GLOBAL WARMING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Philip R. Sharp (chairman) presiding. Mr. SHARP. Ladies and gentlemen, we have been waiting for our projector equipment so that two of our witnesses will be able to present slides. It is, we hear, on its way from the Senate, so we'll try to go ahead and proceed and regret the delay; typical of the efficiency around here. We can't seem to get the equipment where it's needed. U.S. energy policy should rest on at least three main pillars: energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental protection. Two weeks ago, this subcommittee heard, again, that our national energy security and our economic wellbeing may be at risk as we become more dependent on foreign oil. It is clear that we need to work much harder to improve the energy efficiency of our economy, as well as to increase the supply of domestic energy. Today we ask whether our global environment is in jeopardy as well. We will hear from scientists who differ as to the magnitude of risk we face and the wisdom of changing energy policy based upon this risk. I hope they will help us sort through the conflicting accounts that have appeared in the news media. In this Congress, almost every issue that comes before our subcommittee, from energy conservation to nuclear licensing reform, will be examined with an eye on its implications for the greenhouse effect and other environmental issues. In many cases, the goals of energy security, economic competitiveness, and protecting the environment will be compatible. For example, energy conservation promotes all three. In other cases, we will have to make tough choices. I hope the distinguished scientists before us today will help us to understand how much weight we should give to the global warming threat as we formulate our Nation's energy policy. The Chair would now like to recognize our distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Moorhead, for an opening statement. Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the start of what I believe will be an important series of hearings on energy policy implications of the global warming problem. Today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, is about what we know and don't know scientif (1) ically about the phenomenon of global warming. This is a topic which will be important to the subcommittee in reviewing future policy options and responses to the global warming problem. I expect today's hearing will be extremely interesting since we are fortunate to have with us scientific experts with differing viewpoints on the global warming problem. While all of them appear to agree that what we are facing potentially is a very serious environmental threat, there is less consensus over other key points. These include questions over whether we have already experienced a temperature increase due to global warming and questions over how fast and how large future temperature increases will be. All of these issues are important for our future deliberations on this problem. While I am concerned, as one Witness suggested in his written statement, that we may be harming the environment at a faster rate than we can predict the consequences, I am also concerned that we make sure that our policy responses reflect what we know and don't know about global warming. I look forward to today's hearing and the challenge of sorting out the different viewpoints of what everyone will agree is a complex and difficult problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHARP. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Synar. Mr. SYNAR. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHARP. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fields. Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I want to congratulate you for holding this hearing today. Global warming is a very complex subject. I think this hearing is a good starting point with scientists who have differing viewpoints. I hope that we will have further hearings so that we might ultimately come to some type of consensus on what we might be able to do legislatively to deal with this problem. Thank you very much. Mr. SHARP. I thank the gentlemen. The gentleman from New Mexico? Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, very briefly, I think it's important that you're holding these hearings. I would hope that sometime soon we also focus on the international implications of this issue. I think it's going to take a multilateral, multinational approach to deal with this problem. I think this is a positive start and, in answer to the question of the subject at hand, Global Warming: Is It Time For Action, I think the answer has to be yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHARP. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper. Mr. COOPER. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHARP. I thank the gentleman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Leland follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICKEY LELAND Mr. Chairman, there exists some disagreement on the cause and effects of increases in global temperatures. In fact, certain circles argue that there is no cause for concern as recent temperature increases are a natural phenomenon. Granted, the scientific community is working with limited information and imperfect models. Notwithstanding this capacity to precisely predict the future with 100 percent accuracy, sufficient evidence indicates a trend toward warmer temperatures. The United States needs to act. We need to address global warming and develop a national energy policy. Since Americans consume an estimated one-fourth of world energy production, we can greatly reduce atmospheric pollutants. By facilitating natural gas consumption, increasing energy efficiency, and promoting renewable energy resources, the United States can decrease pollution and demonstrate our leadership in hopes that others will follow suit. We cannot, however, singlehandedly ameliorate global warming without international assistance. This is a global problem and one that necessitates a global commitment. Climatologists are deliberating on the probabilities of a 2° to 4° temperature increase vis-a-vis a 5° to 10° increase and corresponding effects. I am not one to gamble with the environment-the stakes are too high. I look forward to reviewing today's testimony and hope that our limited knowledge base does not enable us to err on the wrong side of humanity. Mr. SHARP. The Chair would like to call forward our witnesses and we may have to take a break in a moment to have the projector set up, which we hope is about to arrive. We are delighted to have with us today Dr. Robert M. White, President of the National Academy of Engineering; Dr. Stephen Schneider, Senior Scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research; Dr. Pat Michaels, Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences with the University of Virginia; and, Dr. Daniel Albritton, Director of the Aeronomy Laboratory with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Gentlemen, we are delighted to have you with us and I think you're familiar with our processes here. We will make your written statement and other materials a part of our printed record and we will be asking you for your oral testimony momentarily. After all of you have given your testimony, then we'll ask questions of the panel. Dr. White, I believe you do not need the projector. If I'm accurate about that, I'll let you go ahead and give your testimony and, when the projector arrives, then we'll take a quick break and set it up. So, Dr. White, we're happy to have you with us. STATEMENTS OF ROBERT M. WHITE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING; DANIEL L. ALBRITTON, DIRECTOR, AERONOMY LABORATORY, ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH; AND PATRICK J. MICHAELS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the issue of climate change and, in particular, the advice which the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine recently presented to President Bush in our White Paper, Global Environmental Change, Recommendations for President-elect George Bush, which I submit for the record. That paper considers many aspects of global change that I will not touch on here. I'll confine my remarks to issues dealing with the greenhouse problem. I'll talk about three questions. First, why do the academies consider it important at this time to issue such a statement, what are our principal findings and recommendations, and why do we consider it a matter for Presidential leadership? First, why do we issue such a paper? The academies were motivated in part by the unprecedented level of domestic and international public attention and concern; more than a decade of academy studies which have laid a basis for our assessment of the problem; an acknowledgement that while scientific uncertainties exist, the weight of evidence indicates that a climate warming caused by the actions of humanity may be underway and that the consequences of such a climate change could be severe. Our view is that when the risks of the consequences are put in the balance against the certainties and uncertainties of our knowledge, a prudent course of public action is called for. Such a course of action should address the anticipated climate changes in ways that do not preclude other options if the outcomes differ from our present projections. Now, what are the facts? There is incontrovertible evidence of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, as well as increasing concentrations of other greenhouse gases. The increases of carbon dioxide are the result primarily of the increased use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and certain other human activities. The response of the atmosphere to this increase in greenhouse gases can be calculated with mathematical models. Although the mathematical models are only approximations of the real atmosphere, and hence have many uncertainties associated with them, the evidence from these calculations by many different research groups leads to the estimate that the response is likely to be a climate warming somewhere between 12° and 42° centigrade when averaged over the globe at the surface of the Earth. That's for a doubling of the carbon dioxide content. We are not certain of the detailed regional and local consequences. The climate warming, should it occur, would lead to worldwide changes in storm tracks and associated precipitation, changes in water resource availability, a sea level rise, and changes in agricultural and ecological regimes. The record of instrumental observations indicates that significant global temperature increases, as well as decreases, have occurred over the past century. The estimates based on such observations are that over this period there has been a net warming of about one-half degree centigrade. We cannot say with certainty that this warming is due to human activities, although the increase in temperature is not inconsistent with the expectations based on general greenhouse theory. Nevertheless, these could be natural fluctuations or, in part, manifestations of unrepresentative data. Now, what are the prudent courses of action? We can intervene through more efficient use of fossil fuels and incentives to use those that contribute least to the carbon dioxide buildup per thermal unit. For example, shifts from coal to natural gas, as well as intensified efforts to develop nonfossil energy sources, such as passively safe and publicly acceptable nuclear power, are desirable. We can act to reduce further the use of other greenhouse gases, such as CFC's, and we can work with other nations to reduce tropi |