Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] a group of former e. P. A. Administrators testified before the senate about the dangers posed by Climate Change and the government to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions and said Global Warming is indisputeable. This begins with Sheldon White house introducing the witnesses. And as the former attorney germ of rhode island, i welcome dr. Endowed professor of banking. So i welcome our panel. Contribution rather than simply sitting back and accepting. If anything, new reports have made that needed to act even more urgent. It is hard to believe theres ny question of that. The ipcc report validates to the strongest terms of the science of Climate Change and projected impacts. The National Climate assessment documents impacts occurring in this country right now. And a report from the Cna Corporation made up of retired igh military officers note the readiness concern due to Climate Change. We have as epa administrators served 4 president s and we have uccessfully rustled with a number of Public Health and environmental problems all contingent including severe automobile and industrial dilution of a widespread Water Pollution and the unacceptable effects of pesticides like ddt. We made progress. We cut automobile emissions by 95 and improved air quality while the number of cars have doubled. The hole in the ozone layer and acid rain are under control. Inherent in all of these problems was uncertain science and powerful economic interest in controls. The same is true of Climate Change. In all cases, cited, the solution did not result in the predicted social calamity for the scientific uncertainty are the inevitable resistance does not mean that nothing should be done unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of inaction. We believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of Climate Change but no legitimate debate of the effect of the earths warming or man country vision. He models of the leading scientist predict wildfires and more severe and frequent storms. Those are the projections of these models. We are seeing impacts already put up since the of since the ocean we are seeing the impacts already. This is the ocean absorbs, we thought the ocean was our friend and it is. Our friend is paying a penalty. The burning of fossil fuels is causing the ocean to rise and is already threatening to shellfish and coral reef and other species. The culprit is the same a carbon debt originated from fossil fuels that is contributing to planetary warming. As cochairman of the committee and my home state of washington appointed by the governor to look at the impacts of ocean on puget sound, it is directly threatening shellfish industry in puget sound that contributes 275 million to the states economy. Taking steps to adapt and try to reduce the amount of carbon in puget sound has begun to have some beneficial effects. We also know that if america does not get sirius about our responsibility to deal with this problem, nothing will happen in the rest of the world. No action is a choice. The choice of means leave to chance, the kind of future we want to often out of the solution to a problem that we are a big problem. Would like to expand we like to speak of american exceptionalism, we should begin leading the world away from our appetite of fossil fuels before t is too late. It is an extremely complex problem whose solutions are not straightforward. E believe it is no excuse. Thank you very much. Governor whitman. Could you turn your microphone on . I see you need to hit the button. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for holding this hearing and allowing us the opportunity. I have to begin by expressing my frustration on the discussion of whether the epa has to be Legal Authority to regulate emons. The issue has been settled. Epa does have the authority. The law says so and the Supreme Court has said so and that should be put to rest. Given that fact, the agency has decided properly in my view it should act now to reduce Carbon Emissions to improve the quality of our air and as part of an International Effort to address change. Climate change is not environmental issue or economic issue. Climate change has very real implications or our national ecurity. Those concerns must be an important part of any discussion that takes place. We all know the earths climate is changing and human activity although not solely responsible and we should freely acknowledge that is what contributing to the change and increasing the risk will push the environment beyond the point of which we can repair it. And we should know that once one is contributing, one has an obligation to be part of the solution. That is what the epa is trying to do. There is honest disagreement about aspects of the agencys powerplant proposal. Whether it is stretching its uthority to far. I am sure ebay will be made aware during the comment piano. My hope is that the primary focus will be on the substance. I am sure the epa will be made aware during the comment eriod. It is clear that the clean air ct is an imperfect tool. Since congress has declined to act, the epa must and that is the law. It will not come without cost. Since the nixon, it has sought prosperity is not a mutually expect exclusive goal. From 19802012, the total emissions, it dropped 67 . Our population grew by 38 . Our consumption grew and our gdp ore than doubled in constant dollars. More people consuming more energy emitted much less pollution without sacrificing Economic Growth. That is clear evidence of the balance of the epa has been able to strike in the past. Further reductions are achievable and affordable. Mr. Chairman, my hope is that congress will at long last acknowledge Climate Change is real and the potential consequences of inaction are far greater than the projected cost of action. We have specific and Scientific Consensus on this issue and what we need is political consensus. The two parties were able to rally around a common purpose and the early days and it is urgent that they do so again. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, governor whitman. We now turn to mr. William riley. Welcome. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening this session. One of the critical challenges our country faces. After i was nominated in 1988, my first briefing was on climate. It was followed by briefings on epa reports on climate effects and options commissioned. Incidentally, 11 National Academies of science have formally reflected upon study science and concluded that humans are affecting the climate and Greenhouse Gases are changing it. At that time, Climate Science was a matter of computer modeling. Notably the greenhouse effect. Which is planes while the atmosphere is hospitable to life. The concern prompted jim baker to signal a policy of no regrets. We will consider those measures, he said, also help reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. N 1987 montreal protocol which thomas helped negotiate and that was 20 five years ago. The models are far more reliable and buttressed by thousands of credible scientific studies documented changes underway. I listened to senator boozman, the pace of change, tipping point, methane emissions and more. It is a complex system and we do not have a complete picture. We welcome serious critiques to examine gaps and anomalies and uncertainties. That is how science advances our understanding of complex issues. Change is underway. We can expect to see many more disruptions or intense storms and more wildfires and iseases. It will arrive in america. Storm surges. He to waste another impacts on our health and water resources. Food production. The longer we delay, the more adverse to the impacts will be in the bar expensive it will be to address them. Producing Greenhouse Gas emissions can help send off more impacts later this century. Increasingly i believe we have a sector on an agenda and our federal agencies to begin to adapt likely changes and build up resiliency. Dealing with flooding and meeting future projections will be costly. I chaired a task force for governor schwarzenegger and we oncluded the 1100 levees and the sacramento basin will not survive anticipated sealevel rise. Climate change and the disruptions as pointed out our a lobal problem. Absent a action by china, brazil, india, and other economies, what we do alone will not suffice. Action by the United States is not sufficient. Nonetheless, necessary if we are cregget to negotiate with other constraintsd carbon will thwart their needs for Economic Growth. The debate between developed and developing countries has tended to focus on how much aid that countries will provide rather than how much will reduce Greenhouse Gases. I participated for a number of years in the china Sustainable Energy forum. At first throughout the 1990s, any mention of Climate Change triggered a lecture about those who caused the problem should fix it. It now is a matter of selfinterest and respond in the International Negotiations even they continue to assert the national interest. Opportunity to offer perspective on Climate Change based upon my experience at epa dealing with many complex Environmental Issues during the reagan years. This is the approach we used during my time at epa as we addressed a range of nvironmental problems. Whether it was assessing the impact of stratospheric ozone depletion or the impact of lead n gasoline on childrens health, Scientific Data and analysis were the first step in evaluating the risk posed by the problem. In my six years at epa i dealt with many contentious ssues. I cant member any other matter that i have dealt with during that sixyear. Of time a that were not controversial. Some more than others. The issue of Climate Change is one that the epa and the Global Scientific Community have studied and analyzed for decades. Whether it is the panel on Climate Change or the latest scientific evaluation on climate assessment, it is clear. We know that Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 40 . We know that Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases are warming the atmosphere. We know they have contributed to more than a rise in Global Temperatures since the 880s. We know global sea levels have risen eight inches by thermal expansion caused by melting of laciers. We know that Ocean Acidification s occurring. This is harming our coral reefs and marine ecosystem. We know the communities in our country are dealing today with the effects of changing climate. In a florida, we see increasing salt water intrusion in our Drinking Water supply along the coast due to Sea Level Rise. We see coastal communities dealing with Sea Level Rise on heir drainage systems. The Economic Impact is undeniable. The local governments struggle to address todays impacts of Climate Change while trying to participate the risk in the future israel. On a broader scale, widespread impact is across the country. It will range from the shellfish harvest in the Pacific Northwest due to Ocean Acidification or ildfires in the southwest. Given this assessment of the impacts and risks posed by Global Warming, epa has the esponsibility given to it by congress and affirmed by the courts to address the Risk Management challenge. We know there are many approaches that can be taken. We know that all of them are controversial. We know the gases we have committed will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. A solution will require a ongterm commitment. We also know what many of the solutions are. Some of which have been mentioned. Improving energy efficiency. Increasing low Emission Energy production. Widespread adoption of trategies like these can supplement and is an International Agreement. A coordinated national and international approach is needed to assist states and countries adapting measures dealing with impacts of Climate Change already taking place today. More action is needed to address he impacts today while addressing the larger issue of committing ourselves to avoiding Dangerous Levels of future warming. The recent steps taken by the epa to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions are significant mitigation measures. The u. S. Will demonstrate International Leadership on an issue of global significance and consequence. I would suggest that if the nited states is not taking the leadership position, an International Agreement will never come to fruition. Thank you for adding me give my views on what i consider a ritically important issue. Thank you very much, mr. Thomas. Let me just thank each of you for your service to our country in a challenging office. We turn now to dr. That can. I come here today as a scientist. I have published research on the possibility of Global Warming and the potential ecological effects. Some examples, i developed a computer model about forests and endangered species. One of my graduate students at it world vegetation to a major climate model. I was the lead author on a paper analyzing methods to forecast Global Warming impacts on biodiversity and publish the paper comparing Arctic Sea Ice in the 19th century with that of the end of the 20th century. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its species and a taint and intellectually must pproach. I have been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that the subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should Work Together as scientists instead of arguing about reconceived emotionallybased positions. I was an expert reviewer of the white house climate assessment. We have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. It is my view that this is not unusual and contrary to the characterization of the two reports, these are not apocalyptic or a reversible. I hope my testifying will lead to a more rational approach. The two reports do not promote the kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why. My concern is the 2014 assessment report is speculative and incomplete conclusions embedded in language that gives more than they deserve. They are not based on facts. The two reports assume that the climate forecast is happening and will continue happen and row worse. These predictions are way off the reality. The extreme over emphasis has aken our attention away from many Environmental Issues that have been ignored. There are 10 issues which have been mentioned. A singer focus on Climate Change of skiers the best solution. In terms of the need to act now, it is on these issues that we should focus. There is an implicit assumption in both reports that nature is in a steady state. This is the opposite of the reality. Environment has always changed and living things have had to adapt. The report says living things are fragile and unable to deal with change. The report repeats the assertion that large fraction of species might go extinct. The model is incorrect. Few species became extinct during the past 2. 5 million years. Some of the report conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles. The white house Climate Change assessment results from climate hange. I reviewed the study and found not a single one of the series is supportable by direct observation. These authors state the contrary. They stated that the polar bear population has never had an estimate in a scientific sense. This is a qualified guess. Some conclusions are ignorant of the best statistically valid bservations. The report says that terrestrial has sequestered the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. I have done the first valid estimates. The estimates uptake are not statistically valid. The report uses the term Climate Change with two meanings. I have heard that today. These are not distinguished in the text area that is confusing. Of course the comment is changing. If a statement is about natural change, then it is a truism. If the mea