eties will have “no regrets" about the new policies, because they will be good policies regardless of the magnitude of environmental change. For example, the phaseout of chloroflourocarbons and replacement by gases with shorter atmospheric lifetimes have reduced the U.S. contribution to global warming while at the same time reducing future health risks posed by ozone depletion.

În land-use and coastal planning, managers should consider the effects on ecosystem services that could result from interaction of abrupt climate changes with changes caused by people. Scientists and government organizations at various levels may be used to develop and implement regulations and policies that reduce environmental degradation of water, air, and biota. Conservation measures related to land and watersheds might be put into place to reduce the rate of biotic invasions, with management strategies used to limit the spread of invasions. The potential economic and ecological costs of disease emerging from abrupt climate change should be assessed.

A promising option is to improve institutions to allow societies to withstand the greater risks associated with abrupt changes in climate. For example, water systems are likely to be stressed by abrupt climate change; to manage scarce water, it might prove beneficial to seek more flexible ways to allocate water, such as through use of water markets. Another example of a “no-regrets" strategy is insurance against the financial impacts of fires, floods, storms, and hurricanes. Through the development of new instruments, such as weather derivatives and catastrophe bonds, markets might better accommodate extreme events such as the effects of abrupt climate change. It will be important to investigate the development of better instruments to spread large losses that result from extreme events, priced realistically to reflect the risks but not to encourage excessive risk taking.

Because of the strength of existing infrastructure and institutions, the United States and other wealthy nations are likely to cope with the effects of abrupt climate change more easily than poorer countries. That does not mean that developed countries can remain isolated from the rest of the world, however. With growing globalization, adverse impacts—although likely to vary from region to region because exposure and sensitivity will vary—are likely to spill across national boundaries, through human and biotic migration, economic shocks, and political aftershocks. Thus, even though this report focuses primarily on the United States, the issues are global and it will be important to give attention to the issues faced by poorer countries that are likely to be especially vulnerable to the social and economic impacts of abrupt climate change.

The United States is uniquely positioned to provide both scientific and financial leadership, and to work collaboratively with scientists around the world, to gain better understanding of the global impacts of abrupt climate change as well as reducing the vulnerability and increasing the adaptation in countries that are particularly vulnerable to these changes. Many of the recommendations in this report, although currently aimed at U.S. institutions, would apply throughout the world.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Alley. Dr. Graedel.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. GRAEDEL, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, YALE UNIVERSITY

Dr. GRAEDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, I am a professor of industrial ecology at Yale University, but I am here because I served as the chairman of the National Research Council Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program strategic plan.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our recent report in which we reviewed the draft strategic plan, and to share this panel with three members of the committee who wrote the report, Doctors Janetos, Liverman and Solow.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, or CCSP, was formed in 2002 to coordinate and direct the U.S. efforts in climate change and global change research. It builds upon the decades-old global change research program and adds a new complement, climate change research initiative, whose primary goal is to measure the improving aggregation of scientific knowledge, including measures of uncertainty, into effective decision support systems and re

sources. Thus, the overall activity combines an existing program, the Climate Change Research Program, with a new component, the Climate Change Research Initiative.

On September 17th of last year, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere James Mahoney requested that the National Academies undertake a fast-track review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's draft strategic plan and of its revision. Our committee's first report in which the draft plan was reviewed was released last February 25th. My remaining comments reflect the findings and recommendations presented in that report.

The committee commends the CCSP for undertaking the task of developing a strategic plan. The current draft of the plan represents a good start for the process, particularly in that it identifies exciting new directions for the program while building on the wellestablished foundation of the Global Change Research Program. Indeed, the draft strategic plan identifies many of the cutting-edge scientific research activities that are necessary to improve understanding of the earth system.

The Climate Change Research Initiative portion of the plan introduces an admirable emphasis on the need for science to address shorter-term national needs, including support for those in the public and private sectors whose decisions are affected by climate change and variability.

What recommendations do we make for improving the draft strategic plan? First, we recommend revisions that would clarify its vision and goals. The committee finds that the draft strategic plan lacks the kind of clear and consistent guiding framework that would enable decisionmakers, the public and scientists to clearly understand what this research program is intended to accomplish and how it will contribute to meeting the Nation's needs.

We recommend that the revised strategic plan articulate a clear, concise, ambitious vision statement, and translate this vision into a set of tangible goals and apply an explicit process to establish priorities.

Second, we recommend that the CCSP improve the treatment of program management in the draft plan. The management of a program involving 13 agencies, each with a separate mission and a long history of independent research on climate and global changes, is a challenging task. However, the creation of a cabinet level committee with the authority to shift resources among agencies to meet the goals of the program is an improvement over past approaches. Nonetheless, the interagency approach to managing the program may not be enough to ensure that the agencies cooperate toward the common goals of the program, because no individual is clearly identified in the draft plan as having the responsibility for managing the plan as a whole. The committee recommends that the revised strategic plan describe the management process to be used to foster agency cooperation toward common program goals. In particular, the responsibilities of CCSP leadership and relevant agencies should be clearly outlined.

In parallel with the CCSP, the President announced a Climate Change Technology Program created to develop and coordinate technologies for stabilizing and reducing greenhouse gas levels in

the atmosphere. The committee is concerned that the existing management and program links between the Climate Chance Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program may not be extensive enough to take advantage of the synergies between those two programs. We thus recommend that the revised plan clearly describe the mechanisms for coordinating and linking science and technology development activities.

Third, we recommend that the revised strategic plan better support the increase in understanding the potential impacts of climate change on human society's ecosystems and related options for adaptation and mitigation. The need for research applications in these areas logically follows from the CCSP's new evidence from its issued report. The draft plan's approach to these human decision issues lacks research into consumption, institutions, and social aspects of technology, and on the costs and benefits of climate change and related response options, and its treatment of ecosystems needs a more cohesive and strategic organizational framework.

Fourth, we recommend strengthening decision support in the revised plan. Although the plan does incorporate in general language about decision support in many places, it is vague about what this will actually mean. We recommend that the revised plan identify which categories of decisionmakers the program serves and describe how the program will improve two-way communications with them. It should also better describe how decisions or capabilities will be developed.

The draft plan identifies the reduction of uncertainty as a top priority for the Climate Change Science Program. Unfortunately, it does not apply a systematic process for identifying the key scientific uncertainties and to ascertain which of those are most important in decisionmaking. And we recommend that the revised plan identify what sources and magnitudes of reduction of climate change uncertainties are especially needed to benefit decisionmaking.

Last, we recommend that revisions be made to the draft strategic plan to better set the stage for implementation. It is clear that the scope of activities that are described is greatly enlarged over what has been supported in the past. Implementing this expanded suite of activities will require significant investments in global observing systems, computing capabilities, and human resources. This will necessitate either greatly increased funding for the Climate Change Science Program or a major reprioritization and cutback in existing programs. Even if program funding increases, CCSP management will continue to be faced with many funding decisions. To assist in this process, we recommend that the Climate Change Science Program use the clear goals and program priorities that it will present in the revised plan, as well as advice from an independent advisory body to guide future funding decisions.

To conclude, the committee finds that the draft plan addresses crucial issues facing our Nation and the world in the 21st century. We wish CCSP leadership well as it takes on the challenging task of revising the draft strategic plan to enhance the usefulness of the program to the decisionmakers, who need to better understand the potential impacts of climate change, and make choices among the possible responses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will be happy to respond to questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Graedel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. GRAEDEL, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, YALE UNIVERSITY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Committee: My name is Thomas Graedel. I am professor of industrial engineering at Yale University and serve as chairman of the Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan of the National Research Council. The Research Council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss a recent report of the National Research Council entitled Planning Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of the Draft U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan. I am pleased to share this panel with three members of the committee who wrote this report: Tony Janetos from the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment; Diana Liverman from the University of Arizona; and Andrew Solow from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

Research to understand how the climate system might be changing, and in turn affecting other natural systems and human society, has been underway for more than a decade. Significant advancement in understanding has resulted from this research, but there are still many unanswered questions, necessitating a continuance of this effort. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, or CCSP, was formed in 2002 to coordinate and direct U.S. efforts in climate change and global change research. The CCSP builds upon the decade-old U.S. Global Change Research Program. Since its inception the Global Change Research Program, or GCRP, has reported hundreds of scientific accomplishments and, together with other major international partners and programs, has been responsible for improving the understanding of climate change and associated global changes. The CCSP incorporates the GCRP and adds a new component-the Climate Change Research Initiative, or CCRI-whose primary goal is to "measurably improve the integration of scientific knowledge, including measures of uncertainty, into effective decision support systems and resources." Thus, this overall activity combines an existing program, the Global Change Research Program, with a new component, the Climate Change Research Initiative.

On September 17, 2002, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere James R. Mahoney requested that the National Academies undertake a fasttrack review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's draft strategic plan for climate and global change studies. He asked the National Academies to form a committee to review both the discussion draft of the strategic plan, which was released on November 11, 2002, and the final strategic plan after it has been revised. In response the 17-member Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan was formed. The committee's first report, in which the draft strategic plan is reviewed, was released on February 25, 2003. My remaining comments reflect the findings and recommendations presented in this report.

The committee commends the CCSP for undertaking the challenging task of developing a strategic plan. The current draft of the plan represents a good start to the process, particularly in that it identifies some exciting new directions for the program while building on the well-established foundation of the Global Change Research Program. The committee finds that the draft strategic plan identifies many of the cutting-edge scientific research activities that are necessary to improve understanding of the Earth system. The Climate Change Research Initiative portion of the plan introduces an admirable emphasis on the need for science to address national needs, including support for those in the public and private sectors whose decisions are affected by climate change and variability. Further, the CCSP has made genuine overtures to researchers and the broader stakeholder community to gain feedback on the draft strategic plan and how to improve it. These efforts indicate a strong interest on the part of the CCSP in developing a plan that is consistent with current scientific thinking and is responsive to the nation's needs for information on climate and associated global changes.

In general, the draft strategic plan provides a solid foundation for the Climate Change Science Program. With suitable revisions, the plan could articulate an explicit and forward-looking vision for the CCSP and clearly identifiable pathways to successful implementation. To assist the CCSP in revising the strategic plan, the

NRC review makes an extensive set of recommendations. These recommendations for revisions fall into five categories: (1) clarify the vision and goals of the CCSP and the CCRI, (2) improve the treatment of program management, (3) fill key information needs, (4) enhance efforts to support decision making, and (5) set the stage for implementation. I will comment briefly on some of the specific recommendations that address these five points. I refer you to the committee's full report for more details.

The first set of recommendations address revisions to the draft strategic plan that would clarify the vision and goals of the Climate Change Science Program and its subcomponent, the Climate Change Research Initiative. The committee finds that the draft strategic plan lacks the kind of clear and consistent guiding framework that would enable decision makers, the public, and scientists to clearly understand what this research program is intended to accomplish and how it will contribute to meeting the nation's needs. In particular, it lacks most of the common elements of a strategic plan: a guiding vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress, an assessment of whether existing programs are capable of meeting these goals, explicit prioritization, and a management plan. The draft plan lists a multitude of proposed activities, but does not identify which of these activities are higher priorities than others, nor does it provide an explicit process for establishing such priorities. A systematic and coherent strategic plan is especially necessary when, as in the CCSP, the institutional environment is diverse and fragmented and when the program involves new directions and collaborations. Such a plan would provide a common basis for planning, implementation, and evaluation and would protect against a continuation of the status quo. The committee recommends that the revised strategic plan articulate a clear, concise vision statement for the program in the context of national needs. The vision should be specific, ambitious, and apply to the entire Climate Change Science Program. The plan should translate this vision into a set of tangible goals, apply an explicit process to establish priorities, and include an effective management plan.

The revised strategic plan also must present clear and consistent goals for the Climate Change Research Initiative. The draft strategic plan states that to be included in the CCRI, a program must produce significant decision or policy-relevant deliverables within two to four years and contribute significantly to improving scientific understanding; optimizing observations, monitoring, and data management systems; or developing decision support resources. The committee considers the CCRI's emphasis on scientific support for decision makers one of the most promising and innovative features of the draft strategic plan. Further, the plan appropriately recognizes that there are some short-term products that can and should be delivered by the program. Unfortunately, the plan's descriptions of decision support as a two to four year activity give the false impression that decision support is needed only in the near-term. While short-term deliverables are possible in this arena, decision support also will be needed as an ongoing component of the program. In addition, many of the CCRI activities aimed at reducing uncertainty and improving observations are not consistent with the CCRI focus on decision support and are not likely to produce deliverables within four years. This is not to say that these activities are unimportant, but simply that they are not consistent with the goals for CCRI as given in the draft plan. The committee recommends that the revised strategic plan present clear goals for the Climate Change Research Initiative and ensure that its activities are consistent with these goals while maintaining the CCRI's strong emphasis on support for near-term decisions as an ongoing component.

The revised strategic plan also needs to describe more clearly how the research activities included in the Global Change Research Program support the decision support needs of the Climate Change Research Initiative. Indeed, there should be a "rolling linkage" between the two programs, with CCRI objectives periodically redefined as a result of new scientific input from the GCRP. The committee believes it is essential for the Climate Change Science Program to move forward with the important new elements of CCRI while preserving crucial parts of existing GCRP programs. The committee recommends that the revised plan include an explicit mechanism to link Global Change Research Program and Climate Change Research Initiative activities.

The second overarching area for improvement in the draft plan is its treatment of program management. The management of an interagency program involving 13 agencies, each with a separate mission and a long history of independent research on climate and associated global changes, is a challenging task. The Global Change Research Program has been criticized in the past for being unable to do much beyond encouraging multi-agency cooperation and support because it lacked the authority to redirect long standing programs and mandates of individual agencies. The draft plan takes positive steps towards improved interdisciplinary research opportu