Senator INHOFE. That is a very good answer, and I don't want you to repeat any other examples, but in your written statement are there other examples? A few?

Dr. LINDZEN. Yes.

Senator INHOFE. All right. There is a statement that you had made, Dr. Lindzen, quoted here. "If we view Kyoto as an insurance policy, it is a policy where the premium appears to exceed the potential damages and where the coverage extends to only a small fraction of the potential damages." Would you like to elaborate on that?

Dr. LINDZEN. Sure. All I am saying is you have estimates of damages to the most likely forming scenario. You have estimates of GDP reduction from implementing Kyoto. At this point they are comparable or perhaps even the GDP looks a bit larger than the savings you incur by preventing the climate damage. Economists can argue over that. But then you come to the stunning fact that Kyoto will not change the climate much. So you are left with both the damages and the cost but no coverage. I don't think that is a reasonable insurance policy.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair

man.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Corzine?

Senator CORZINE. I guess with respect to that last response, I would love to hear Dr. Trenberth's comments on whether that tradeoff was exactly how other scientists would have assessed that cost-benefit analysis, because I think it is through that peer review and peer challenge that you can actually get to conclusions, if I understand the scientific process. So I would ask if you have any comments on that.

Then I have a whole series of issues that I'm confused when there are views expressed that the quantitative data, aside from the amount, the historic quantitative data, is in place and appears to be under challenge, whether we have had a global mean warming trend, whether you can use ice core delvings to actually draw scientific conclusions. Are there real debates about those issues? My reading—and, again, sometimes it is more popular press than the scientific press-would lead me to believe that there is an overwhelming weight of scientific argumentation with regard to a number of those kinds of statistical bases of historic review.

So those two areas: Why is there a debate today that I read in Dr. Lindzen's commentary on quantitative data from an historical perspective, leaving aside modeling, which always has some probability analysis associated with it? And then his comment on costbenefit work that follows on from Senator Inhofe's question.

Dr. TRENBERTH. Well, first, looking at Kyoto, there are three options for dealing with this problem. One is to stop it from happening, cut emissions. The second is to adapt to the problem as it goes along, and the third one is to do nothing.

It doesn't seem as though it is possible to stop the problem, and I don't think "doing nothing" is an option, quite frankly. That means we have to adapt to the problem and plan for it.

What Kyoto does is it buys us about 15 years for when preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide would double is another way

of looking at it. It doesn't solve the problem, but it gives us more time to plan and to adapt to the climate change as it is happening.

Senator CORZINE. To study the real impacts of whether it is occurring, to give greater weight to the probability assessments that the models would have because you would have new information, presumably?

Dr. TRENBERTH. Right. The models can get better, and we can actually get into the whole business of really doing climate predictions, presumably, eventually.

With regard to the evidence, there is a lot of evidence and a lot of different variables that we can look at. It is very easy to point to one particular thing and say, oh, this suggests like this cold winter in the Midwest, in the center of the country this year, global warming can't be happening, but, in fact, if you look around and look at it globally, you can see that this is part of an overall pattern, and Alaska had its warmest winter on record.

So there is a lot of natural variability. There are uncertainties in all of these things that scientists actually like to argue about, but the IPCC statement is an overall assessment, and it takes into account all of the evidence. What we find with some of the naysayers is that their evidence is often very selective. IPCC takes into account all of the evidence.

Senator CORZINE. So you find a state of consensus stronger, significantly stronger, than we are hearing from your colleague? Dr. TRENBERTH. I would make that statement, yes. Senator CORZINE. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Clinton?

Senator CLINTON. Dr. Trenberth, I would like to ask you, what are your policy recommendations? I know that Dr. Lindzen suggests that there is no policy-relevant content to the information that is available at this point in time, but I would like to ask you to respond to that. I would appreciate any recommendations that you think do flow naturally from the understanding of the science as it is viewed today, because I agree with you that we can do nothing; we can adapt; we can try to reverse. What is it that you would recommend that this body take under consideration as policy to flow from the findings that you have put forth?

Dr. TRENBERTH. Essentially, the IPCC has made the statement that global warming is happening in their best assessment. We have attributed the recent climate change over the last, in particular, 30 years to the human influence on climate. There is a direct follow-on from that to say that these climate changes, therefore, are only going to have a greater impact in the future and it is likely to be disruptive. Probably the biggest impact on society is through extremes: the droughts and the floods, in particular.

So there is a cost to climate change. I think when we are considering the economy, we should not just be considering the costs of mitigation, but also the costs of climate change and the fact that they are put off in some other agency, like FEMA or somewhere else, and not considered. It is very hard to point your finger and say, "yes, this particular flood was caused by climate change," but the evidence does suggest often that there is a contributing factor, and that will probably only get worse. So I would encourage the

cost of climate change to be considered in the economic decisions that are being made.

My personal viewpoint is that there should be a very broad portfolio dealing with energy considerations. I find renewable energy sources and conservation measures and incentives to cut down on waste-not leave all the lights on in a building for security measures when it is not needed and then turn the air conditioning on to get rid of the surplus heat. Incentive structures to take that kind of thing away seem to be desirable, and a similar thing for automobiles in terms of gas mileage.

I am from New Zealand, and New Zealand's main source of power is hydroelectric power. I think it is one which is often overlooked. There are certainly environmental costs attached to that, as there are with wind farms or solar farms, so that one has to look at the tradeoffs on these things. I think a broad portfolio on all fronts is needed.

Senator CLINTON. I am also interested in your points about how greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere and accumulate over a long period of time, and that while we are debating this issue, it is either getting worse or there is no impact. But if you were to go back to Senator Reid's point about being a gambler, it strikes me as a bad bet not to take what would be prudent measures and provide a policy framework to encourage such prudent measures while we continue to try to further plumb what the meaning of a lot of these changes is.

You have in your written testimony written about water and the impact of climate change on our water supplies, and particularly the safety of our drinking water. Could you elaborate what your concerns are about drinking water supplies and the access to water? I know we have seen some rather alarming trends with the Great Lakes having the second year of the lowest level that has been recorded. So the issues of water and temperature are ones that I would like you to briefly address.

Dr. TRENBERTH. Thank you, yes. Global warming produces increased drying, and this means that there is increased evaporation, and plants are apt to wilt somewhat sooner than they otherwise would without global warming.

The moisture in the atmosphere then is lying around. There are increases in moisture, and it gets gathered up by all of the weather systems. For example, a thunderstorm. It reaches out and gathers the water vapor that is available and dumps it down. The evidence suggests that when it rains now, it is raining harder than it was— about 10 percent harder than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

There are a number of consequences of that. The first one is that more of the water runs off, and therefore, there is a risk of flooding as a result of that. It also means that less of it soaks into the soils and is then subsequently available for agriculture. So that exacerbates the risk of drought when the storms go away.

When there is runoff, a lot of the water runs off across the surface of the earth rather than soaking in through the soils. If it goes through the soils, there is a filtration process which cleans the water. If it runs off across the surface, it picks up all kinds of chemicals. Water is a solvent. It picks up fecal matter from fields, and so on, and water supplies get contaminated. There are many

examples around the United States, and especially in other countries, where there are stomach upsets and health problems often not related to any big picture thing. They are often isolated in small communities, mountain communities, and so on, but they are related to contamination of water supplies in this fashion.

Management of water, consequently, I believe, will be a major issue in the future, first, because when we get it, we are probably getting too much of it. Then, second, when we don't have it, it would be best if we could save it for later use. So I think this will be a big pressure point on society, given the increased demand. Senator CLINTON. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Senator Lieberman, the ranking member of the subcommittee, is here. Senator Lieberman, would you like to make a statement?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much.

Senator VOINOVICH. By the way, I should acknowledge the fact that the two of us met earlier and you suggested that we ought to have this hearing, and my response was I thought it was a great idea because so many of us are in the dark in terms of this whole issue of climate change, global warming. We have had a very lively meeting here this morning.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first thing I wanted to do was to thank you for convening this hearing. In the normal course of life in the Senate, wouldn't you know it, on the morning it is held I am detained in the ongoing negotiations on the education bill that is on the floor. So I apologize to you, my colleagues, and to the witnesses.

I have read the testimony that you have given. I just would say a few words and ask that my full statement be included in the record, if I might.

Senator LIEBERMAN. To me, this is an issue that really will test our political leadership here in this country, all of us, and around the world because it is an issue which I believe, as a layperson following the science, that there is compelling evidence that, in fact, the planet is warming. While we are beginning to see some consequences of it, as Senator Stevens said yesterday at Commerce Committee hearing, that he was struck by the creeping of the ocean waters into Arctic villages, for instance.

Nonetheless, the great test here is that the worst consequences of this will not happen in the lives of many of us here now. So this calls on us to truly be trustees, stewards of the planet and protectors of those who follow us here. I hope we can rise to that challenge.

The Senate has followed deliberations here, often funding programs to at least begin to deal with the problem. We had that now legendary Byrd-Hagel resolution some period of time ago. I do think the resolution is subject, at least by my understanding, my participation in it, there is some misunderstanding because a number of us who are quite intensely concerned about global warming voted for it for two reasons.

One was we thought the main thrust of it was not to oppose Kyoto, but to say that ultimately this problem was only going to be solved and American leadership was only going to make sense if the developing nations also were part of the solution; they're not standing aside as part of the problem. I think the resolution has been misinterpreted or misunderstood, and understandably so, since then, but I hope that we can come back and rebuild a consensus to do something about this problem.

I was troubled by the Administration's unilateral statement of intention of essentially withdrawal from Kyoto or pull away from it. I am encouraged, on the other hand, by the stories I read that within the Administration there is a group meeting studying global warming, hearing from experts with varying opinions on it, which I appreciate it.

I guess I was troubled a few days ago when Vice President Cheney gave that speech up in Toronto outlining some of the upcoming proposals for a National Energy Policy, and in the entire speech there was not one mention of climate change and the consequences of the investments that he was talking about in coal and other greenhouse gas-emitting energy technologies on our climate. So I think we have a lot of work to do together here. I hope this kind of hearing in which we all learn will be the basis for the Senate to go forward and try to find common ground.

I a

I remember a few years ago, Mr. Chairman, the late Senator Chafee, John Chafee, and I put in a measure which we thought was really a small step forward and would not engender any opposition. We simply said in the proposal that we should create a means to give credit to greenhouse gas-emitting sources, industries particularly, for reducing those greenhouse gas emissions prior to any national scheme for requiring those reductions, but so that they would get credit for their initiative today. John Chafee and I found that we were, I wouldn't say roundly attacked, but at least opposed by people on all sides, one side thinking we were putting the proverbial camel's nose under the tent and the other side feeling that we were not obviously asking as much as was required by the facts here.

So having had that experience, I understand the perils of trying to form a consensus here, but I hope through our leadership on this committee and I thank you again for convening this hearing— that we can openmindedly assess the facts and finds some ways to move forward.

I remember being at a seminar on global warming several years ago, and there was a Congressman there from the House. It happened to be a Republican. When it was over, he said they were scientists we were listening to-he said, now if you all are right and we act in response to your advice, we will essentially save the planet as we know it; if you're wrong and we're just hyperventilating, overreacting, we will have taken action to reduce air pollution, to make America more energy-independent. Either way, it is not a bad result, and I agree. So we hope we can find ways to continue to move forward.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to say a few words today. I look forward to the testimony of the second panel. I thank both of the witnesses.