: A global review. Global Change Biology 19:1347-
1357.
Mokany, K., R. J. Raison, and A. S. Prokushkin. 2006. Critical
analysis of root: shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Global Change
Biology 12:84-96.
Morefield, P. E., S. D. Leduc, C. M. Clark, and R. Iovanna. 2016.
Grasslands, wetlands, and agriculture: The fate of land expiring from
the Conservation Reserve Program in the Midwestern United States.
Environmental Research Letters 11.
Morrison, G., and H. Greening. 2011. Water Quality. Pages 105-156
in K. K. Yates, H. Greening, and G. Morrison, editors. Integrating
Science and Resource Management in Tampa Bay, Florida: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1348.
Nowak, D. J., E. J. Greenfield, R. E. Hoehn, and E. Lapoint. 2013.
Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas
of the United States. Environmental Pollution 178:229-236.
Open Street Map. 2016. Osm2Shp.
Orth, R. J., T. J. B. Carruthers, W. C. Dennison, C. M. Duarte, J.
W. Fourqurean, K. L. Heck, A. R. Hughes, G. A. Kendrick, W. J.
Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F. T. Short, M. Waycott, and S. L. Williams.
2006. A Global Crisis for Seagrass Ecosystems. BioScience 56:987.
Pape, D., J. Lewandrowski, R. Steele, D. Man, M. Riley-gilbert, K.
Moffroid, and S. Kolansky. 2016. Managing Agricultural Land for
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation within the United States.
Pendleton, L., D. C. Donato, B. C. Murray, S. Crooks, W. A.
Jenkins, S. Sifleet, C. Craft, J. W. Fourqurean, J. B. Kauffman, N.
Marba, P. Megonigal, E. Pidgeon, D. Herr, D. Gordon, and A. Baldera.
2012. Estimating Global ``Blue Carbon'' Emissions from Conversion and
Degradation of Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 7:e43542.
Peyron, M., C. Bertora, S. Pelissetti, D. Said-Pullicino, L. Celi,
E. Miniotti, M. Romani, and D. Sacco. 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions as
affected by different water management practices in temperate rice
paddies. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 232:17-28.
Pittelkow, C. M., Y. Assa, M. Burger, R. G. Mutters, C. A. Greer,
L. A. Espino, J. E. Hill, W. R. Horwath, C. van Kessel, and B. A.
Linquist. 2014. Nitrogen management and methane emissions in direct-
seeded rice systems. Agronomy Journal 106:968-980.
Poeplau, C., and A. Don. 2015. Carbon sequestration in agricultural
soils via cultivation of cover crops--A meta-analysis. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 200:33-41.
Revord, R., S. Lovell, T. Molnar, K. J. Wolz, and C. Mattia. 2019.
Germplasm development of underutilized temperate U.S. tree crops.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 11:7-14.
Reynolds, R. E., T. L. Shaffer, C. R. Loesch, and R. C. Cox Jr.
2006. The Farm Bill and duck production in the Prairie Pothole Region:
Increasing the benefits. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:963-974.
Sander, B. O., R. Wassmann, and D. L. C. Siopongco. 2015.
Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Rice Production through Water-
saving Techniques: Potential, Adoption and Empirical Evidence. Los
Banos, Philippines.
Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, and G. J. Fiske. 2017. Soil carbon debt of
12,000 years of human land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 114:9575-9580.
Sauer, T. J., C. A. Cambardella, and J. R. Brandle. 2007. Soil
carbon and tree litter dynamics in a red cedar-scotch pine shelterbelt.
Agroforestry Systems 71:163-174.
Schoeneberger, M. M. 2008. Agroforestry: working trees for
sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems 75:27-
37.
Sherwood, E. T. 2017. 2016 Tampa Bay water quality assessment. St.
Petersburg, FL, USA.
Smith, J., L. Heath, K. Skog, and R. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for
calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard
estimates for forest types of the United States. Page USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report NE-343. USDA Forest Service, Newtown
Square, PA.
Snyder, C., E. Davidson, P. Smith, and R. Venterea. 2014.
Agriculture: sustainable crop and animal production to help mitigate
nitrous oxide emissions. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability 9-10:46-54.
Soil Survey Staff. 2016. Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO)
Database for the Conterminous United States. United States Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Soil Survey Staff. 2017. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2).
Song, X., G. Pan, C. Zhang, L. Zhang, and H. Wang. 2016. Effects of
biochar application on fluxes of three biogenic greenhouse gases: a
meta-analysis. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 2:e01202.
Sorensen, A. A., J. Freedgood, J. Dempsey, and D. M. Theobald.
2018. Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland. Washington
D.C.
Teague, R., B. Grant, and H. H. Wang. 2015. Assessing optimal
configurations of multi-paddock grazing strategies in tallgrass prairie
using a simulation model. Journal of Environmental Management 150:262-
273.
Tellatin, S., and R. L. Myers. 2018. Cover crop impacts on US
cropland carbon sequestration. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
73:117A-121A.
Thorhaug, A., H. M. Poulos, J. Lopez-Portillo, T. C. W. Ku, and G.
P. Berlyn. 2017. Seagrass blue carbon dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico:
Stocks, losses from anthropogenic disturbance, and gains through
seagrass restoration. Science of the Total Environment 605-606:626-636.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Cartographic Boundary File, Urban Area
for United States.
U.S. DOE. 2016. 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic
Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic Availability of
Feedstocks. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012. Draft Land Protection Plan:1-
22.
Udawatta, Ranjith P., Jose, S. 2011. Carbon Sequestration Potential
of Agroforestry Systems. Pages 17-42 in B. M. Kumar and P. K. R. Nair,
editors. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems.
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
US EPA, U. EPA, U. S. Environmental, P. Agency, and U. EPA. 2013.
Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030. Page
Environmental Protection.
USGCRP. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National
Climate Assessment, Volume I. Page (Wuebbles, D.J., D. W. Fahey, K. A.
Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds.). U.S.
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC.
Wang, F., X. Xu, B. Zou, Z. Guo, Z. Li, and W. Zhu. 2013. Biomass
accumulation and carbon sequestration in four different aged Casuarina
equisetifolia coastal shelterbelt plantations in South China. PloS one
8:e77449.
Wang, J., Z. Xiong, and Y. Kuzyakov. 2016. Biochar stability in
soil: Meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. GCB Bioenergy
8:512-523.
Waycott, M., C. M. Duarte, T. J. B. Carruthers, R. J. Orth, W. C.
Dennison, S. Olyarnik, A. Calladine, J. W. Fourqurean, K. L. Heck, Ar.
R. Hughes, G. a Kendrick, Wj. J. Kenworthy, F. T. Short, and S. L.
Williams. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe
threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 106:12377-12381.
Williams, C. A., H. Gu, R. MacLean, J. G. Masek, and G. J. Collatz.
2016. Disturbance and the carbon balance of US forests: A quantitative
review of impacts from harvests, fires, insects, and droughts. Global
and Planetary Change 143:66-80.
Wolz, K. J., and E. H. DeLucia. 2019. Black walnut alley cropping
is economically competitive with row crops in the Midwest USA.
Ecological Applications 29:1-14.
World Wildlife Fund. 2018. The Plowprint Report: 2018. Bozeman, MT.
Xian, G., C. Homer, J. Dewitz, J. Fry, N. Hossain, and J. Wickham.
2011. The change of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in
the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 77:758-762.
Yan, X., H. Akiyama, K. Yagi, and H. Akimoto. 2009. Global
estimations of the inventory and mitigation potential of methane
emissions from rice cultivation conducted using the 2006
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 23:20-23.
Ms. Castor. Thank you. Vice Chairman Myers, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF VICE CHAIRMAN FRANKIE MYERS
Mr. Myers. Thank you. [Speaking native language.]
Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and committee
members. Thank you for the invitation to testify today about
the role of forests in cutting pollution and building
resiliency. Per our traditional protocol and policy, I am going
to open with a prayer before I give my statement.
[Speaking native lanaguage.]
Frankie Myers. I am the vice chairman of the Yurok Tribe,
the largest federally recognized tribe in California, with
around 6,500 members. Our aboriginal territory spanned about
1.5 million acres of oceans, rivers, redwood forests, and
upland prairies. Our reservation now includes one mile on
either side of the Klamath River from the mouth of the river up
45 miles.
I want to start off by dispelling a myth that nature is
wild. Nature, in Yurok belief, is only natural when humans are
a part of it. It is a tenet of Yurok belief that you have to be
a part of the world around you to truly have a natural forest
and ecosystem.
Our current force management policies recognize that by
using our time-tested indigenous knowledge, we can develop a
healthy, functioning forest ecosystem that will provide long-
term benefits, certainty, and resiliency, to the impact of
climate change.
Resource management planning must focus on long-term
management, goals and objectives, guided by a clear vision of
the future of our forests, rather than focus on short-term
benefits of extractive management. Our forests' ecosystem
function and integrity need to be held to equal value with the
economic benefits of forests. This approach will bring back
balance to the forest, a balance that was lost due to intensive
extractive force practices.
Bringing back balance starts with returning land to the
traditional stewards. For us, thousands and thousands of acres
were lost in the mid and late 1800s through federal Indian land
policy. The original Yurok reservation was cut down to a mere
4,000 acres.
For over a century, Yurok ancestral force lands were used
by non-Indians as commercial timberlands, turning our precious,
old-growth coast of redwood forest, into a network of dirt
roads, timber-slashed piles and clear-cut hills. These
monoculture forestry practices decimated wildlife habitat,
suppressed the native ecology, and destroyed the abundant
natural resources that were created over centuries of
traditional land management practices.
To implement the tribe's force management policies as well
as heal from historical losses, the Yurok Tribe has been
actively working to recover its homeland with a goal of
restoring balance. In 2018, after two decades of working with
the Yurok, the Yurok Tribe reacquired nearly 60,000 acres of
our traditional forest lands adjacent to the reservation.
Through the reacquisition of forest lands, the tribe is
engaging in forestry practices, gathered by traditional
knowledge, backed by Western science, with the goal of
restoring the forest lands to a dynamic ecosystem.
One example is the tribe's carbon project. The Yurok was
the first tribe to participate in Southern California Air
Resource Board-issued carbon offsets, credits in the State's
cap and trade program. By 2020 we will manage multiple improved
forest management projects in the cap and trade program,
totalling over 47,500 acres on and adjacent to the Yurok
reservation.
The program provides for a market mechanism for reducing
carbon dioxide emissions from California's largest
CO2 emitters. The program works by limiting or
capping the amount of emissions large corporations and
industries emit. The emission limit is then reduced over time
so that total emissions will decrease to meet State targets.
Carbon sequestration, like Yuroks', supply the carbon
offits for the regulated entities to meet the reduction limits.
On the carbon offset seller side, carbon projects are developed
on forest lands that may otherwise be used for extractive
purposes. This effort, coupled with the Yurok Lands Act Bill,
pending in the House now, which would also add to the Yurok
Reservation and our stewardship, would include carbon projects
and allow the tribe to manage our natural resources in a way
that builds and improves climate change resiliency and cuts
pollution.
We urge the Congress to support the Lands Act and encourage
this committee to support values, policies, and programs that
hold equal forest ecosystem functions and integrity with the
economic benefits.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
Testimony of Vice Chairman Frankie Myers
Vice Chairman, Yurok Tribe
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution
and Building Climate Resilience''
October 22, 2019
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and
Subcommittee Members. Thank you for the invitation to testify today
about the role of forests in cutting pollution and building resilience.
My name is Frankie Myers; I am the Vice Chairman of the Yurok Tribe. I
am a Yurok traditional religious practitioner, fisherman, hunter, and
have lived on the Yurok Reservation for my entire life. I have worked
for the Yurok Tribe for most of my career, and have served as the Vice
Chairman for over a year.
The Yurok Tribe recognizes the direct threat and impacts of climate
change to the Yurok Tribe, citizens of the State of California, United
States, and global communities. Since time immemorial, the Yurok Tribe
has acted purposefully to serve as responsible stewards of our land,
culture, air, and water resources, and we will continue to expand and
advance our capacity to restore and manage these resources for Yurok
people. Our long-term strategic vision for the management of Yurok
natural resources is based on our traditions and culture, but guided by
modern, science-based adaptive management.
The Tribe has been opportunistic in finding mechanisms to support
the restoration of our forests. As one of the first participants in the
California cap-and-trade program, we have witnessed firsthand the
program's environmental, cultural, legal and economic benefits. The
California cap-and-trade program has allowed the Yurok Tribe to not
only reacquire misused forestlands within our ancestral territory, but
has allowed us to actively manage those lands to restore them to
produce many climate benefits. This restoration effort will allow the
forests to function as intended, sequestering carbon, releasing oxygen,
and providing invaluable ecosystem services. The effort will also allow
our Tribal members to use the land as our ancestors did and support
recovery of the wildlife and aquatic species that are now imperiled.
The restoration of our ecosystem can, and should, be a top priority to
address and combat climate change, reduce pollution and build
resiliency.
i. history of yurok people
The Yurok people have occupied the pacific coast of Northern
California and inland on the Klamath River since time immemorial. Our
aboriginal territory included over 1.5 million acres of ocean, lagoons,
redwood forest, the lower 45 miles of the Klamath River, and our sacred
high country in what is now known as Northern California. Our
aboriginal territory is one of the most wild, biodiverse, and
ecologically unique places on the planet that includes the tallest
trees in the world, some of the most ancient and largest fish on the
planet, and the only fresh water lagoons on earth. From the beginning,
we have followed all the laws of the Creator, which became the whole
fabric of our tribal sovereignty.
In times past and present, the Yurok people have blessed the deep
river, the tall redwood trees, the rocks, the mounds, and the trails.
We pray for the health of all animals, and prudently harvest and manage
the great salmon runs and herds of deer and elk. We never waste and use
every bit of the animal or plant. Traditionally, our stewardship of the
prairies and forests consists of controlled burns that improve wildlife
habitat and enhance the health and growth of tan oak acorns, nuts and
berries, grasses and bushes. We use all of these for food and materials
for baskets, fabrics, and utensils. These practices led us to become
early implementers of California's cap-and-trade program.
For millennia our religion and sovereignty have been pervasive
throughout all our traditional villages. Our village way of life
requires use of the sweathouse, extensive spiritual training and
sacrifice, and firm adherence to tribal law. The Klamath River was and
remains our highway, and from the beginning we have utilized the river
and the ocean in dugout canoes carved from redwood trees. Our people
come together from many villages to perform ceremonial construction of
our fish dams, and to participate in our annual ceremonies. Our Yurok
Country stayed in balance, kept that way by our good stewardship, hard-
work, wise laws, and constant prayers to the Creator.
Our social and ecological balance, thousands and thousands of years
old, was shattered by contact with non-Indians in the mid-1800s. In
1851, California's first Governor promised ``a war of extermination
will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race
becomes extinct.'' In finally apologizing on behalf of California,
Governor Newsom, in 2019, called this what it was--``genocide.'' For
us, it is not history. We lost more than seventy-five percent of our
people through unprovoked massacres and diseases. After goldminers
swarmed over our land, we signed a ``Treaty of Peace and Friendship''
with representatives of the President of the United States in 1851, but
then the United States Senate failed to ratify the treaty. Then in
1855, the United States ordered us to be confined to the Yurok
Reservation (then called the ``Klamath River Reservation''), created by
Executive Order. In 1864 and 1891, our reservation was merged with the
Hoopa Valley Reservation. But even this small remnant of our ancestral
land did not last long.
In the late 1890s individual Indians received allotments from the
tribal lands on the Yurok Reservation and almost all of the remainder
of the Reservation was declared ``surplus'' and opened for homesteading
by non-Indians. The forests were logged excessively and wildlife was
depleted. Even the great salmon runs went into deep decline. In the
mid-1930s, the State of California attempted to illegally terminate
traditional fishing by Yurok people. Our rights were judicially
reaffirmed in the 1970s and 1980s after decades of legal and physical
battles. Then, in 1988 Congress passed the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act
to separate the Yurok Reservation from the Hoopa Reservation and
distribute tribal assists. The Yurok Reservation remained under Yurok
control with only slightly over 5,000 acres of trust land while the
Hoopa Reservation remained under Hoopa control with over 90,000 acres
of trust land.
In a matter of 130 years, the Yurok people lost over 1.49 million
acres of land. In the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, Congress recognized
that the Act was not favorable to the Yurok people. It included in the
Act two provisions to address the inequities. The first, an
authorization for the Tribe to acquire more land adjacent to the Yurok
Reservation, and the second, an authorization for appropriations to
purchase more land. Congress also expressed its intent to continue to
work with the Tribe to rebuild its land base through appropriating
federal funding to purchase land and supporting future land
acquisition.
Against all odds, we have resisted, survived and maintained our
culture and our people: in part, because we were never relocated, and
in part because we believe in our cultural and religious traditions.
Today, we are the largest California tribe with over 6,400 tribal
members. Indeed, many tribal members still live a traditional
subsistence based way of life. Every year we hold tribal ceremonies,
dancing for the health of babies and to balance the world. Many of us
still live in our traditional villages along the Klamath River where
our ancestors lived, and subside based on a fishing, hunting, and
gathering life way.
Today, we are lawyers, doctors, soldiers, judges, artists, amongst
other occupations and we proudly continue to live our traditional ways.
But it is not easy. The annual income on the reservation is $11,000 and
many of our members live well below the poverty line. They attempt to
make ends meet through supplementing food sources with subsistence
activities, hunting of deer and elk and fishing of salmon, sturgeon,
eels, and other fish. But the resources of the reservation continue to
be diminished by off reservation development. Specifically, the Klamath
River salmon runs over the last four years have been the lowest on
record. The salmon have been killed by various fish diseases caused by
poor water quality, high water temperatures, and low flows all of which
are caused by dams and agriculture. We have been forced to close our
fishery and we have declared a fishing disaster every year for the last
three years. Animals on the land are in decline because of lack of
habitat due to logging, spraying of pesticides on reservation by
logging companies, and massive illegal marijuana grows.
While much has been lost, the spirit of the Creator and our
inherent tribal sovereignty still thrive in the hearts and minds of our
people as well as in the strong currents, deep canyons, thick forests,
and high mountains of our ancestral lands. The Yurok Tribe has emerged,
strong and proud from the tragedies and wrongs of the years since the
arrival of non-Indians into our land. Our sacred and vibrant traditions
have survived and are now growing grander and richer each year.
Our future lies in sustainable economic development based on our
rich natural resources, cultural traditions, and preservation of our
way of life. There is little economic opportunity in our area, and it
is up to us to use our limited resources to advance our people.
ii. forests as nature based solution to climate change
In 2011, the Yurok Tribe became one of the first participants in
the California Cap-and-Trade Program (Cap-and-Trade Program) by
participating in the development of the California Assembly Bill 32:
Global Warming Solutions Act and operating one of the first carbon
sequestration projects under the Act. By 2020 we will manage multiple
Improved Forest Management projects, totaling over 47,500 acres on and
adjacent to the Yurok Reservation that are registered in the California
Air Resources Board (``CARB'') as part of the Cap-and-Trade Program
which we refer to as the ``carbon project.''
The carbon project is part of a two-decade land acquisition effort
whereby the Tribe reacquired nearly 60,000 acres of forestlands within
its ancestral territory that was completed in 2018.\1\ These lands--
along with tens of thousands of other Yurok ancestral forestlands--were
lost in the mid and late 1800s through federal Indian land reservation
and allotment policies, allowing millions of acres of tribal lands
across the nation to pass to non-Indian ownership. After allotment, the
original 25,000-acre Yurok Reservation (including the lower 22 miles,
and approximately half the acreage, of the present-day Yurok
Reservation), representing only a fraction of the Tribe's ancestral
territory, was cut down to less than 4,000 acres of Tribal lands. For
over a century, Yurok ancestral forestlands were used by non-Indians as
commercial timberlands, turning a dynamic old-growth coastal redwood
forest ecosystem into a network of dirt roads, timber slash piles, and
clear-cut hill slopes, driven by monoculture forestry practices that
decimated wildlife habitat and suppressed the native ecology. But now,
through the reacquisition of forestlands, the Tribe is engaging in
forestry practices guided by traditional knowledge and contemporary
scientific knowledge with the goal of restoring the forestlands to a
dynamic ecosystem the forest once knew and allowing Yurok Tribal
members to interact with the landscape as they have done since time
immemorial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a thorough discussion of the Tribe's carbon project and
land acquisitions, see attached Beth Rose Middleton & Kaitlin Reed,
Returning the Yurok Forest to the Yurok Tribe: California's First
Tribal Carbon Credit Project, 39 STAN. ENVTL. L. REV. (forthcoming Jan.
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To facilitate the land acquisition funding, the Tribe developed
carbon projects on certain parcels of the forestlands. In doing so,
Yurok was the first tribe to participate in selling California Air
Resource Board (``ARB'') ARB issued carbon offset credits in the
State's cap-and-trade program. The program provides a market mechanism
for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from California's largest
polluters who are regulated by the State. The program works by
limiting, or capping, the amount of emissions large polluters can emit.
That emission limit is then reduced over time so total emissions will
decrease to meet state targets. The regulated entities can buy carbon
offsets to help meet their emission limits along the way, but still
ensuring that pollution volumes decrease. Carbon sequestration
projects, like Yuroks, supply the carbon offsets that the regulated
entities may buy to meet their limits. On the carbon offset seller
side, carbon projects are developed on forestlands that may otherwise
be used for other extractive purposes, primarily industrial timber.
When a party, like Yurok, decides to create a carbon project, it agrees
to maintain the forest's ability to sequester carbon for 100 years.
During that time, the forest cannot be managed to lower the amount of
carbon it sequesters at the time of project outset. Thus, forest carbon
projects work by requiring forestlands to remain intact as forests for
100 years, maintaining and growing the amount of carbon those forests
sequester over that time.
The largest project, on the ``Phase 1'' property, was developed in
2011 and covers over 22,000 acres of forestland. The smaller project--
Cook Coppala Gerber Gleason--is approximately 9,000 acres and was
developed in 2012. The Tribe has benefited greatly from its
participation in the California carbon market. The revenues realized
from its carbon sales have been used to pay back loans for the
reacquired lands and, critically, are used for on-the-ground management
and operations expenses.
Both carbon projects are defined as improved forestry management
forest projects, where ``The Forest Owner must adhere to a renewable
long-term management plan that demonstrates harvest levels which can be
permanently sustained over time . . . .'' By including a carbon project
on Yurok-managed forestlands, the Tribe undertook a management
initiative that included timber harvesting but cabined by the need to
sustain and grow the carbon sequestering potential of the forests. For
the Tribe, these seemingly contrasting goals actually supported each
other. Because the forests had been historically harvested so heavily
and were in unnatural and even ecologically dangerous condition, they
demanded active management to restore them. Such work required a level
of timber harvest to remove dense timber stands that would be small,
regular, but sustainable. In turn, the remaining forest could grow
stronger and faster, sequester more carbon, and provide for better
wildlife habitat.
a. Traditional/Historical Resource Management of Yurok Forests
The Yurok Tribe possesses a profound connection to the land, air,
water, and animal resources of the natural world. These resources have
provided for the cultural, spiritual, and physical health and well-
being of the Yurok people since time immemorial. Historically, Yurok
people were care-takers of the natural world, respecting and managing
the natural resources that they relied upon for survival. Tribal
members were conscious of the physical and biological cycles of the
natural world, and lived in ways that respected those cycles. Disregard
of theses cycles could easily cause imbalance and disruption of the
natural balances of the ecosystem, and seriously threaten the health
and survival of families, villages, and the Tribe as a whole. To avoid
disruptions and threats to Yurok survival, strong cultural traditions
guided the rhythms of life, and the utilization and management of
critical natural resources. Natural resources were managed
comprehensively for eco-system wide health. The harvesting and
gathering of resources were closely managed. Seasonal gathering times
and places were in rhythm with these natural cycles, and meant to
harvest only what was needed to meet the needs of the people. Hunting
places, and fishing places were respected, and resources were shared
among the people. This ensured balance with the natural world, provided
consistency and assurances, and resiliency in times of hardship and
strife.
A strong, vigorous, and healthy natural ecosystem remains just as
important to the Yurok Tribe now, as in historical times. The cultural,
spiritual, and physical health and well-being of the Yurok People
continues to be bound and connected to the well-being of the natural
world. We envision a renewed and restored natural ecosystem, that when
managed carefully, with respect and balance, will provide for the needs
of Yurok People now and for generations to come. Tribal members will
have the ability to actively manage their lands, to gather, hunt,
practice Yurok ceremonies, and pray for spiritual and world renewal.
Natural resources are also considered the cultural resources of the
Yurok Tribe. The cultural resources are broad, and encompass the
landscape, and all the natural resources within it. Significant
cultural resources include, but are not limited to; elk, deer, marten,
fisher, otter, pileated woodpecker, acorn woodpecker, stellar jay,
grouse, hazel, bear grass, acorns, huckleberry, mushrooms, and a
variety of medicinal plants. Coyote, frog, and salamander are important
animals also, and are embedded in many Yurok stories of the spiritual
world. All, are currently found in Blue Creek and surrounding tribal
lands. We desire, and strive to protect, restore, and manage these
resources to meet the cultural and economic needs of tribal members now
and for the generations of Yurok People to come through conservation-
based management, and sustainable forest management.
The Yurok Tribe wishes to share the benefits of this restored
ecosystem with other stakeholders, and apply the knowledge and lessons
learned from our experience with other tribes and state and federal
land managers, and apply it to other watersheds in the Klamath-Trinity
River basin.
b. Contemporary Yurok Forest Management
The Yurok Tribe recognizes that developing healthy, functioning
forest ecosystems, will provide long-term benefits, certainty, and
resiliency to the impacts of climate change. Forest resources can be
enhanced with the careful and thoughtful, science-based application of
various methods of thinning, logging, and other careful application of
culturally prescribed fire. It may take 50 or more years to return the
whole landscape to a state of equilibrium where the forest and its'
resources are healthy, resilient, and abundant. Resource management
planning must account for this timeframe, and focus on long-term
management goals and objectives, guided by a clear vision of the future
state of the forest, rather than focusing on the short-term benefits of
extractive management. The Yurok Tribe's vision is long-term, and
includes application of sustainable forest practices, uneven-aged
forest management, acceleration to mature and old growth forest types,
and careful implementation of forest prescriptions that support
ecosystem function, and integrity. The Yurok Tribe believes that forest
ecosystem function and integrity should hold equal value, and be
balanced with the economic benefits the forest can provide. This
vision, recognizes the inherent value of the forest, for the various
resources and economic support it provides, but also for the cultural,
spiritual, and ecological benefits of a healthy forest. Implementation
of this vision would not preclude other activities such as logging and
other forest management techniques from occurring; rather it needs to
include wisely managed selective-timber harvest, pre-commercial
thinning of overstocked stands, and other modern vegetation management
techniques. The Tribe believes this long-term, balanced approach will
respect and honor traditional values and methods, but also be a
solution to improve forest health, increase carbon sequestration,
improve water quality, protect fish and wildlife habitats, and increase
resistance and resiliency to uncontrolled wildfires.
c. Importance of Culturally Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management
Healthy forests, provide ecological stability, and resiliency to
the impacts climate change, including; accelerated loss of fish and
wildlife habitats, degraded air and water quality, and increased
intensity and severity of uncontrolled wildfires. Wildland fires within
our forests can be devastating to both the forest ecosystem, result in
massive economic costs, and loss of resources, property, and human
lives. Healthy, functioning forest ecosystems, with diverse species
composition and age-structure can increase resiliency to the impacts of
wildland fire, and help protect sensitive fish and wildlife species,
and the communities which rely upon them. Although wildfires can
potentially be harmful if uncontrolled, and initiated in dense, over-
stocked, unhealthy forest types; the safe and responsible application
of prescribed fire had been used as a traditional land management
technique, and has proven to promote and ensure the healthy forest
ecosystems that have supported Yurok People since time immemorial.
Unfortunately, decades of fire suppression, and industrialized
commercial logging activities in the Klamath-Trinity River basin has
created an unhealthy forest condition. This unhealthy condition was
created by short-term extractive management, and severely degraded fish
and wildlife habitats, water quantity and quality, and increased the
threat of catastrophic wildfire. Forests that have experienced decades
of fire suppression and commercial timber management have resulted in
very dense, even-aged, overstocked forest stands, and excessive fuel
loading conditions. These conditions, and the risk of catastrophic
wildfire have been compounded by climate change. Increased regional
annual air temperatures, changes in the natural hydrologic cycle, and
changes in seasonal weather patterns exacerbates the risk of
catastrophic wildfire across the landscape, and the potential impacts
to forest resources and the communities that rely upon them.
The Yurok Tribe promotes the application of modern, science-based
land and natural resource management techniques across a landscape
scale. However, there is also a recognition of the need to adapt modern
management, and integrate with traditional Yurok ecological knowledge
and values. Culturally prescribed fire has been used for centuries by
the Yurok Tribe to reduce fuel loading, maintain prairies and
grasslands from forest encroachment, improve habitat and forage for
wildlife, and promote growth of culturally important basket materials,
foods, and medicines for Yurok People. In recent years, with the
support of both tribal and non-tribal communities, the Yurok Tribe has
coordinated with state and federal agencies to responsibly, and
carefully restore the application of culturally prescribed fire as a
management tool on tribal lands. Regular application of low-intensity,
culturally prescribed fire can promote forest health through reduction
of fuels, increased nitrogen cycling, and increase and accelerate
forest stand diversity and age-structure. The Yurok Tribe believes that
through inter-agency partnerships, integrated resource planning, and
application of culturally prescribed fire can be an important tool to
promote healthy forests, protect against the impacts of catastrophic
wildland fire, and increase resiliency to the impacts of impending
climate change.
iii. declaring personhood rights to nature for climate resiliency
The Yurok Tribe has a long history of protecting the Klamath River
including through the establishment of the Yurok Constitution, Tribal
Law, and many lawsuits, administrative proceedings, petitions, and
grassroots activism. On May 9, 2019, the Yurok Tribal Council adopted
Resolution 19-40 granting the rights of Personhood to the Klamath River
and established the Rights of the Klamath River to exist, flourish, and
naturally evolve; to have a clean and healthy environment free from
pollutants; to have a stable climate free from human-caused climate
change impacts; and to be free from contamination by genetically
engineered organisms. The Klamath is the first river in Northern
America to have personhood rights declared.
This change in Yurok law was based on the Yurok Tribal Council's
recognition that in the face of unpredictable and drastic impacts from
the changing climate, Yurok courts would need a legal structure that
would allow for holistic review of the harms impacting the Klamath
River and a path to remedy those harms. Any remedies awarded by the
courts will go directly back to the Klamath River in the form of clean
up or restoration projects to address the harms litigated in court,
thus providing a legal avenue to keep those who would harm the River
accountable.
The Rights of the Klamath River also incorporates and recognizes
the Yurok relationship and experience with the River and its ecosystem
through traditional ecological knowledge. The law encourages the Yurok
people to continue living and practicing their traditional lifeways to
harvest plants, salmon and other fish, animals, and other life-giving
foods and medicines for both subsistence and commercial uses. The law
also establishes the rights of the Yurok people to protect and
represent the River in Yurok courts if they witness harms impacting the
River. Through this legal mechanism, the Yurok Tribal Council wished to
encourage the courts to hear and adopt traditional ecological knowledge
to ensure the reciprocal relationship to care and protect each other
between the Yurok people and the Klamath River can be fully adopted in
judicial proceedings.
We see this change in the law as a climate change adaptive measure
to increase climate resiliency because it will allow the courts to
address a wider range of unpredictable harms impacting the Klamath
River and ensure Yurok traditional ecological knowledge can be
incorporated in judicial proceedings.
iv. ocean ecosystem instability
In addition to salmon, the Yurok Tribe has long been dependent on
the marine resources in its aboriginal territory. Traditional Yurok
villages existed all along the coast from Damnation Creek to south of
present-day Trinidad, California (Tsurai Village), a stretch of coast
spanning over 80 miles. Nearshore marine resources were carefully
managed through traditional knowledge and traditional cultural
practices for thousands of years. In addition, the primary resource
that Yurok rely on, the great salmon, steelhead, lamprey, sturgeon and
eulachon runs all depend on the marine environment and its rich food
resources for part of their lives.
Although the Yurok intend to continue this tradition and practice
of stewardship of marine resources, climate change now presents an
existential threat to these resources. One of the predicted effects of
climate change is ocean ecosystem instability, which will have profound
effects to the Yurok people. Several primary factors related to climate
change are responsible for this instability:
(1) ocean acidification interferes with the ability for plankton
and other animals to make calcium carbonate shells;
(2) currents and winds will change in unpredictable ways that could
have significant consequences to the physical environment, and;
(3) warmer temperatures will bring about a shift in species
composition including food species and predator species.
Ocean acidification is caused directly by increased CO2
concentrations which in turn dissolve into the water and then create
carbonic acid. Acidic conditions interfere with the ability for certain
marine organisms such as mussels, and certain species of phytoplankton
and zooplankton to create calcium carbonate shells. Because these
species form the backbone of the marine ecosystem, acidification
presents a threat to the very foundations of the food chain. Although
the greatest effects are not expected for several decades, once
acidification begins to interfere with these animals, the effects to
the food chain will be devastating and impossible to reverse quickly.
Changing winds, currents and ocean conditions will also affect
marine ecosystems. The nearshore ocean off the west coast of the United
States is dominated by upwelling processes, which are primarily wind-
driven near Yurok ancestral territory. Cold nutrient-rich water rises
to the surface as nutrient depleted water moves offshore. This
upwelling drives one of the largest, most productive marine areas in
the world. Species from salmon, to killer whales and ultimately humans
all depend on this rich and productive system. In 2014 through 2018, a
``blob'' of warm water that stretched from Alaska to northern
California stopped the upwelling processes and decimated the food
chain. In combination with river practices and fish diseases, this
nearly wiped out the salmon runs. This condition returned in 2019, and
is now occurring with alarming frequency. The 2019 salmon runs were a
small fraction of its predicted size and it appears that a non-
functioning marine ecosystem was to blame. Although it can be difficult
to pin individual events such as this directly to climate change, given
the extremely long memory of the Yurok people and the fact that this
has not happened before, it is a reasonable hypothesis that these
events are in fact linked to climate change.
The ceasing of upwelling and shift to warmer water temperatures
have other deleterious effects. In addition to stopping upwelling
processes, warmer water temperatures bring in new species that can
either have a competitive advantage, or directly prey upon species
important to the Tribe. For example, this year, when ocean temperatures
reached about 8 +F above normal, albacore tuna were found much closer
to shore in areas where salmon are usually found in colder waters. We
believe these types of changes are contributing to the loss of salmon
on the west coast, although management of river flows, the presence of
dams and other factors in the watersheds also play a significant role.
v. recommendations for working with tribes to combat climate change
Concurrently with reacquiring our traditional land base, the Tribe
has been working on federal legislation to expand the boundaries of the
reservation and empower the Tribe to respond to climate change. The
Yurok Lands Act of 2019, H.R. 1312, was introduced into the U.S. House
of Representatives earlier this year and a hearing on the bill was held
in September in the Natural Resource Subcommittee on Indigenous
Affairs. The paradigm-shifting piece of legislation seeks to strengthen
the Yurok Tribe's sovereignty and capacity to self-govern. It expands
the Yurok Reservation to include the land the Tribe recently
reacquired, including the carbon projects lands, which is a critical
step to ensure the project's success and long term viability. The bill
also supports federal-tribal land management partnerships to ensure
that tribal human, financial, and technical resources as well as
ecological knowledge are incorporated into federal land management
decisions affecting the Yurok Reservation. The bill empowers the Tribe
to respond to climate change and we urge this Congress to pass it.
Further, the Yurok Tribe believes that partnerships between tribal,
federal, state, international and private interests are vital to
develop innovative solutions to address the complex problem of
anthropogenic climate change, and critical to mitigating impacts and
increasing the resiliency of natural and socio-economic systems. This
Congress should support partnerships between tribes and other entities
to facilitate climate adaptation and mitigation.
To that end, we offer the following specific recommendations:
Congress should ratify and fully bind the United
State of America to the United Nations Declaration of the
Rights of Indigenous People (``UNDRIP''). Ratification of
UNDRIP will ensure the United States respects the rights of
indigenous peoples and their nations and territories, which in
turn will protect the lands, resources, and cultural resources
within the United States.
Congress should also to enact legislation that would
require all federal, state, local, and territorial governmental
agencies to:
1. Conduct meaningful government-to-government consultation and
obtain free, prior, and informed consent for all decisions that affect
indigenous peoples and their traditional and ancestral territories;
2. Honor all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples;
3. Protect and enforce the sovereignty and land rights of
indigenous peoples;
4. Recognize and incorporate sustainable development principles in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change, in
order to simultaneously promote economic development, social well-
being, national security, and environmental protection. Some of these
principles include, but are not limited to:
a. Returning ancestral lands and waters to indigenous peoples to
protect and manage;
b. Provide funding and political support for the development of
green jobs and renewable energy infrastructure in lower socio-economic
communities, communities of color, and in Indian Country;
c. Provide non-competitive funding to support culturally
appropriate climate change resilience measures; and
d. Remove dams and restore water ways to their natural conditions.
5. Reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or below as
soon as possible, consistent with the latest peer-reviewed science; and
6. Work with other nation states and Native nations to reduce
global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or below and to hold the
increase in the global average temperature to the lowest possible
increase above pre-industrial levels.
Budget and Finance:
Ensure consistent multi-year funding for Tribes
through the BIA Tribal Resilience Grants and other funding
programs including the Climate Science and Adaptation Centers,
and the Landscape Conservation Collaborative Program.
Increase funding for BIA programs which promote and
support culturally prescribed burning and fuels reduction on
tribal lands to improve forest health and increase wildland
fire resiliency.
Direct federal and state appropriations and create
and streamline federal grant processes/programs to provide full
support for tribal climate programs.
Support federal and state financing for tribal
priorities related to displacement, relocation and emergency
services, and renewable energy production.
Develop administrative rules that provide for tribal
co-management of resources and land and provide funding to
support co-management projects and programs.
Fund tribes to conduct necessary marine studies for
the marine portion of the life cycle of the fish.
Fund tribes to study and manage its nearshore and
intertidal marine resources.
Address the need for stronger relationships between
tribes and funders to increase understanding and effectiveness
of funding.
Address the impacts on funding resources that are
caused by changing federal authorities.
Tribes need site specific funding in terms of using
Traditional Knowledge, integrating climate change and STEM
education, accessing site-specific data, building tribal
capacity, and implementation of projects.
Encourage the Congressional Research Service to
study available climate change related grants that tribes are
currently excluded from and recommend how to open up funding
mechanisms for Tribal governments to study, plan for and
address climate change and ecosystem resiliency.
Carbon Policy/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction:
Develop and pass equitable legislation related to
cap and trade and or carbon tax/fee that specifically includes
tribes, provides a set aside of revenues for tribes, increases
tribal capacity, and provides tribal investments in carbon
sequestration, carbon reduction actions, renewable energy, and
climate adaptation and mitigation funding.
Uphold the Paris Climate Agreement goals and
coordinate implementing those strategies with tribes, state,
cities, counties and organizations working to control Green
House Gas emissions.
Classify carbon revenue as trust revenue (through
carbon offset projects developed by tribes)
Create forest management plans that include carbon
sequestration and consider ecosystem services.
Federal Transit Administration guidelines should
reflect Green House Gas emissions; Tribes need green
infrastructure to solve transit issues.
Federal mandates for green building to reflect
Climate Change priorities should be integrated within Tribal
housing programs.
Renewables/Energy Sovereignty:
Promote tribal energy sovereignty that reflects
climate change priorities including funding to develop tribal
solar, wind, geothermal, energy efficiency and other green
technologies.
Congress should develop policies and incentives for
tribes to develop renewable energy generation on tribal
infrastructure and tribal trust lands. Congress should not
support nuclear energy because of the harms uranium mining and
the disposal of nuclear waste causes to indigenous communities
and their environments.
Decentralize renewable energy and provide
incentives. Recognize the connections between housing and
energy production.
The Federal government should serve as a mediator
between tribes and financial institutions to finance green
building, renewable energy, etc.
Traditional Knowledge:
Co-develop perspectives, research, and projects
using Traditional Knowledge (``TK'') to better understand and
interact with unique cultural landscapes.
Create scientific research questions that would lead
to compatible management strategies, values, and goals between
tribes and agencies.
Ensure for the protection of cultural tribal
knowledge. Disseminate information data sharing agreements
early on in planning process and understand Freedom Of
Information Act (FOIA) and how it can be problematic for
protecting sensitive information.
Create policy requiring the Free, Prior, and
Informed Consent of Tribes when working with TK.
Tribal Government and tribal perspectives need to be
understood by agency staff and other partners when using TK.
Youth Engagement/Education:
Fund and invest in multi-cultural and
interdisciplinary science to raise awareness among tribal
citizens and youth.
Integrate climate change education into tribal
communities through K-12 curriculum and community education
programs.
Bureau of Indian Affairs should re-invest in funding
in youth programs, including internships to provide tribal
youth and early career tribal citizens with the training and
experience needed to address climate change.
Assist Tribes to work collectively on youth and
climate change education and STEM at the state, regional,
national, and international levels.
Adaptation:
Agency partnerships with tribes should be based on
climate bioregions, and inform various partnerships networks
that strengthen cross-boundary management. Continued support
for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives is one example of this.
Federal agencies need to provide more technical
assistance in developing data sharing agreements and to make
site-specific data more accessible to tribes.
Work with BIA programs and other agencies to support
tribal priorities: Food sovereignty, entrepreneurship, economic
sovereignty, and energy efficiency.
Tribal and natural resource agencies should promote
diverse stand management structures and vegetation in their
management and administrative practices to meet the need for
creating resilient forest conditions, including restoration
practices.
Tribal adaptation plans should be looked at as
models for non-tribal jurisdictions doing adaptation planning
in regions covered or adjacent to Tribal plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to
working with the Select Committee to address climate change.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much. Dr. Howard, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JENNIFER HOWARD
Dr. Howard. Thank you, Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the committee for inviting me today. It
is a pleasure testifying today with Andy Karsner----
Ms. Castor. I am not sure if your microphone is on, or move
it closer to you.
Dr. Howard. Is that better? I think they said this one was
low. Can I borrow Andy's? Do I get my time to start over?
Okay. All right. Take 2. Thank you, Chairwoman Castor,
Ranking Member Graves, and members of the committee for
inviting me today. It is a pleasure testifying today with Andy
Karsner, who sits on Conservation International's board of
directors, and with Vice Chairman Myers. Our organization is
working closely with the Yurok Tribe on the California tropical
forest standard, and my colleague from TNC. TNC is a key
partner with Conservation International on the subject of blue
carbon.
I will start by saying that all people on earth depend
directly or indirectly on the ocean. From the food we eat, our
global economy and cultural values, the ocean touches every
aspect of our lives and allows us to thrive on this planet. And
now the oceans are demanding that we shift our thinking around
climate change. It is not a problem restricted to the
atmosphere. The atmosphere, land, and oceans all work together
to regulate our planet, and changes to one will and have been
impacting the others. Lest climate change is ocean change.
The IPCC, Ocean and Cryosphere Report, published last
month, describes these changes in no uncertain terms. Today's
ocean is warmer, rising, and more acidic. In my lifetime,
extreme weather events will be common, with extreme flooding
events occurring annually. In my 2-year-old son's lifetime,
most of the low-lying regions around the world may face
adaptation limits as they succumb to sea-level rise.
That is scary, but it is not all bad news. Nature is a
powerful ally, reducing emissions and protecting the coast
through no-regret strategies where the planet and people both
benefit.
No-regret strategy number one: conserve and restore our
coastal blue carbon ecosystems. The term ``blue carbon'' refers
to the climate sequestered and stored in coastal ecosystems
such as mangroves, tidal marshes, and seagrasses. Blue carbon
ecosystems act as long-term carbon sinks, are contained within
clear national jurisdictions, and can be integrated into
national greenhouse gas accounting. They also provide food and
livelihoods while harboring incredible biodiversity, making
their protection one of the most effective but most
underutilized nature-based strategies to combat climate change.
However, improper and inadequate management of coastal
ecosystems has led to their dramatic decline. We have lost 50
percent of blue carbon ecosystems in the last 50 years,
resulting in 450 million tons of CO2 emissions
annually.
However, aggressive conservation restoration efforts could
result in climate mitigation benefits of 1.4 gigatons of
CO2 removals each year by 2050, roughly the annual
emissions of all the cars in California, Texas, New York, and
Louisiana combined.
Mr. Graves. Louisiana too?
Dr. Howard. Louisiana, too. No-regret strategy number 2:
green-gray infrastructure. This is the fifth consecutive year
in which there were ten or more weather and climate disaster
events in the U.S. causing over $1 billion in damages. The need
for coastal protection of both people and assets has never been
higher. Green-gray infrastructure is a design philosophy that
combines nature with the selective use of conventional
engineering approaches to protect coastal communities and
assets from climate change. By blending natural green
conservation with built gray engineering techniques,
communities can incorporate the benefits of both solutions in a
more comprehensive, robust, and cost-effective way than
implementing either solution alone.
No-regret strategy number 3: sustainable ocean use. Looking
to the deep ocean, the U.S. has the largest economic exclusive
zone in the world, with an ocean-dependent economy generating
over $138 billion, mostly related to the fishing industry.
Shifts in management of fisheries have the potential to ensure
that that industry can adapt to climate change and produce an
ocean that is more bountiful and profitable than it is today,
thus securing a healthy source of protein in a world where
climate change threatens food security.
Another way to safeguard against climate change is to
protect at least 30 percent of the ocean by 2030. This 30-by-30
frame offers a target that would protect food supplies, bolster
climate resilience, and provide safe spaces for marine life to
rebound. Protecting 30 percent of the ocean and coast also
offers an economic value estimated in the billions of dollars.
But what can be done? Conservation International wishes the
committee to consider the following: the U.S. should expand and
accelerate conservation and restoration of blue carbon
ecosystems for climate mitigation, as well as refine its use of
coastal wetlands within the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory; we
encourage U.S. decision-makers to include green-gray options in
the coastal protection and budget plans; we recommend the
committee promote effective fisheries and aquaculture
management that provides adaptive capacity for communities in
the industry and protects critical ocean biodiversity; and we
recommend that the U.S. supports the creation and sustainable
management of ocean conservation areas as a climate adaptation
strategy, specifically related to aid going to large ocean
states.
While much of the required emissions productions needed to
keep us below 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature rise must come
from decreasing use of fossil fuels, nature-based opportunities
can also play a critical role in the transition to low-carbon
future and a safe climate.
The earth, and specifically the ocean, can no longer be
expected to take abuse and still provide for us in the same
way. The planet, this pale blue dot, belongs to us and is ours
to manage, and we can't retreat from that responsibility to
manage it wisely.
Thank you for the opportunity to engage with this
committee, and I applaud the committee's recognition of the
ocean as a climate change solution.
[The statement of Dr. Howard follows:]
Testimony of Dr. Jennifer Howard
Director, Climate and Oceans, Conservation International
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution
and Building Climate Resilience''
October 22, 2019
October 18, 2019.
Hon. Kathy Castor,
Chairman, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Garret Graves,
Ranking Member, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Re: Select Committee on the Climate Crisis hearing on ``Solving the
Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution and
Building Resilience''
Dear Chairman Castor and Ranking Member Graves: Thank you for the
opportunity to provide input to the Committee's hearing: ``Solving the
Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution and Building
Resilience.''
The ocean is the dominant feature of our plant, covering 70 percent
of its surface and driving its climate and biosphere. It used to be
assumed that the ocean was so large that climate change impacts on the
ocean would be minimal but we now know this is not the case. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Ocean and Cryosphere
report \1\ describes these changes in no uncertain terms. Today's ocean
is warmer, more stratified, and more acidic. Ocean heatwaves are
killing our corals and rising sea surface temperatures are increasing
storm severity resulting in the multitude of extreme weather events we
have observed over recent years. As the ocean warms and ice melts, sea
level is rising at an accelerating rate. However, while much of the
recent attention is focused on the problems that the ocean faces, the
ocean is also a source of potential solutions and innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report
on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. Portner, D.C.
Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K.
Mintenbeck, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N. Weyer (eds.)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world needs to move rapidly and systematically to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the atmosphere if it is to
avoid irreversible climate
impacts.\2\ \3\ Greater efforts are essential to accelerate and scale
decarbonization of the economy and pursue a pathway to net-zero
emissions by the middle of the century. Following the findings of the
IPCC Special Report on the implications of 1.5 +C warming above the
preindustrial period, it is now abundantly clear that stronger action
to mitigate GHG emissions is a global imperative that will require an
inclusive approach across the whole of the global economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution
of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by R.K. Pachauri and
L.A. Meyer. Geneva: IPCC. www.ipcc.com.
\3\ IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 +C: An IPCC Special Report on
the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 +C above Pre-Industrial Levels and
Related Global GHG Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening
the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, edited by J. B. R.
Matthews. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, much of the attention paid to nature based solutions to
climate change has been directed to the role of terrestrial sources of
emissions and sinks, such as the impact of tropical deforestation as a
source of greenhouse gas emissions. However, oceans and coasts have
recently taken center stage in the discussion of climate impacts and
solutions; so much so that the upcoming global negotiations on climate
action under the United Nations (COP25) to be held in Chile in December
2019 has been dubbed the ``Blue COP''. This is fitting, as ocean-based
mitigation and adaptation options offer significant potential to
contribute to global efforts to limit global warming as well as achieve
the targets of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development
Goals.
The ocean is on the front lines of the battle against climate
change. Not only has the ocean absorbed 93 percent of the heat trapped
by rising anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), it also
absorbs approximately 25 to 30 percent of anthropogenic CO2
emissions that would otherwise remain in the atmosphere and increase
global warming. Mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass beds are highly
productive vegetated coastal ecosystems and are hotspots for carbon
storage, with soil carbon sequestration rates per hectare up to 10
times larger than those of terrestrial ecosystems.\4\ When these
ecosystems are degraded and converted, carbon in the vegetation and
soils, which may have accumulated over hundreds or thousands of years,
is oxidized and emitted back to the atmosphere in a matter of decades,
leading to increased emissions. Thus, protection of these ``Blue
Carbon'' ecosystems offers an efficient pathway to avoid CO2
emissions, particularly for nations with large areas of coastal
vegetation and high rates of loss. Similarly, utilizing these ocean
related nature based solutions yields important co-benefits to local
communities via other ecosystems services, such as providing habitat
for commercially important fish species, food security, livelihoods,
and reducing the impact of storms during extreme weather events as seen
in hurricane Sandy where coastal wetlands prevented more than US$625
million in direct property damages by buffering coasts against its
storm surge.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Mcleod, E., et al. 2011. ``A Blueprint for Blue Carbon: Toward
an Improved Understanding of the Role of Vegetated Coastal Habitats in
Sequestering CO2.'' Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
9 (10): 552-60.
\5\ Narayan, Siddharth, et al. ``The value of coastal wetlands for
flood damage reduction in the northeastern USA.'' Scientific reports
7.1 (2017): 9463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection and restoration of ocean and coasts for climate
mitigation and adaptation provides ``no-regret'' strategies, and thus
Conservation International would recommend the Committee take into
account the following four areas of ocean-based natural solutions to
climate change in their formal recommendations. These key topics for
oceans and coasts are Blue Carbon, Green-Gray Infrastructure,
Sustainable Fisheries, and Large Scale Marine Protection.
blue carbon for climate mitigation
Coastal blue carbon ecosystems--mangroves, tidal marshes, and
seagrasses--are now an established key component of nature-based
climate change mitigation strategies. Found at the interface between
sea and land, these habitats sequester and store up to ten times more
carbon, per unit area, than terrestrial forests.\6\ \7\ \8\ There is
growing awareness that the loss of coastal wetlands is contributing to
global warming and that conservation and restoration of these wetlands
may help to reduce or possibly reverse some of these impacts. In a
global synthesis, it was estimated that converted and degraded coastal
wetlands emit 450 million tons (Mt) of CO2.6 Such
emissions are equivalent to 3 to 19% of those from deforestation
globally and result in economic damages of USD $6 to 42 billion,
annually. However, restoration of coastal ecosystems could result in
potential climate mitigation benefits of 0.89 Gigatons (Gt) of
CO2 removals each year by 2030 and up to 1.38 Gt by 2050
\9\--roughly the annual emissions of all the cars in California, Texas,
New York and Louisiana combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pendleton, Linwood, et al. ``Estimating global ``blue carbon''
emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal
ecosystems.'' PloS one 7.9 (2012): e43542.
\7\ Howard, Jennifer, et al. ``Clarifying the role of coastal and
marine systems in climate mitigation.'' Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 15.1 (2017): 42-50.
\8\ Simard, Marc, et al. ``Mangrove canopy height globally related
to precipitation, temperature and cyclone frequency.'' Nature
Geoscience 12.1 (2019): 40.
\9\ Hough-Guldberg, O., et al. 2019. ``The Oceans as a Solution to
Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.'' Report. Washington,
DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at http://
www.oceanpanel.org/climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growing interest in coastal carbon sinks and sequestration--both in
terms of scientific understanding and the climate change policy
implications thereof--is driving rapid expansion of carbon dynamics
research in coastal blue carbon ecosystems. In turn, this science has
driven formal recognition of the importance of conservation and
restoration of these ecosystems for climate change mitigation within
international climate policy, finance and related management. Over the
last seven years, Conservation International has been central to
catalyzing this progress by facilitating and focusing research on
priority policy-relevant topics and working to integrate that science
into policy and management, leading to conservation, restoration and
sustainable management of blue carbon ecosystems all over the world.
However, addressing the destruction of wetlands requires changing
economic incentives that drive the destruction. Here, too, blue carbon
can provide a solution. Governments should recognize the significant
carbon impact from these ecosystems, and that protecting and
effectively restoring wetlands is a key, but mostly forgotten, tool in
the fight against climate change. Conservation International and our
partners are building the conditions needed on the ground for large-
scale application of blue carbon approaches--specifically the
development of blue carbon credits that can be sold on the voluntary
carbon market to provide start-up funding for conservation and
restoration activities or that can be used to meet countries emissions
targets. These sources of financing and associated policies represent a
new avenue for protecting wetlands at a scale never achieved before.
Blue carbon finance and policy aims to foster conditions where the full
carbon value in these rich ecosystems, not just in the trees, but in
the soil, is recognized and the financial remuneration available to
conserve these areas is maximized.
In the U.S., federal agencies have established an interagency team
to support blue carbon efforts. These include integrating blue carbon
science and policy into the National Ocean Policy and activities to
develop tools and methodologies for blue carbon management. The
National Assessment of Ecosystem Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse
Gas Fluxes recognizes that national estimates of GHG fluxes are lacking
and that filling this data gap is a priority. Whether to support
national climate change goals, e.g. under a carbon finance framework,
or to encourage less formal adoption of best practices, there is a need
for refined quantification of GHG emissions and removals due to
wetlands management at the national scale. Moreover, wetland climate
change mitigation activities should be embedded within climate change
adaptation strategies to avoid future negative outcomes related to
coastal land-use planning.
green-gray infrastructure and coastal protection for climate adaptation
Extreme weather events brought about by climate change are one of
the most dangerous risks facing humanity.\10\ Reducing this threat to
vulnerable communities is a critical challenge of our time. These
events have already caused devastating impacts on communities in many
parts of the world, affecting people's lives and infrastructure in an
unprecedented manner. In 2019 (as of October 8), there have been 10
weather and climate disaster events in the U.S., with financial damages
exceeding $1 billion--for each event. Half of those were severe storm
events, and two were tropical cyclone events. Overall, the extreme
weather events this year resulted in the deaths of 39 people and had
significant economic effects on the areas impacted. This year, 2019, is
the fifth consecutive year (2015-2019) in which 10 or more billion-
dollar weather and climate disaster events have impacted the U.S.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Statement on the State
of the Global Climate in 2017, https://library.wmo.int/
doc_num.php?explnum_id=4453.
\11\ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately $100 trillion of global infrastructure is estimated
to be at risk due to inadequate insurance and risk management \12\,
while almost 1.9 million homes worth a combined $882 billion are at
risk of being underwater due to sea level rise by 2100.\13\ Across all
future climate scenarios, no matter the degree of intervention,
predicted impacts on coastal communities and assets are projected to be
substantial and will cost up to 4% of annual world GDP by 2100.\14\
That same modeling indicates that adaptation strategies can reduce
these impacts by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude but will require an
investment of USD $70 billion annually by 2100. Green-gray
infrastructure--a new approach to climate adaptation--provides cost
effective approaches that can and should be a key adaptation solution
for the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Jupiter. (2018, February 12). Jupiter Launches Climate Data,
Analytics and Technology Platform to Predict and Manage Weather and
Climate Change Risks. Retrieved from https://www.globenewswire.com/
newsrelease/2018/02/12/1339285/0/en/Jupiter-Launches-Climate-Data-
Analytics-and-Technology-Platform-to-Predictand-Manage-Weather-and-
Climate-Change-Risks.html.
\13\ Zillow Research. (2017, June 2). Climate Change and Housing:
Will a Rising Tide Sink All Homes? Retrieved from https://
www.zillow.com/research/climate-change-underwater-homes-12890/.
\14\ OECD (2019), Responding to Rising Seas: OECD Country
Approaches to Tackling Coastal Risks, OECD Publishing, Paris https://
doi.org/10.1787/9789264312487-en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green-gray infrastructure combines the conservation and/or
restoration of ecosystems with the selective use of conventional
engineering approaches to provide people with solutions that deliver
climate change resilience and adaptation benefits. Green-gray
approaches draw upon the best of society's engineering achievements to
innovate the next generation of climate resilient infrastructure. By
blending ``green'' conservation with ``gray'' engineering techniques,
communities can incorporate the benefits of both solutions while
minimizing the limitations of using either green or gray infrastructure
individually. For example, a combination of wetland restoration with
limited geoengineering approaches, such as breakwaters, combines the
wave attenuation and flood control value of wetlands with the benefits
of engineered structures to stabilize the coastal zone and attenuate
waves through beach accretion. The combined solution can be more
comprehensive, robust and cost-effective than either solution alone.
And these blended solutions can provide a host of multi-benefits:
Habitat for fish and other aquatic species
Employment opportunities for example, through
enhanced fisheries
Coastal protection to absorb and buffer wave energy
and storm surge
Carbon Capture, by conserving or restoring wetlands
that capture and store five times more carbon than tropical
rainforests, and
Improving water quality by capturing, storing and
filtering rainwater or stormwater.
These benefits are additional to the fact that green-gray
infrastructure is often a highly cost effective alternative to
traditional engineering only solutions, especially when considering the
environmental and social co-benefits. For example, the installation of
breakwaters that mimic the natural environment providing coastal marine
habitat, increase sediment trapping to combat erosion and build up the
beach, while at the same time reducing wave energy and protecting
coastal communities and assets from storm surges.
For all these reasons, Conservation International has launched a
green-gray infrastructure program to support communities around the
world cope with the impacts of climate change, and we encourage U.S.
decision makers to include green-gray options in their coastal
protection and budget plans.
sustainable fisheries for climate adaptation
The ocean is the world's largest source of food. Seafood is the
most traded food commodity globally and is the last global food
commodity we hunt. Three billion people--three out of every seven on
the planet--rely on seafood as a primary source of animal protein.\15\
Fisheries support the economies of developing countries worldwide,
including over 260 million livelihoods.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Source: UNFAO 2014. Fish now accounts for almost 17% of the
global population's intake of protein--in some coastal and island
countries it can top 70%.
\16\ Teh, L.C. and U. Sumaila. 2013. Contribution of marine
fisheries to worldwide employment. Fish and Fisheries 14:77-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Half of the world's wild-caught fisheries are overexploited or
depleted, due to overfishing, pollution, climate change and other
threats.\17\ Overfishing, increased illegal, unreported, and
unregulated (IUU) fishing, and use of indiscriminate and damaging
fishing gears have resulted in stock declines and collapses--impacting
food security, livelihoods, and economies of coastal communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ UN FAO. 2014. The State of the World Fisheries and
Aquaculture. [online] http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3720e/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquaculture--fish farming--is one of the fastest growing food
production sectors globally, accounting for half of the worldwide total
seafood production. Intensive aquaculture has resulted in widespread
degradation of coastal ecosystems from pollution, waste, and habitat
destruction.\18\ Sustainable aquaculture approaches with minimal or no
net impact of coastal ecosystems are not widely used due to lack of
capacity or economic incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Hall, SJ., et al. 2011. Blue Frontiers: Managing the
environmental costs of aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, Penang,
Malaysia.; Troell, M., R. L. Naylor, M. Metian, M. Beveridge, P. H.
Tyedmers, C. Folke, K. J. Arrow, S. Barrett, A.-S. Crepin, and P. R.
Ehrlich. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food
system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:13257-
13263.; Klinger, D., and R. L. Naylor. 2012. Searching for solutions in
aquaculture: charting a sustainable course. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 37:247-276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problems of overfishing and unsustainable aquaculture are
fueled by several factors. Demand for seafood is rising due to
population growth, rising affluence, and globalization, and demand for
fish as food for livestock and aquaculture operations is growing.\19\
New technologies have multiplied harvesting capacity, and pollution and
habitat degradation are reducing the productive capacity of fisheries
ecosystems. These problems are magnified by ineffective policy and
governance systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Naylor, RL., et al. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature 405:1017-1024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of investing in improved management of fisheries and
aquaculture outweigh the costs on average 10:1, and effective
conservation can produce positive outcomes for biodiversity and
communities. One study concludes that under sustainable management,
global fish production could increase by 14%, and economic profits can
increase by 168%, reaching $74 billion a year.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ CEA, editor. 2015. Ocean Prosperity Roadmap: Fisheries and
Beyond. California Environmental Associates (CEA). [online] http://
www.oceanprosperityroadmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Synthesis-
Report-6.14.15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dramatic changes to fishery management has the potential to adapt
and compensate for the coming climate change impacts to produce a
seafood future that is more bountiful and profitable than it is today--
thus securing a healthy source of protein in a world where climate
change threatens future food security. However, just because fishery
management can improve, doesn't mean it will. Over the last two
decades, CI has implemented successful initiatives to improve the
environmental sustainability and social benefits of fisheries and
aquaculture. We recommend the committee promote effective fisheries and
aquaculture management which provide adaptive capacity for communities
to successfully navigate the impacts of climate change.
large scale marine protection for climate adaptation
By reducing other threats to ocean ecosystems, such as destructive
fishing, habitat loss, and pollution, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
build ecological resilience and increase the ability of ecosystems,
species, and communities dependent on the ocean for their livelihoods
to adapt to climate change. When local communities and stakeholders are
directly involved in the design, management, and benefit sharing, we
see more successful outcomes. MPAs can also help build social
resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change.
The IPCC Ocean and Cryosphere report \21\ explicitly mentions the
value of MPA's to increase societies' capacity to respond to climate
change risks. To protect our ocean and ensure it can provide the
resources we need for 7-11 billion people, we must imagine and act at a
scale larger than we ever have before. Effective place-based
conservation and management safeguards biodiversity, replenishes
fisheries, provides for the safety and security of people, and enables
ecosystems to function as they should. A study conducted by
Conservation International directly links marine managed areas with
increased local incomes, food stability, and quality of life.\22\ Areas
with adequate capacity and funding are found to deliver almost three
times the ecological benefits.\23\ And a well-managed area reduces
stress from unsustainable human activities, making the ocean system
more resilient and better able to cope with climate impacts.\24\
Because this approach works, the International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN) has called for 30 percent of the ocean to be placed in
marine protected areas.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report
on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. Portner, D.C.
Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K.
Mintenbeck, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N. Weyer (eds.)].
\22\ Kaufman, Orbach. 2010. Marine Managed Area Science Project
Synthesis: Report to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Conservation International.
\23\ Gill et al. 2017. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance
of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543: 665-679.
\24\ Roberts et al. 2017. Marine Reserves can mitigate and promote
adaptation to climate change. National Academy of Sciences 114: 6167-
6175.
\25\ IUCN World Conservation Congress. 2016. Increasing marine
protected area coverage for effective marine biodiversity conservation.
WCC-2016-Res-053-EN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governments need to protect, conserve and sustainably manage vast
stretches of ocean area, recognizing the tremendous benefits such
actions yields both for nature and their citizenry who depend on the
ocean culturally, socially and economically. Noting that there are many
categories of MPA's from no-take zones to multiple use areas where
protection and sustainable use are in balance. People--from local
communities to heads of state--are now recognizing and prioritizing
area-based strategies to protect and sustainably manage the ocean.
However, the community of ocean conservation organizations and funders
has not kept pace with this historic shift in attitudes toward and
growing interest in protecting the ocean. A 2017 report commissioned by
the Packard Foundation \26\ found that only a small number of
foundations give to placed-based ocean conservation, totaling $40
million annually. A significant increase in funding and support is
needed to maintain momentum for ocean conservation globally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ California Environmental Associates. 2017. Our Shared Seas: A
2017 Overview of Ocean Threats and Conservation Funding. Prepared with
support of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation International has prioritized catalyzing the creation
and improvement of 18,000 km2 of ocean conservation areas and we
recommend that the U.S. supports the creation and sustainable
management of ocean conservation areas as a climate adaptation
strategy, specifically aid going to large ocean states.
applications for policy
Each of these ocean-based natural solutions to climate mitigation
and adaptation play a significant role in preserving wildlife, coastal
communities and the sustainable marine based economies upon which they
depend. Blue Carbon, Green-Gray Infrastructure, Sustainable Fisheries,
and Marine Protected Areas can help us build resilience to the impacts
of climate change that are being felt across our country and in every
region on Earth.
There is a small, but important window of opportunity within which
the emissions trajectory based on ``Current Policy'' can be directed
towards a pathway that is consistent with limiting global temperature
rise to the 1.5 +C and 2.0C goals determined through the Paris
Agreement. While much of the required emission reductions must come
from deep cuts within terrestrial-based activities, including
decreasing the use of fossil fuel, ocean-based opportunities can also
play a critical role in the transition to a low-carbon future and safer
climate.
However, achieving the mitigation potential of ocean and coastal
systems will not be possible without significant investment in research
and development. It will also be necessary to provide strong incentives
to align financial flows with the needs of the mitigation and
adaptation opportunities available. Governments must send policy
signals that these innovative, nature based solutions are a priority
for combining climate adaptation and mitigation.
One of the first opportunities that governments will have to
comprehensively integrate ocean-based mitigation options into national
plans and strategies for climate change is the updating of national
climate action plans in 2020. This is an extremely important moment, as
emphasized by the IPCC (2018): the chances of ``failing to reach 1.5
degrees Celsius [will be] significantly increased if near-term ambition
is not strengthened beyond the level implied by current NDCs.'' Given
the consequences of failing to limit global average temperature rise to
1.5C, or at least to ``well below'' 2.0C, it is of great importance
that actions begin immediately.
Ultimately, the ocean, its coastal regions, and the economic
activities they support should be a source of inspiration and hope in
the fight against climate change. With the backdrop of a growing
climate catastrophe, the timing of this Committee Hearing is critical,
and there could not be a more compelling case for urgent action.
Thank you for your leadership in holding this important hearing.
Conservation International values the role our natural environment
plays in mitigating and adapting to the worst impacts of climate
change. We look forward to working together to continue to develop
policies that can help to accelerate action on climate change.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Howard, Ph.D.,
Director, Oceans and Climate Conservation International.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Dr. Howard.
Now on to Andy Karsner. Welcome, Mr. Karsner. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDY KARSNER
Mr. Karsner. Thank you. Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, esteemed members of the committee, thank you for the
invitation and the honor to testify before you today.
You have got a sample of why I am so proud to be associated
with TNC and Conservation International, and Jen and her good
work.
I want to thank the committee for the seriousness of
purpose with which it is taking its task. Many people say that
a committee without jurisdiction may not amount to serious
consequence, but I have had the opportunity to get to know you
both--and it was with such privilege, and it has come to my
attention that this is one of the few oases in Congress where
people can galvanize serious thought and coalesce into serious
solutions. So there are great prospects for collaboration and
where there isn't, there is an openness towards the virtuous
competition of big ideas.
So I want to thank you both, because amongst the biggest
ideas that this committee can prioritize in its recommendations
going forward is how to use natural resource solutions and
natural capital as a source of galvanizing a national consensus
and bringing new value and prosperity to our communities.
As you have heard from the other witnesses, we are in an
era where we can easily identify what the value of natural
capital is and bring it to bear. They have told you what is
available and to be accomplished. I would like to talk for a
moment about how that can be done.
Before doing so, I would also like to compliment your
staffs. I have had the chance to get to know, Ms. Cohen, Ms.
Cassady, Mr. Hall, Mr. Banks, not just now in the context of
this committee, but over their many years of service, including
a dozen years ago when I myself was in public service, not just
managing the Federal Applied Science Laboratories,
International Labs, but also as a climate negotiator and
principal architect of the Bali roadmap, the precursor to
Paris.
At that time, it wasn't the most fun job description to be
George W. Bush's representative abroad, entering the UNFCCC
after a 10-year hiatus post Kyoto. But I would enter each
meeting introducing myself as a child of the Apollo generation,
and I would explain to them that despite their own skepticisms,
we Americans had a sensibility that there was no goal beyond
our reach, that nothing was too distant, that all possibility
existed in planetary solutions.
That is the type of optimism that we should have today,
because we have more resources, more capacity, more innovation,
and more possibility about addressing our climate conundrum,
but we need to do it through the lens of climate math, and not
merely entire debate on the validity of climate science.
Climate math means understanding and identifying what
volume of emissions reductions is available, from what source,
and at what price. And I urge the committee to move the
discussion strategically in that direction on Capitol Hill, so
that we can get with the spirit of this committee. We can
proselytize that spirit and get into a competition of ideas
about how to best achieve that climate math.
Unequivocally, the best way to do it is to have nature
solve for nature. There is no greater source of emissions
reduction available. There is no man-made technology that can
exceed nature's capacity to absorb, to drain, to sequester, and
to minimize carbon emissions.
And so the continuous dialogue about cutting of the spigot
of emissions becomes less and less important going through
time, relative to opening the drain and ensuring that we can
return to a steady-state ecosystem by allowing nature to
perform its own functions without degradation, and valuing
those functions into our marketplace.
We have already launched a cascading series, a chain
reaction of unintended consequences. And science and technology
both would dictate that we have to have an equal and opposite
reaction that is symmetrical if we are going to problem solve
at the scale and the magnitude, and the timeframe of the
problem that we are addressing.
I would like to believe that this can be done through
natural capital resources which cumulatively can address up to
30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. But it can only be done
if it is brought into our market system and economy and valued
appropriately.
For that, we must have price discovery of the true value of
nature, of all the benefits that the other witnesses have
described here today. We have to be able to identify, through
information and analytics and insight, those indicators that
will inform innovation for financial instruments, insurance
instruments, commodity supply chains, and ensure that we can
continue to grow and prosper even as we remediate and make our
communities more resilient.
Madam Chair and Chairman Graves, thank you again for the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your
questions, and I am truly grateful for the leadership you bring
to this issue.
[The statement of Mr. Karsner follows:]
Testimony of The Honorable Andy Karsner
Executive Chairman, Elemental Labs
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Natural Solutions to Cutting Pollution
and Building Climate Resilience''
October 22, 2019
Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, Distinguished Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the honor and the invitation to represent the
innovation and conservation communities, which are increasingly
convergent on our shared mission to enable community resilience, and to
ensure the continuity of economic prosperity. It is increasingly clear
that the essential pathway to these objectives involves understanding
and applying the value of natural capital for the sustainable
modernization of our market economy.
This year, we have been confronted with repeated reminders of the
destructive violence and senseless damage climate change inflicts on
our communities and ecosystems. These range from the raging wildfires
in the Amazon and California to the intensified hurricanes relentlessly
pounding our nation's southern and eastern coastal communities.
Recurring heatwaves were the deadliest climate hazard from 2015-2019,
affecting all continents and setting temperature records around the
world. Even as Japan deploys resources and technology to fortify its
physical resilience to natural disasters, many expressed in the wake of
Typhoon Hagibis that the ``best recovery strategy'' is simply to
persevere in the face of pain, suffering, and loss.\1\ We are inching
toward tipping points that threaten irreplaceable ecosystems such as
tropical peatlands, mangroves, prairies, and seagrasses--all of which
have a vital role in sequestering carbon and maintaining the Earth's
delicate planetary equilibrium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Independent, `` `Everything is gone': Japan left reeling
from worst storm in decades,'' October 19, 2019, https://
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-typhoon-hagibis-storm-
destruction-fukushima-a9163101.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is growing recognition that these human and ecosystem tolls
will also likely induce a cascade of irreversible and poorly predicted
economic consequences. The insurance industry and other stakeholders
recognize that current flood risk assessment tools are too crude and
outdated to accurately predict flood risk and assess the impact of
mitigation investments, and that financial institutions and property
owners have no accurate, standardized way to measure asset risk. This
is also true of wildfires; Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance
firm, indicated that climate change was responsible for $24 billion in
losses due to the 2018 California wildfires.\2\ Last week, the CEO of
already-bankrupt Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) warned of safety
blackouts for another ten years to update equipment prone to sparking
wildfires, which are becoming increasingly likely in California due to
rising temperatures. All of this points to the urgent necessity to
prepare and proactively transition our public policies and
institutional management by thoughtful design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Neslen, Arthur. ``Climate Change Could Make Insurance Too
Expensive for Most People Report.'' The Guardian, 21 Mar. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few days ago, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco published
a dire warning of the dangers climate change poses to America's
businesses and communities, calling upon lenders and businesses to act
swiftly. This is especially imperative since municipalities, counties,
parishes, and local and state governments are unlikely to have the
capacity or balance sheets to fully prepare through conventional
mitigation and adaptation efforts. It is therefore urgent that this
Committee prioritize recommendations for community resilience and
maximize the value of local ecosystems in attenuating these known and
rising risks to lives, property, safety, and security.
Economic effects have already been set in motion. These are not
future, hypothetical risks to our collective prosperity. Rather, the
market has already begun to take account of climate change, noting the
insufficiency of policy guardrails, and has started discounting and
devaluing real estate--our homes, schools, small businesses, factories,
and infrastructure--accordingly. Properties which are likely to be
underwater if sea levels rise by one foot now sell for approximately 15
percent less than comparable properties without this exposure to flood
risk.\3\ As this decline in property values sends signals to the rest
of the financial system, banks may avoid lending to flood-prone areas
in a practice called ``bluelining'', which will imperil the health and
resilience of the often poor communities that are already vulnerable to
these disasters. This is another form of regressive taxation imposed by
neglect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Asaf Bernstein, Matthew Gustafson, and Ryan Lewis, Real Estate
as a Tool for Adaptive Banking, Community Development Innovation
Review, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit rating agencies are deeply attuned as well. In 2017, Moody's
warned that climate change would increasingly negatively affect the
creditworthiness of U.S. state and local issuers, the cost of which
flows through to American pocketbooks and livelihoods. Recently, both
Moody's and S&P acquired significant stakes in leading providers of
data, intelligence, and analysis on physical climate risk, indicating
clearly that climate data and computational science will be key drivers
in determining the cost of funds and credit for all of us.
Moreover, there are significant indicators that capital markets are
both considering and executing dramatic shifts in how accounting is
managed, information is exchanged, and disclosure is verified. The
private sector is assessing contingent liabilities and incorporating
unmitigated climate change risk into their reporting, planning, and
strategic investing. Earlier this month, for example, eleven leading
environmental and sustainable business organizations published an open
letter in the New York Times urging corporate CEOs to increase their
climate policy engagement. Over 160 companies overseeing $86 trillion
in assets support the G20's Task Force for Climate Disclosures (TCFD),
which has called for companies to disclose their exposure to climate
risk. The Climate Action 100+ initiative includes 360 investors with
over $34 trillion in assets under management, and aims to hold
accountable the world's largest corporate emitters. Recently, 34
central banks--including the Bank of England and Banque de France--
joined the Network for Greening the Financial System, which aims to
ensure a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy. This network
represents approximately half of global emissions and recommended that
central banks act quickly to avoid a climate-driven abrupt collapse in
asset prices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Exponential Roadmap 1.5: Scaling 36 Solutions to Halve
Emissions by 2030, September 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various blueprints have been carefully laid out to map the path
toward the net zero emissions future needed to avert the worst and
least predictable climate impacts. Last year's IPCC Special Report on
Global Warming of 1.5 +C concluded that to limit global warming to this
level, global GHG emissions must decline by approximately 45 percent
below 2010 levels by 2030. This would require rapid acceleration of
solutions across sectors--energy, transport, buildings, and industry--
with falling costs and rapid uptake of sustainable solutions.
Importantly, large-scale removal of atmospheric CO2 will
be absolutely necessary to avoid key tipping points and irreversible
climate thresholds. Restoring degraded areas of land will likely be the
only cost-effective way to remove atmospheric carbon at scale.
Reforestation, biochar, and improved agricultural practices can
prospectively store up to 9.1 billion tons of CO2e annually,
eventually storing 225 billion tons by the end of the century.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Exponential Roadmap 1.5: Scaling 36 Solutions to Halve
Emissions by 2030, September 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underpinning and cross-cutting these approaches is an exponential
wave of American innovation and technologies that can far more
effectively and sustainably strengthen our natural resilience,
conservation strategies, and intelligent interaction with natural
resources. We must modernize and design policies commensurate with the
abundance of innovation that is revolutionizing our agriculture, food,
forestry, aquaculture, and oceanic ecosystems, along with the global
supply chains that connect them to the modern economy. This is the
surest way to maintain American economic competitiveness, standards of
living, and prospects for long-term prosperity as we adapt to new
climate realities. With the right policy guidance, these technologies
are poised to be game-changers for adaptive, agile, creative strategies
to turn today's climate risks into problem-solving opportunities.
The fastest way to scale all of these changes is to address the
core of the problem: the misalignment between markets and nature.
Humanity's industrial-age relationship with nature is premised on the
idea that natural resources are inexhaustible and can be consumed
without limit. When embedded in markets, this assumption has led to the
exponential scaling of behavior and outcomes that are detached from the
true cost of irrationally depleting the asset value of healthy
habitats. We are only beginning to understand with precision mispriced
risk resulting from an inability to ascertain or quantify the gaps
between asset prices and their underlying value. The net effect is
mounting uncertainty, and the rising probability that the future does
not resemble empirical models of the past. Financial regulators, banks,
businesses, and to a lesser degree policymakers have begun sounding the
alarm that a financial crisis of unknown proportions (exceeding the
2009 mortgage crisis) may be looming on the horizon.
It's worth remembering that virtually all of human civilization,
including our moral beliefs and values, our social norms, and the
democratic, free-market system that has produced unrivaled wealth and
prosperity evolved in a relatively tranquil period on Earth, an
interregnum between the end of the Paleolithic Ice Age, about 12
thousand years ago, and today. Our beliefs about the world, and our
place within it, evolved in this nursery of stability and abundance,
and it left its mark in our minds and in the systems we've built. The
ideologies that won out in this period, rooted in the conquest of
nature, in the possibility of limitless growth, and in our inherent
separateness and superiority to other living things, require continued
abundance and stability to underwrite and sustain them.
Today, the erroneous presumption, built upon prior generations'
thinking, that the world provides unending resources is why we tend to
measure and fully account for certain things (like the processed and
manufactured goods we consume) and not others (the natural resources
required to produce these material comforts). Yet this system will not
survive unchallenged in an era of profound ecosystem volatility,
disruption, and the loss of nature. Capitalism and our personal
freedoms are cornerstones of modern society, but they are incomplete
without a companion sensibility: the understanding that we are
symbiotically enmeshed with the systems that make life possible, and
that we must preserve them.
Without making these invisible relationships visible, the invisible
hand of the market cannot work effectively. It will systematically
discount those things that are vital and common, and advantage those
things that are privately profitable but harmful to all. In other
words, we are fortifying--with existing policy, or lack thereof,
``tragedies of the commons'' that undermine classic principles of free
enterprise, such as personal responsibility and transparent
accountability.
While Greta Thunberg has brought focus to a generation's attention
and priorities, with moral clarity as to the present urgency, Congress
and this Committee in particular have an enormous opportunity to
galvanize all Americans to apply our nation's strengths to the
magnitude of the challenge we collectively face. Principal amongst
these is our unparalleled capacity to induce innovation and scale
technological progress through market penetration at incredible speeds.
Rather than being burdened by guilt and despair, we can remain
pragmatic and optimistic, realistic and resolute, to maximize Nature's
capacity to act as our ally and innovate the tools and technologies
that enable us to thrive in the rapid transition to a new era of deep
decarbonization.
The inexorable and exponential evolution from an industrial and
natural resource-intensive economy to a data information economy has
afforded us an unprecedented opportunity to account with precision the
true value of ecosystem services. It is possible now to integrate that
value into the modern economy with price discovery and evolved
accounting standards. We call this market-based methodology of
unleashing the value of natural capital ``Natural Currency''. Natural
capital is a well-known and respected tenet of conservation, and
ensures that nature is inventoried and valued for its ecosystem
services beyond its extractive value. Natural Currency goes one step
further and seeks to enable efficient markets for price discovery and
exchange of ecosystem services that align the interest of people with
the health of their natural habitats. For example, the rate at which a
southern pine forest in Florida absorbs carbon or a mangrove wetland in
Louisiana or South Carolina buffers communities against sea level rise
has an absolute and unequivocal economic value. It has previously been
challenging to capture that value and integrate it into our markets and
risk management decision-making, because of the lack of precision in
measuring, managing, and monitoring the natural capital in such a way
that it could be readily priced and monetized. These are two
particularly powerful and intertwined levers: the creation of Natural
Currency (i.e. integrating nature's true value into market-based
solutions), and Nature's ability to increasingly provide and scale
ecosystem services and nature-based solutions to climate change. To be
absolutely clear, having had three decades of experience in energy
technology research, development, commercialization, and financing,
there is no pathway to successfully mitigate GHG emissions at the scale
and within the timeframe needed, without designing systems to maximize
the contribution of nature-based solutions.
the need for natural currency
A technological revolution is well under way in digitalization,
robotics, synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, cloud computing,
and the Internet of Things (IoT). These have been described as the
biggest ``wildcard'' in navigating the economic transition ahead. The
exponential growth of these technologies, if designed and deployed
efficiently, should spread across all sectors to maximize clean energy
and material efficiency, support health and environmental restoration,
facilitate the spread of creative disruption and proliferate the growth
of new enterprise, and usher in an era of decentralized, democratized,
localized infrastructure.
Specific applications might include the digitalization of the grid
to enable its electrification and decentralization (including through
new trading mechanisms such as blockchain); sharing models for energy
usage in buildings; and improvements of delivery by optimizing
shipments, routes, and traffic systems. Importantly, in the context of
today's hearing, the same breakthrough tools and technologies available
for our man-made logistics and trading systems are available for
drawing upon our nature-based solutions, and can deliver such solutions
to society and markets--often at lower prices with far more sustainable
and effective outcomes.
We have the technologies to enable supply and demand prediction for
food systems that track and trace what we eat and drink from farm or
field to fork. We can track accurately and in real time the performance
and prediction of not only deforestation, but also restoration and
regeneration--with the precision of counting biomass tree by tree, and
plant by plant. There are sensors and artificial intelligence that can
locally ensure our oceans and waterways, including our largest source
of seafood, aquaculture, remains healthy, cost-effective, free of
toxins, and managed sustainably in concert with global climate
challenges.
Such technologies can help make the invisible visible. For example,
Planet, a global Earth observation organization based in San Francisco,
has deployed the largest constellation of Earth-observing satellites in
history. Together these satellites image the entire planet every day in
high resolution--capturing every act of deforestation, every illegal
fishing vessel, every crop growing in every field, everywhere, every
day. In so doing, Planet's satellites--and other observation
technologies--can help us ``measure the treasure'' of Earth's natural
systems, in exquisite detail, in both time and space, and inform the
kinds of ``big indicators'' that can inform our policies, our choices,
our markets, and our social norms. Similarly, advances in optical and
portable measurement tools, drones to detect and monitor leaks, and the
Environmental Defense Fund's MethaneSAT program have made it possible
to capture global, real-time data on methane leaks, which can be
translated into actionable information for resource management via
advances in machine learning. Better tools and better technologies for
natural systems support both stronger ecosystems and stronger corporate
balance sheets.
A critical role of policy will be to support and shape the digital
revolution to align with the well-being of humanity and nature. This is
not merely an imperative for sustainability and environmental health.
Rather, this is an essential precursor for the United States to
maintain technology leadership and accelerate its economic performance.
Perhaps most importantly, these technologies are enabling us to
design, dynamically develop, implement, and account for credible,
verifiable natural capital metrics. Through these metrics, it is
possible to establish a globally recognized set of reliable criteria to
support environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and
stronger communities that thrive with greater economic opportunity.
Tying verification and measurement to objective, quantifiable,
real-time monitoring will unlock possibilities for value creation and
accountability enforcement across all industries and sectors. We now
have the ability to harvest data from countless sources, embedded on
land and in the air, in the ocean, from satellites, sensors, and
citizen scientist networks, to create complete, real-time visibility of
land and oceans. What we need first are indicators that tell us about
the health and welfare of the essential and fragile systems on which
life depends. Today, we don't have a ``NASDAQ for Nature'' or a ``Dow
Jones for Deforestation''--but in the future, we must. I urge the
Committee to seriously account for America's present technological
leadership and the overwhelming abundance of innovation that is
bursting from our country's entrepreneurs and laboratories, that can be
applied with immediacy and impact, enabling our economy to prosper
through unprecedented problem-solving at scale.
Innovation abounds in financing instruments that catalyze capital
toward climate resilience. This is largely due to the recognition by
the financial sector and business at large that climate change risks
are real, and strategies incorporating financial opportunities that
identify and monetize the value of ecosystem services may be
economically advantageous. This value has previously been difficult to
capture with any precision, let alone monetize. Historically, market
design either discounted or disallowed any quantified value for natural
capital beyond its physical extraction and consumption, instead
relegating a science-based approximation to the domain of non-market
actors such as governments, academics, and nonprofits.
New financing mechanisms are being driven by the recognition that
we have access to measurement and evaluation tools to correct our
markets. Technologies that meaningfully measure the progress of
ecosystem performance are critical enablers of contractual and business
model innovation. The data needed to underpin these decisions is often
already available and being collected, but has been insufficiently
indexed and categorized according to common frameworks to be of maximum
value to investors and other stakeholders. This information must be
sifted and processed to illuminate the underlying insights, and make
them organized, scalable, maintainable, and easily accessed through
open APIs. This would underpin leading indicators that can predict
financial and economic climate-related outcomes, developed with the
scientific community. Such verifiable, objective, third-party
indicators would reverse the longstanding assumption that the market
clearing price of natural capital is zero, and set the stage for an era
of natural monetization, and perpetual innovation and evolution of
financial instruments to redirect capital and redistribute risks.
These standardized, verified metrics enable more concrete and
meaningful environmental and social governance (ESG) reporting.
Embedding climate risk into asset prices also drives large-scale
mainstream investors toward decisions beyond traditional ``impact''
investing, also unlocking significant arbitrage opportunities for those
who effectively integrate climate risk. Alongside their recognition of
the threat posed by climate change and mispriced assets, the investment
community has begun to recognize the opportunities for those who access
the right information and analytics to equip more accurate price
discovery. For example, Blackrock, one of the largest holders of U.S.
securities, released a report this year drawing on granular climate
modeling and big data techniques to show variation in physical climate
risk by region. Although slower-moving changes such as sea level rise
may seem distant and difficult to model, their granular assessment of
local climate risks shed light on implications for the U.S. municipal
bond market, real estate, and the vulnerabilities of the U.S.
electricity sector due to aging and vulnerable infrastructure.
The scale of the climate change challenge we are seeking to address
is asymmetrical to the solutions, whether man-made or natural, we have
thus far deployed. There is no possibility whatsoever that this
country, or any country, can tithe or tax its way to a solution in the
relevant timeframe. It is essential that we address market
imperfections and harness market forces to enable the scaled benefits
of nature-based solutions. No other source of deep decarbonization is
more readily available, nor more measurably attainable, than the power
of nature itself. Therefore I encourage the Committee, in its final
report, to prioritize and recommend on a bipartisan basis, that the
value of natural conservation, assessed and delivered through
technological innovation, be paramount.
ecological prosperity is economic prosperity
The power of Natural Currency to unlock opportunities for economic
growth and new abundance should not be underestimated, and would
address the single greatest cause of misalignment between markets and
nature. Once natural capital and ecosystem services are properly valued
and market priced, the flow of capital to realign markets and nature
will inevitably be reflected in market-based, cost-benefit decisions by
municipalities, engineers, architects, building materials
manufacturers, investors, insurers, consumers, and others across the
economy.
For example, the innovations in spatial assessment and measuring
capabilities described above can help identify degrees of ecosystem
degradation, anticipated trends in biodiversity and other climate
patterns, and the ecosystem services that restoration techniques could
re-introduce to these landscapes. These advances in predictive power
lessen the need for risk management and reduce investment risk from the
public and private sectors. They enable greater inclusion of private
sector participants, especially including small businesses and everyday
citizens, in investment opportunities designed to capture the value of
nature-based benefits while strengthening our local communities'
resilience and adaptation.
Abundant application of innovation to accelerate nature-based
solutions already exist. In one example, intelligent risk management
services focus on quantification and valuation of blue carbon (as
discussed by my expert colleague from Conservation International) in
coastal and marine systems. The carbon mitigation benefits of mangroves
are immense; they store up to ten times the carbon of terrestrial
forests on a per area basis, while protecting more than ten million
people globally from flooding, and reducing flood damage to coastal
assets by more than $82 billion each year. The market is already
producing a new wave of entrepreneurs to create revenue streams for
mangrove conservation and restoration by incorporating their risk
reduction value into insurance products, and monetizing the climate
mitigation value of mangroves through ``blue carbon credits''.
By managing sites where mangroves provide verifiably high flood
reduction benefits, linking these to site-specific calculation of flood
risk benefits, and securing annual payment from insurance companies for
continued, verified mangrove conservation and restoration, new jobs are
created, new enterprise thrives, and communities are protected with
greater resilience and the benefits of their stocks of natural capital.
This assessment and monetization of coastal asset risk reduction value,
and the natural benefits of mangroves, is enabled by unprecedented
technological advances for precision quantification and calculation
methodologies that support credible, verifiable third-party standards
for voluntary carbon markets. As infrastructure turnover accelerates
toward more sustainable assets, there will also be opportunities for
project developers to support green infrastructure and access the value
created by nature-based solutions.
conclusion: design a just transition that accelerates innovation,
``measures the treasure'', values and prices nature-based solutions,
and strengthens community resilience, adaptation, and prospects for
prosperity
To support economic development and community adaptation and
resilience in the face of inexorable climate change, it is essential
for policy design to integrate the intrinsic benefits of American
innovation, which is advancing technological solutions that interface
with natural systems as never before. As has been the case throughout
our history, America's investment in creating a technology push through
research and development has been facilitated by ``demand pull'' in the
marketplace, shaped by policy priorities for the public good. This is
as true for the revolution in renewable energy as it has been for GPS,
the Internet, and many other innovations that have emerged from
effective policy and governance. This is particularly true in
developing standards of measurement and management (such as those at
NIST), especially in the early stages of a technology's emergence in
the marketplace. Examples might include:
--A ``Natural Capital Innovation Prize'' investing in the
most effective means for American citizens (and/or
institutions, such as small businesses, secondary schools,
universities, and civic organizations) to directly participate,
protect, and restore carbon-rich natural ecosystems at home and
abroad, with higher funding to scale winning solutions.
--Ensuring that insurance commissioners have no impediment to
innovation in regulation that allows products to integrate
climate risk reduction and mitigation measures, including
nature-based solutions. Additionally, aligning market-based
incentives with preventative preparation and resilient
adaptation to respond to the evolving frequency and severity of
catastrophic weather events.
--Policies to encourage true cost accounting, informed by
transparency and disclosure, with precision measures and
metrics where governmental institutions take account for the
power of tools and technologies to deliver the next generation
of accounting performance
--Natural capital ``opportunity zones'' corresponding to
measurable, vital ecosystems
These examples illustrate the range of ways in which policymakers
can create demand for, and directly benefit from the measurement and
management of natural capital, and subsequent market realignment. Such
measures can create the regulatory environment needed to guide the
application of these exponential technologies to their highest value.
While there are many bold and often controversial ideas for costing
up carbon, there are too few policy proposals circulating that directly
incentivize decarbonization. Last year, Congress passed into law a
provision known as 45Q, that provided tax credits for man-made forms of
carbon sequestration, discriminating and discounting conservation and
ecosystem services with superior scalability, volumetric availability,
immediacy, and permanency. In other words, the most effective,
efficient, sustainable, and immediately available solution for
decarbonization was disincentivized relative to more speculative future
technological bets. While I am a strong supporter of funding multiple
innovation pathways for rapid and deep decarbonization, the highest
priority legislative fix to unleash natural capital innovation would
simply be to allow such solutions to access the 45Q sequestration tax
credits--or, alternatively, to design a tax credit for that purpose.
Despite the daunting nature of the climate crisis, as with any
risk, there is also veiled opportunity--for human ingenuity, for
optimism, and for entrepreneurial solutions to achieve what may be
possible. Climate risk represents inordinate scale--in fact, planetary
scale. And yet this grand challenge we face together, across nations
and our common humanity, compels us to unleash American innovation in
technologies, policies, and market design. In doing so, we heighten the
probability that we will successfully address this mounting challenge,
with a resilient strategy to adapt and thrive in concert with the
natural systems that sustain us. These systems will continue to give
life to our communities and posterity, defining our collective legacy
at this pivotal inflection point in the history of our nation and our
global commons.
Ms. Castor. Well, thanks to all the witnesses for your
compelling testimony. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for
questions.
Okay. So to give Americans and the world the best chance of
avoiding the worst consequences of the climate crisis, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global
greenhouse gas emissions will need to drop by 45 percent by the
year 2030 and reach net zero by the year 2050.
Research shows that natural climate solutions can provide
one-third--I think, Mr. Karsner, you just referenced that--can
provide one-third of the emission reductions needed to meet
these targets.
So to all of the witnesses--I will go down the row here--I
would like you to prioritize what nature-based solutions you
would highlight to us as we develop a National Climate Action
Plan, national climate policy to achieve net zero emissions.
Dr. Fargione. Thank you. Well, there are several. So, for
example, reforestation is one of the largest opportunities.
Planting trees has a very clear, consistent carbon benefit and
a lot of co-benefits. Also, avoiding forest loss and grassland
loss and land use through land use planning, and reducing urban
sprawl is important.
And there are many opportunities in our agricultural sector
that often are overlooked. So building soil health and
improving nutrient efficiency which has strong co-benefits for
water quality.
Wildfire risk reduction is something that has strong co-
benefits, that as we are dealing with forest fire on suppressed
lands, and improve forest management through creating
opportunities for private, forest land owners to tap into the
carbon markets, and improve their forest management. All great
opportunities that should be prioritized and included in a
Climate Action Plan.
Ms. Castor. Okay. Vice Chairman Myers?
Mr. Myers. Supporting forest sequestration, carbon
sequestration, expanding the carbon program to include federal
lands, and looking at including cultural, traditional, and
prescribed burning on a landscape level to help protect our
forests from catastrophic wildfire, while also renewing the
growth of carbon through the current trees that we have in the
ground.
Making sure that we fund those programs adequately, and
have a honest discussion as a nation, about how cultural
burning and traditional burning are viewed as a whole, and move
away from catastrophic fires that we have seen to devastate our
forests.
Ms. Castor. Dr. Howard, you had a long list for us. Which
ones would you highlight to us, that would be the most
impactful?
Dr. Howard. Can I share with Andy still?
Thank you. So I think in terms of climate mitigation, I
think one of the big strategies that not only the U.S. but the
world needs to be considering is putting blue carbon
ecosystems, their conservation and restoration, into their
climate NDCs under the Paris Agreement.
Many countries have already included these ecosystems, but
the ambition can always be increased, including here in the
U.S. And many countries including increasing that ambition can
simply be including that ecosystem where it hasn't been before.
Because they are so carbon-rich, that can really improve their
ambition just by simply including that one additional system in
their land-use sector.
And then for adaptation, I would strongly recommend that we
invest a lot more in this green-gray infrastructure design,
because in that sense, you are also utilizing all the co-
benefits of a natural ecosystem related to the fishing
industry, food security, cultural practices, but then also
increasing the flood plain, and doing that first, and then
building gray infrastructure on top of that to cover just what
is needed, versus the reverse, which is building gray
infrastructure first and then the green comes in second, and
usually that doesn't work as well.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Karsner.
Mr. Karsner. Thank you. So I will have just a little bit of
a different twist because I can't possibly compete with the
expertise of identifying each economic--each ecological
benefit.
I am as or more concerned with how to access those
ecological benefits as to how to identify them. I don't think
there is any shortage of solutions, whether it is blue carbon,
whether it is coral reef abating storm surge, or mangroves
sequestration, or forestry. We have no shortage of available
solutions.
We have a dearth of our capacity to access those solutions
because presently we value nature in the wrong way. When we
value a tree as wood, or wood only, or even in a virtuous way
as forestry stewardship certified wood, we fail to value it for
how it is respiring and sequestering carbon or true cost
account for it.
So what I am proposing is greater transparency and
disclosure in the way accounting is done for nature, so that
more dollars flow in a more symmetrical way to natural capital
solutions.
My colleagues have identified what those solutions are. We
can't possibly mine all those solutions in our lifetime, but we
can spur the capital formation to direct ourselves in a
symmetrical way to solutions in the way that we have created
problems.
And so I am hopeful that the committee will take up and
recommend that these natural capitalist solutions are eligible
for sequestration credits under 45Q in the same way that a man-
made sequestration research and development project is. If we
have solutions available for wind and sun, to offer tax
credits, certainly we should for land and soil and storm
abatement and things that protect our coastlines.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much. Mr. Graves, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, years ago
we worked with Nature Conservancy to help identify some of the
priority areas in South Louisiana where we had coastal forests,
cypress and tupelo and other species, that played important
natural-buffer roles for our sustainability.
We were able to pioneer efforts to engineer oyster reefs in
our coastal communities where we could design them in geometric
formations where you could channel the wave energy up instead
of into communities.
The oyster reefs would create cleaner water; it would
sequester carbon in the shells; it created habitat for many
other species; of course, the biomass from the oyster reefs
themselves were beneficial.
Win, win, win, win, win. You had storm-surge benefits. You
had cleaner water benefits. You had the biomass and ecological
productivity benefits. I mean just, again, win, win, win. And
we would design those in strategic areas of our coast where we
needed that type of performance. It worked really well.
I think that here, as you have heard from our witnesses, we
have another--or other opportunities, plural, to build upon
those types of successes. And as mentioned, I think bringing in
our farmers, an extraordinary untapped resource in terms of
natural resources management, that can come into the fold and
work with us to complement some of our efforts here.
And I think also as mentioned, some of our federal
resources, in terms of our national parks and wildlife refuges,
and BLM land and forest and other assets.
Mr. Karsner--Karsner, excuse me--you have probably more
expertise than just about anyone in the States in terms of
using capital formation and incentives to sort of complement or
maximize the benefits of our natural system. In response to the
chair's question, you talked a little bit about tweaking
incentives, but as you know, the United States spends an
extraordinary amount of money today in research and
development, basic energy, as well as clean energy
technologies.
You are king for the day, what do you do? How do you tweak
those incentives to help to maximize our natural systems and
the potential benefit there or how the natural systems can
complement some of our efforts to help to sequester and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions?
Mr. Karsner. Thank you, sir. It will hurt some of my
colleagues' feelings being that I am a former wind developer
and have invested in solar and electric cars, and I am still as
enthusiastic in green technology as anybody you could possibly
meet. But having managed that portfolio for the federal
government, I saw the lines cross, and they are not going to
reverse.
The federal government is lagging and not leading in terms
of the research that it is investing in energy technologies for
the most part. That is not to say it doesn't have a vital and
crucial role that shouldn't be fortified, but it needs to move
on and move at the pace that the evolution of innovation is
taking place in the markets.
The real revolution that is happening that can most affect
this domain and particularly things like farmers and soil and
the ecosystems we talk about, are not the things that are
coming--or leading in our national labs.
They are data science, information technology sensors,
artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, the
internet of things. That whole network, that whole capacity to
make what has previously been invisible and unquantifiable
become visible and quantifiable, and migrate into our risk
management decisionmaking, migrate into our investment
calculus, migrate into the way we think of the world around us,
is a game-changing revolution.
There is an example where we have robotics that can serve
farmers right now that are picking berries in the fields of
some of America's largest berry-pickers. They are also taking
soil carbon and moisture-content samplings. They are gathering
such an extreme amount of data that can be monetized to
understand how sequestration works.
I use that in a minute example because I know from your
experience and the one you just characterized, we have known
these things for years. We just haven't brought valuation to
them.
And we cannot tithe our way charitably, nor tax our way
through government, to the amount of money that is necessary to
invest in natural capital and nature solutions. We have got to
tweak policy and incentives to shift that capital into that
problem space.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, let the record
reflect the witness said he wants to give trees iPhones. No.
Thank you very much. I think you made an excellent point in
that we have so much data out there, but we are not properly
quantifying it or evaluating it and comparing it to other
expenditures and uses to determine how do you maximize the
taxpayer funds that we have.
I think it is an excellent point, and I think that it is
largely an untapped resource. I see--before you--let me take
this away for a minute. So--no, very quickly, I am going to
pretend like we are very close instead of butchering your last
name.
Dr. Joe, could you quickly talk about the Lower Mississippi
River afforestation project that you all are working on and how
that plays into this?
Dr. Fargione. Sure. We identified the Lower Mississippi
Valley as a great place for a reforestation project. The trees
grow quickly, the land is relatively cheap, and there is
ability to tap into carbon markets.
And so those kind of targeted restoration efforts that also
have co-benefits in terms of wildlife and improving water
quality are the kind of thing that would be unlocked if there
was additional incentive to invest in natural climate
solutions.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonamici, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank
you to our witnesses for your testimony, for bringing your
expertise.
I want to start by following up on Dr. Howard's testimony.
We know that every person on the planet benefits from a healthy
ocean. It supplies oxygen that we breathe and regulates our
climate; it is linked to the water we drink; it is home to a
significant amount of life on the planet; it drives our
economy; it feeds, employs, and transports us, and today our
ocean is threatened more than ever.
Last month--you mentioned this, Dr. Howard--the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a
``Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing
Climate.'' The findings are dire. The ocean is becoming more
acidic. It is warming. It is losing oxygen as a direct result
of human-caused emissions. So I am glad we are discussing today
the opportunity for the ocean to be part of the climate
solution.
I co-chair the House Oceans Caucus and the Congressional
Estuary Caucus, and I am working on legislation to strengthen,
restore, and protect our wetlands, to store blue carbon.
My bill will create a national level mapping of blue carbon
ecosystems and their sequestration potential, study the effects
of climate change and other environmental stressors on the
rates of carbon capture and storage, improve protections for
existing blue carbon ecosystems, and restore and expand
degraded wetlands.
So Dr. Howard, in your testimony, you discuss how blue
carbon ecosystems have--and I will quote--soil carbon
sequestration rates per hectare of up to ten times larger than
those of terrestrial ecosystems.
So can you talk about what the scientific research gaps may
be in our current understanding of blue carbon and its
sequestration potential, and also discuss the role of wetlands
as a climate adaptation tool for coastal communities?
Dr. Howard. Thank you very much, Chairwoman, for that
question. So in relation to how do you use blue carbon
ecosystems to increase our coastal climate mitigation strategy,
especially regarding restoration, I think one of the things
that we really try to highlight in the research that we do and
the research gaps that remain is that these coastal ecosystems,
just as you said, they store ten times more carbon in the soil
than terrestrial systems per area. And that is largely because
of the salt water that is washing over them twice a day with
the tide.
That salt water inhibits microbial action, therefore, you
don't have degradation. And so when we are talking about
research gaps, I think one of the big ones is that when you go
to develop that area, and let's say you are draining it for
agriculture or for hotel development or coastal development--
when you start to develop that area and you drain that system,
all of that microbial action kicks back in and you get all the
degradation, and then you get all of the emissions.
However, how long that takes, how much of that soil is
actually susceptible to that turning from a carbon sink into a
carbon source, still needs to be a little bit better defined.
Right now, under the IPCC, we assume that the top meter of soil
is actually at risk of all that carbon being released, and that
is easily about a hundred to a thousand years of carbon
accumulation that can be released within a decade.
But we think that it is incredibly conservative, and
probably, most likely, much deeper soils as far down to three,
four meters could actually be at risk, depending on which
actual conversion has happened. Was it agriculture, was it
development, was it draining for something else----
Ms. Bonamici. And I don't want to cut you off, but I really
wanted to get another question in.
Dr. Howard. Sure.
Ms. Bonamici. So I really look forward to following up with
you and working on this issue. But I have limited time.
And I wanted to ask Vice Chairman Myers, I am from Oregon,
your neighbor to the North. In your testimony, you mentioned
that to avoid disruptions and threats to your survival, natural
resources were managed comprehensively for ecosystem-wide
health, and you said that harvesting and gathering of resources
were closely managed and in rhythm with natural cycles.
So how does the Yurok Tribe define sustainable forest
management, and in addition to prescribed burns, what other
practices do you use to restore forests to their natural
healthy state? Can they be replicated or incentivized at the
federal level?
Mr. Myers. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. I think
one of the obstacles that we face are jurisdictional issues.
Managing a land on a holistic level, you have to see the
landscape without jurisdictions, and without the permit issues
that we have seen.
The tool that we have found to be seen to be most effective
to protect the forest is the use of cultural burning, but also
making sure that we use proper logging techniques, to create
uneven aged stands of forest that go back to more of a
traditional forest landscape.
And so I think much of what we discuss is not to preclude
timber harvesting, but to use it as a management tool, along
with our traditional methods for land management which include
traditional fire at a landscape level.
And I think that is what is important. Up to this point,
fire on the landscape has been used for pilot projects, but I
think expanding that has to be done on a landscape level.
In California and Oregon, catastrophic wildfires are the
fear that we live with on a daily basis. And the destruction to
our families and our homes and our communities is second only
to the fear of destroying our entire landscape as a whole.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I see my time is expired. I yield
back. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all of you
for being here. This is certainly an important subject, and we
appreciate you lending your expertise to it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honor and privilege of
representing the entire coast of Georgia, over a hundred miles
of pristine coastline, and I am very proud of it. It is my
home, it is where I have lived all my life and intend to live
the rest of my life. And it is right at the tip of the sphere,
if you will, on what has been happening with climate change.
In fact, we have had three hurricanes in the last 3 years
and barely dodged one this year with Hurricane Dorian. And as a
result of that, we have taken on a number of projects in trying
to make our communities more resilient because we feel like
resiliency is extremely important. And I want to tell you very
quickly about a couple of those.
First of all, the University of Georgia, along with the
Army Corps of Engineers and some private sector companies and
nonprofits have taken on an initiative called ``Engineering
With Nature,'' where we use natural sediment in a way that
makes beaches and wetlands and communities more resilient, and
that is very important.
And also in Jekyll Island, in Jekyll Island in Glynn
County, the Army Corps of engineers is working on a project
that rearranges plough mud in the intercoastal waterways to
protect the marshes.
And Tybee Island, which is one of our barrier islands in
Chatham County on the coast, they have done a number of
different initiatives. In fact, they are the first community in
the state that has come up with a community-wide sea-level
plan, and also, they are very involved in projects dealing with
sand dunes, and that is certainly with dune restoration. I had
the opportunity to visit and see some of this with them, and
this is extremely important.
I want to ask you, Dr. Fargione--is that fair enough? Okay.
These projects have been associated with federal funds, and I
just wanted to ask you, how important is it to make sure that
we at the Federal Government prioritize these projects and make
sure that we are getting them done in a quick manner, in a way
that we can make sure that these projects are done as soon as
possible?
Dr. Fargione. Certainly there is a need for increased
investment in those coastal ecosystems' protection and
restoration. And they have this dual benefit, as you say of
storm-surge protection and flood-risk reduction.
One of the other benefits they have is through storing
carbon, and even further, some of our salt marshes, when they
are disconnected from the ocean, they become freshened and they
begin to emit methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.
And so simply reconnecting those salt water marshes and
making them salty again can reduce methane emissions and have a
significant climate mitigation benefit. And that also restores
their ecological function as an estuary by reconnecting them
with the ocean. So that can be as simple as widening culverts
and putting in----
Mr. Carter. Right.
Dr. Fargione [continuing]. Tide gates.
Mr. Carter. Well, let me ask you this. You are familiar
with the discussion about climate change and the conversation.
Do you think we are concentrating enough on resiliency, or do
you think that we need to look more at how we can make our
communities more resilient?
Dr. Fargione. I think there is a great opportunity to
increase the resilience of our communities, and it is this mix
of gray and green infrastructure, if you will. But we have
underinvested in that green infrastructure, and preventing
development of places that are at risk, and maintaining that
natural habitat as a buffer for storm surge is a great way to
do that.
Mr. Carter. And you would agree that we have got to have a
buy-in by the private sector, that they have got to be part of
this, and in order to have that buy-in by the private sector
and to have their participation in this, we need a strong
economy. So you would agree that a strong economy is important
to this as well?
Dr. Fargione. Certainly one of the potential sources for
investment in natural climate solutions and protection is
through voluntary carbon offsetting, and that is something that
we are already seeing, that in these--some industries like the
airlines, where it is very hard to use anything other--to
replace the jet fuel with renewables, they are planning to
offset those emissions and having that go to things that also
increase resiliency is a win-win.
Mr. Carter. Good. I don't mean to be redundant, but I am
constantly reminding my colleagues up here on the dais that
Georgia is the number one forestry state in the nation and that
it is extremely important that timber, of course, it helps us
in removing carbon and how important that is.
And just wanted to make sure that I get that plug in again,
that the number one forestry state in the nation is doing our
part in trying to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
And with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Graves. Madam Chair, I want to remind you from our last
hearing that after the gentleman from Georgia left, we were
able to track that data, and it was based on the number of
trees per person with a funny accent in the United States.
Ms. Castor. Any rebuttal? No. No, okay.
Mr. Carter. It is not deserving.
Ms. Castor. Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Karsner, I wanted
to ask you a question. I was very interested in your testimony
about natural capital, and you talked about the valuation of
natural capital. Where does the carbon tax fit into all of
that, or does it?
Mr. Karsner. Separate issue. It fits in at a macroeconomic
scale of saying, how do you create value for something? So
taxation, of course, is the government's blunt-force instrument
to tip the scales and create value. When I think of natural
capital, it is not a government-driven thing. It is a science-
driven thing that says, what is the intrinsic valuation of the
southern pine forests in Georgia which breathes, or respires,
at a different rate than redwoods in California.
And that respiration should be valued for its carbon
sequestration asset value, and somebody should pay for that
service. It is an ecological service.
So they are not at all mutually exclusive in the sense that
both of them shift the way that we value and bring on the value
of nature.
But one, I think, is a top-down jurisdictional instrument,
the taxation. The other is a bottom-up assessment of the true
asset value of something we should be accounting for in the
profit and loss of every decision that we make.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. I wanted to ask each and every one
of you with just a yes or no answer, in order to get to the
goal of a net zero emissions by 2050, do you think a carbon tax
is an important component piece to getting there? Just I will
start with you and go down the line.
Mr. Karsner. Yes.
Dr. Howard. Yes.
Mr. Myers. [Speaking native language.]
Dr. Fargione. We support a price on carbon, whether that is
a tax or cap and trade, but yes.
Ms. Brownley. Okay. Tax, fee, cap and trade, putting them
all in the same category, roughly. So, Dr. Faragano--Fargione?
Dr. Joe.
So I wanted to talk a little bit about urban forestation.
So I noticed in your priorities, you didn't mention that at
all. You talked about forest management. And so in terms of
planting trees in our urban areas, is that a significant--is
there a significance there in terms of moving the needle with
regard to carbon emissions?
Dr. Fargione. Yeah. There is a surprising amount of
opportunity. We estimate there is up to 8 million acres in our
cities around the country that could have--of more tree cover
that we could have.
And it has surprising benefits. So even today, the existing
tree cover, it helps prevent about 1,300 deaths in heat waves.
Largely from people that don't have access to air conditioning.
Ms. Brownley. Sure. In my district, the City of Oxnard has
got a grant from the State of California to plant a lot of
fruit trees in an area that really in parts of the city of
Oxnard is disproportionately affected by pollution.
And so it is certainly a carbon emissions reduction tool,
but also sort of a climate justice tool, all built into one.
Are there other programs that California is doing to
incentivize better forest management, urban forestation, that
the Federal Government could be looking at?
Dr. Fargione. I am not familiar with California programs,
but I can follow up with you on it.
But certainly there is an opportunity to do more because
when it comes to urban forest, it is not just about planting
new trees. It is about protecting the trees we have, because
those urban trees are at risk of disease, and so keeping those
trees----
Ms. Brownley. And one last question. So in my district, I
represent the county, Ventura County in California, and we have
had two of California's historically largest forest fires have
taken place in my district over the last 16 months.
So when we talk about better forest management and
reforestation and the balance, if you will, of resiliency and
wildfire management, you know, help me, how do we balance those
things through policy efforts?
Dr. Fargione. Yeah. I think we have the capacity to
reforest in places that need it, and also to do wildfire risk
reduction treatments in places that need it. They both require
investment.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Fargione? Is
that close? I mean----
Ms. Castor. Will you just say it once for all of us?
Dr. Fargione. Yeah. Dr. Fargione.
Ms. Castor. Fargione?
Mr. Palmer. Fargione. I will just call you Joe.
Dr. Fargione. That works, too.
Mr. Palmer. All right. In your testimony you highlighted a
variety of ways that forests can be used to positively impact
the climate, but could you discuss in more detail the negative
impacts of wildfires on the climate?
Dr. Fargione. Sure. So when forests burn, that emits
carbon, and so it is somewhat counterintuitive that one of the
things that we recommend is cultural burning, which emits some
carbon, but over the long term, what we are doing is restoring
the balance.
Places that have had fire suppression, they have lots of
small-diameter trees that serve as kindling, and so then when
it does burn, it becomes very difficult to control and you see
some of the catastrophic wildfires that make the news.
Mr. Palmer. But isn't it also true that one of the reasons
that the fires burn so hot is that we failed to manage the
forests properly and there is enormous amounts of fuel on the
forest floor?
Dr. Fargione. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. The other issue is that there are certain types
of forest that fire is absolutely critical for continued
growth. And the redwoods, long lake pine in the southern
states, require management by fire.
The other thing is, it was stated, I think there is this
assumption that it is the old-growth forests that do the most
for carbon sequestration, and that there is no place, in
certain cases for clear-cutting.
And the fact of the matter is, there is a new study out of
the University of Birmingham--Birmingham, England. I am from
Birmingham, Alabama. I want to make sure everybody knows that.
It is Birmingham, England--that the younger forests sequester
more carbon, I think it is like 25 percent more.
And I am a forest owner, and I understand that you need to
have forest at different stages of growth. So there is a place
for forest management that includes clear-cutting certain
cases, definitely thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfires,
but it also increases the habitat for wildlife.
And I see Mr. Myers, Vice Chairman Myers nodding, you
understand this. I just want you to comment on that, because I
think that needs to be part of our efforts to mitigate climate
change.
And the interesting thing about this study is that we
typically think of the main body as a forest for carbon
sequestration being the rainforests, the tropics, but it is
really the more temperate areas, the eastern United States,
parts of Canada and Russia, the Boreal Forest in Canada. You
want to comment on that?
Dr. Fargione. Sure. So there is a couple things in there.
One is, you know, forest products are a renewable resource and
so that is great where we can support those industries.
So products like cross-laminated timber, or other forest
products that are coming on the market that be can used in
buildings, can displace some other really carbon-intensive
products. So we think that, you know, responsible, well managed
forests are something we need more of, and it is a renewable
resource.
In terms of the age of the tree, if you think about how
fast the forest grows is one thing, but what we are talking
about in terms of fighting climate change is taking more carbon
out of the atmosphere and having it on the landscape, and that
means having more older trees.
So one of the things that actually, yes, having that
younger tree growing fast, but also having longer rotations. If
you go from having a 20-year rotation, the average age is 10
years, and you have got, you know, a certain amount of carbon.
But if you have a 40-year rotation, the average age is 20
years. You have doubled the amount of carbon on the landscape.
So, yes, manage forests, yes, renewable resources, but also
thinking about extending those rotation ages can help store
more carbon in the landscape.
Mr. Palmer. When you are talking about a younger forest,
you are typically talking, though, about under a hundred years,
a forest that is not a hundred years old. And when you are
talking about forest products, even with pine, for, like, you
mentioned laminated wood products, you are talking 20, 25 years
before that forest would be harvested. For hardwoods it is much
longer.
I do think that this should be a part of our discussion
about mitigation for climate change, and part of our strategy
should include planting more forest and having this scaleable
plan for reforestation and younger and older forests.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you. Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Fargione, I was
going to just say your name to show that we could do it.
But my first question is actually for Vice Chairman Myers.
I appreciated your testimony, Mr. Vice Chairman, about some of
the tools that the Yurok Tribe is using to restore forest land
and manage it for the values that you mention, including carbon
sequestration.
But one of the things you also mentioned was collaboration.
And, of course, in northern California, we have a patchwork of
land ownership and land uses. A lot of your good work has
happened in areas where ownership is a mix of the U.S. Forest
Service, the National Park Service, private land owners that
are your neighbors, and, of course, tribal land that belongs to
you.
Can you talk about how improved collaboration could help us
scale up our carbon sequestration efforts when it comes to
forest management?
Mr. Myers. Absolutely. The success the Yurok has seen and
others around us has solely been through the partnerships that
we have with the other agencies within our ancestral
territories and our watershed. That is absolutely what drives
it.
Around the turn of the century, we have seen a breakup of
our landscapes throughout the nation, moving to smaller
parcels, both private and federal and state ownership. That
makes land management extremely difficult to--navigate, and the
only way through that--no pun intended--thick forest is to use
partnerships and to have people working together, especially at
the state and the federal level, with private industry and
tribal organizations.
I think through private foundations we have been able to
help fill the holes in the State and Federal programs, and
allowing there to be a nexus between all of those is really the
path forward across the board.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Fargione, I really do have a question for you. The last
line of questioning was about reforestation. And I wanted to
ask you to speak to, what is the current rate of reforestation
that you see, and how much more would we need to ramp that up
to really put a dent in this problem?
Dr. Fargione. Sure. There are, you know--there is large
reforestation potential, you know, over a hundred million acres
that could be reforested. Right now, the amount of
reforestation, I don't have those numbers at my fingertips, but
it is a drop in the bucket from what it could be.
So--and that is on both--there is opportunities on private
lands and also on some federal lands in places where many
places that--where there was fire or pests or drought that
killed trees, and maybe some of those will come back naturally
and some of them won't, and could be opportunities for----
Mr. Huffman. But it is not happening.
Dr. Fargione. It is not.
Mr. Huffman. We have got a lot of untapped potential here,
and we are not addressing it.
Over to Ms. Howard--Dr. Howard, if we wanted to go really
big on coastal wetland restoration and blue carbon, what would
a program like that look like, kind of similar to this
challenge of we know reforestation would be good for us for our
climate goals, but we are just not making it happen. What do we
need to do?
Do we need a no-net-loss policy? Do we need some hard
targets to achieve? Do we need to set up mitigation banks? What
are some of the things you would like to--if we put you in
charge of this and we wanted to go big?
Dr. Howard. Yes to everything that you just said. Thank you
for answering my question for me. But in all seriousness, I
think one thing, you know, one thing to remember, too, is that
mangroves, which are primarily found in Florida but all over
the world, and provide a large mitigation service, are forests.
So thinking about how do you include mangrove forests into
all of the other forest regulation that we provide. But then I
think it really gets down to this--where I would go big--is
really integrating blue carbon ecosystems and green-gray
infrastructure. Those two things are complementary. They go
together and can be done simultaneously. And it is going to be
probably the best chance that we have to protect against
climate change along our coasts where most of the global
population will be living within the next 50 years or so.
So expanding coastal conservation and restoration, and
combining that gray-built infrastructure which we traditionally
do, but really expanding the green because that is going to
also have the climate mitigation benefit and the carbon
mitigation benefit as well.
Mr. Huffman. I am going to try to sneak one more question
in to Mr. Karsner if I can.
You described the importance of better accounting for the
carbon sequestration benefits of some of these natural systems.
I can appreciate that, but at the same time, you seem to
suggest that a carbon tax or carbon pricing wasn't necessary.
How does capital move into these natural systems if you
don't have some kind of a forcing mechanism like a carbon
pricing system that forces offsets and investments in those
things?
Mr. Karsner. Sorry, sir, I may not have made myself clear.
I certainly did not intend to give the impression that I did
not think a carbon price was a beneficial thing.
My point was that they are not mutually exclusive. They are
separate and distinct and that we are in an era of such
tremendous change that we can't afford not to hedge. One
pathway is dependent on a government action; the other pathway
is dependent on market redesign. If I had my preference, I
would execute on both pathways.
Mr. Huffman. Okay.
Mr. Karsner. So the idea of transparency and disclosure for
precision and price discovery, so that the benefits of blue
carbon or sequestered--sequestration in mangroves being brought
to a valuation is the surest way to move private capital. That
does not alleviate the government of its responsibilities to
appropriately price a negative attribute.
Mr. Huffman. Appreciate that clarification. Thanks.
Ms. Castor. Mrs. Miller, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chair Castor and Ranking Member
Graves, who just left. Last week this committee held a
fascinating hearing on how we can better construct our
buildings and infrastructure to be more resilient in the face
of extreme weather events.
During that hearing, I discussed how my home state of West
Virginia suffered a major flood in 2016, which devastated many
communities. Many of the solutions we have discussed in this
committee, like carbon capture, building resiliency, and
natural solutions, are all pieces of the same puzzle that fit
together in the broader picture of caring for our environment
and addressing climate change.
To further build upon our discussion last week, West
Virginia produces some of the best hardwoods in the world. In
fact, we are number two in the country in hardwoods, but my
friend left, so I can't rub that in. A big part of the economy
in the state is focused on the hardwoods industry. Good forest
management not only leads to a healthy ecosystem, but also to a
healthy economy.
Dr. Fargione, can you discuss how natural climate solutions
can help build resilience for extreme weather events such as
floods?
Dr. Fargione. Certainly. So if you think about our natural
landscapes, when they are healthy, they act as a sponge. So
when heavy rains come, they are able to absorb that, and that
is, you know, obviously true in wetlands, and protecting and
restoring those has a strong benefit there. It is under-
appreciated in agriculture lands, how building soil health
increases the amount of the ability of the soil to hold water,
which can have a flood reduction benefit.
So those are all ways in which we, you know, the landscape
can help store floodwaters.
Dr. Howard. Would it be possible to add to that quickly?
Mrs. Miller. Yes, yes.
Dr. Howard. So when looking at coastal ecosystems, what
happens upstream and up rivers is also incredibly important. So
as you maintain the forest and reforest along river banks, you
are preventing some of the downstream impacts along the coast.
So protecting forests upstream can also increase coastal
protection along the coast.
Mrs. Miller. I am glad you brought that up, because
particularly with our geography in West Virginia and going down
to the Ohio River, and the New River--that is where we go.
Many of the practices you identified are targeted toward
working lands such as farms, forests, and ranches. If land
owners decide to implement these practices, can they expect any
benefits beyond reducing carbon emissions?
Dr. Fargione. Certainly. So there is benefits in forests
and crop land and range land on all of those. So in crop land,
building soil health and improved nutrient management. Building
soil health increases the fertility and, as I mentioned, the
water-holding capacity of the soil, which is beneficial for
yields and also, in particular, in drought years. Because that,
acting as a sponge, it holds more water, making it more
resilient during a drought.
In range land, this is an area that requires more
scientific research to demonstrate--more consistently achieve
these benefits, but there is some evidence that practices like
rotational grazing can help increase the productivity and store
more carbon in grazing lands. And in forests, there are
practices like removing competing vegetation that actually help
the forests grow faster, which is storing more carbon and
making it more productive as timber land.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Karsner. Representative Miller, may I comment on that?
Mrs. Miller. Sure.
Mr. Karsner. There are many ways, as we just described,
that one could characterize as a quality of benefit. I want to
be perfectly clear about what is possible with natural capital.
If you can quantify it, if you can measure it, then you can
monetize it. Those farmers should be paid--paid--cash for soil
sequestration of the carbon.
We should be creating prosperity and incentives that align
with the societal objective that we seek. We can do that, but
it is going to take breaking the tyranny of accounting where we
value nature at zero.
And to actually assess the benefit beyond organic, low-till
farming, et cetera, and to actually say, we should be paying
for what we want to occur, we are going to need natural capital
accounting standards.
Mrs. Miller. I was going to ask you to talk more about how
we, as policymakers, can help encourage innovation in the
natural solutions space. So I think you just answered my
question before I asked it. So thank you very much. I yield
back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Neguse, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair. Natural solutions are
an important piece of solving the climate crisis, and certainly
that has been adduced through both the testimony from the
witnesses today as well as the comments of my colleagues.
And while I am sure we will explore agriculture in more
depth in the future, I wanted to highlight the importance of
considering agriculture partners when we are discussing climate
solutions.
In July, earlier this year, I introduced two bipartisan
bills, the study on improving lands, or SOIL Act, and the
Sustainable Agriculture Research Act, and the goal of these
bills is to support the efforts in carbon sequestration on
agriculture on federal lands. And I would be remiss if I didn't
thank my colleague who is not here today, unfortunately, but
Representative Armstrong who joined me in Colorado recently on
a tour of Boulder County.
And some of the--to visit with some of the farmers and
farming communities in my district that are doing some pretty
incredible regenerative agriculture practices, and to your
point, sir, with respect to the exchanges previously, are
engaged fully with the local jurisdictions.
So the city and the county officials, in a pretty robust
program that essentially incentivizes farmers in our community
to adopt some of these practices and to essentially take
advantage of rotational practices in terms of helping grazing
to sort of recover some of the soil in lands that have been
depleted.
So a number of really incredible synergies that are
happening, I think across the country, certainly including in
my home state, in Colorado, and in my community. And I am glad
that we have the opportunity to talk about some of those today.
I wanted to focus in on--and I apologize if this has
already come up, I suspect it came up during your testimony,
Dr. Fargione. I think that is right. Okay, so--right? I will
check with----
Mr. Huffman. Yeah. Nice work.
Mr. Neguse [continuing]. Check with Representative Huffman
before I--but that is the LWCF, and since it was enacted over a
half a century ago, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
helped conserve and safeguard thousands of acres of natural
areas across the United States, including nearly 200 projects
in Colorado's Second District alone that, as I mentioned, I
have the honor of representing.
The funding really is critical for protecting national
parks, areas around rivers and lakes, national forests,
national wildlife refuges from development, as well as
providing grants to--excuse me--to protect working forests and
wildlife habitat, increase the use of easements, and fund state
and local park and recreation projects.
As I know you are, no doubt, aware, earlier this year the
Congress permanently reauthorized the LWCF but failed to
provide permanent funding for the program. There are a number
of us who, you know, have been advocating to the appropriators
obviously in the House but also our colleagues in the upper
chamber, to ensure that any omnibus funding bill that is--
compromise that is reached includes funding for the LWCF. And
so I am wondering if you could just describe the ways in which
that funding can be an important tool to address the climate
crisis, both with respect to mitigation and to resilience.
Dr. Fargione. Yeah. Thank you for that question, and for
your support of the appropriations for LWCF. As you have noted,
it is the primary federal program for preserving lands and
waters and has protected countless forests, parks, wetlands,
and other public lands, and--that sequester millions of tons of
carbon.
So maybe just one example. In the San Bernardino National
Forest in Riverside, in San Bernardino County, that sequesters
about ten million metric tons of carbon a year in its forests,
and over 36 million metric tons of CO2. And that has
received over $22 million in LWCF investments since it started
in growing that.
So these lands that are being protected by LWCF are a
really crucial part of natural climate solution, and I hope we
can get it permanently funded.
Mr. Neguse. Well, thank you, and we are certainly going to
keep working towards that end.
And with that, I would just say again thank you to Madam
Chair for hosting this important hearing. I am very
appreciative. I think that the focus on natural solutions, this
is one of those areas in which there is a real potential for
bipartisan solutions to emerge and I think looking at this
holistically and engaging stakeholders from across the
spectrum. So I am grateful for the Chairwoman's leadership.
And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Casten, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much to
all our witnesses.
Mr. Karsner, I really, really appreciated your testimony. I
think we tend to talk too often about government solutions,
which are important--and I agree with you, it is critical--but
our climate crisis is, in the first instance, a market failure.
You only have to look at how many countries use so much less
energy per dollar of GDP than we do to recognize that
opportunity.
And, you know, as I point out to my colleagues all the
time, we are already making some progress towards fixing that,
in spite of our regulations, not because of them. Because at
the end of the day businesses like to make money, and if you
have a zero marginal cost source of energy, it is kind of a
money-making machine.
It also happens to lower carbon, if you do that right. But
I think we would all agree that a lot more can be done, and as
you--I liked your phrase in that you said we need to make the
invisible relationships visible. And I want to hone in on one
aspect of this, which is the disclosure that companies make as
investors try to evaluate what they do.
I guess the first question is just if you would agree that
while there certainly are plenty of good actors in the space,
would you agree that corporations and financial institutions in
the United States and arguably globally, are not yet doing
enough to disclose the risks posed to their investors by the
pending climate crisis.
Mr. Karsner. Thank you, sir. I wouldn't agree with that as
a uniform statement. I certainly think that is true and would
apply to some, but I mean, I can think of outstanding leaders
like Walmart, Google, Dow Chemical. There are many that are----
Mr. Casten. Sure.
Mr. Karsner [continuing]. Using international, voluntary
performance standards that are world class, but there is not a
compliance standard that ensures that uniformly we are doing
it. So one could say we are lagging in general, but I wouldn't
say universally that is true across the board.
Mr. Casten. Yeah, no, and thank you for the clarification.
Because that is why I said at the start there, good actors--I
sometimes think that Walmart's commitment to buy a hundred
percent clean energy would be something that we should follow
since I think Walmart's the number 2 electricity consumer in
the country, and the Department of Defense is number 1.
Maybe we could find some things we could copy there from
the private sector. But let me just pick up on what you said,
because this sort of universality of disclosures, would you
agree at least that the current range of disclosure protocols
is inconsistent and, therefore, how public corporations
disclose the risk has a pretty wide error band around it?
Mr. Karsner. Absolutely true, and I think that the amount
of undisclosed risk is sufficiently opaque, that Congress
should be significantly alarmed about how mispriced risk is
affecting things in the marketplace today.
Absent any policy guardrails, the market is moving on, it
is discounting real estate prices, it is making insurance
unaffordable for homeowners along the coast, in the Carolinas,
in Florida. It is even making insurance inaccessible in some
places.
So the delta of mispriced risk that is occurring in the
marketplace, versus the government's assessment or compliance
standards for it, is a significant gap, and I would find it to
be a worrisome gap.
Mr. Casten. Do you think there is a role for us to at least
standardize the way in which those risks are disclosed?
Mr. Karsner. Yeah, I personally think it is fundamental to
the functioning of a marketplace to have transparency and
disclosure, accountability, and responsibility of all the
actors, whether they are individuals, homeowners, small
businesses, or corporations. That is what makes a market
function well, with societal guardrails, to an outcome that our
representatives would prescribe.
Right now, I think we are neglecting that objective, and I
think Congress has an opportunity to say, this is the
accountability we would want. What we are looking at is a
classic economic tragedy of the commons. This is all ball. And
the question is, what will the remedy of the commons be?
And the remedy will be accountability through transparency
and reporting that has people making risk management and
investment decisions based on accounting for the value of
nature.
Mr. Casten. Well, first off, when we are done here, I may
hire you for my comms director. And don't get me wrong, my
comms director is awesome. You can apply for the job. Put it
that way, it is going to be contentious.
But this is precisely why I introduced H.R. 3623 with
Representative Cartwright. Senator Warren is leading the Senate
version of this. And, you know, coming from the private sector,
I am not aware that you can choose, as a corporation, any
flavor you want of how to disclose your liabilities.
Gap says what the liabilities are. And while ESG reporting
is terrific, there is a wild disparity in how companies report
the liability that their investors face on climate change.
And what the Climate Risk Disclosure Act would do--it
passed out of Financial Services earlier this month by the
way--would prior public corporations to disclose information
relating to their financial and business risks associated with
climate change and would require them to do that in a standard
way.
And, you know, as I sit here and look at how investors make
decisions, investors balance risk and return. But if the risk
isn't disclosed in a consistent way, it is very hard to expect
consistent returns.
So thank you, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
follow the good guidance of our excellent witness. I yield
back.
Mr. Huffman. And support your bill.
Mr. Casten. And support my bill, yes.
Ms. Castor. Terrific. Well, I want to thank the witnesses
and all of the Members for engaging today on these important
natural solutions.
As we have heard, nature offers us so many solutions to the
climate crisis, and I think we have identified common ground--
pun intended--for our March committee recommendations. I want
to remind everyone that we have a request for detailed policy
proposals on our website, House.climatecrisis.gov. The deadline
for those recommendations for the committee is November 22nd.
But I also wanted to highlight a report that came out
yesterday that Chairman Paul Tonko hosted the scientist over in
the Rayburn. They were from Woods Hole Research Center, and
their just-released study said that the Arctic now in winter is
releasing carbon dioxide, making it a source of carbon, rather
than a sink that we had all hoped would be maintained.
But the earth is warming, the Arctic carbon deep freeze is
breaking, and that is one of the reasons that we have all got
to work together to follow the science and develop bipartisan
climate solutions to tackle the climate crisis. So thank you
all for being here.
I want to ask unanimous consent to include in the record
the summary for decision-makers of the report, The Ocean As a
Solution to Climate Change.
Dr. Jennifer Howard is one of the authors of this important
report, and it was this high-level panel for sustainable ocean
economy is a unique initiative of 14 serving heads of
government, including Australia, Canada, Chile, and other
countries.
So without objection, this is entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 22, 2019
ATTACHMENT: Hoegh-Guldberg, Caldeira, Chopin, Gaines, Haugan,
Hemer, Howard, et al. The Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change: Five
Opportunities for Action. World Resources Institute, 2019.
The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
http://live-oceanpanel.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2019-10/
19_PAGER_HLP_web.pdf.
Ms. Castor. Thank you all for being here today. The
committee's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]