Witness Follow-up
Questions – Dr. John Everett
House Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
April 17, 2007
Oversight Hearing
Regarding Wildlife and Oceans in a Changing Climate
13 May 2007
Dear Chairwoman Bordallo,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in
the hearing and to provide responses to the follow-up questions.
I worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1988 to 2000 on five impact analyses: Fisheries (Convening Lead Author), Polar Regions (Co-Chair), Oceans (Lead Author), and Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co-Chair/2 reports). Since leaving NOAA, I have remained an Expert Reviewer within the IPCC system.
I support the IPCC process. It is a reasonable way to
coordinate the development of policy advice on global issues. However, there
does appear to be "cherry picking" of science and results to advance
some agendas. The growing body of scientists outside the IPCC process often
come to different conclusions based on the same science, and their concerns are
not fully considered. Having difficulty myself in ferreting out the facts, I
have kept track of information from both camps, eventually putting it on a
website so I could access it anywhere. I have recently made it available to
everyone at http://www.ClimateChangeFacts.info.
I believe we are on the wrong path. The worst-case impacts, from worst-case scenarios, that have been run through an under-achieving model are insufficiently discounted in the IPCC reports vis-ŕ-vis better analyses. The result is a gross exaggeration of impacts in the press. We do not hear about minor impacts and benefits, only the “newsworthy” elements. To do realistic impact assessments, I have to sort through the science and projections. A summary of considerations that shaped my written statement and this response to your questions are that:
§ The projected temperature rise defies logic, given that the USA and global temperatures have risen by (at most) only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (NOAA, May 2007), during the height of industrial expansion. This is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible. NOAA’s new data set, released on May 1, addressed some of the urban heat island issues, dropping the warming 44% (below IPCC 2007), but significant other data issues still remain. Also, the Earth was much warmer in the prior interglacial, just 125,000 years ago.
§ The IPCC 2007 rate of sea level rise adds 1 mm/year to the 1-2 mm/year that has been happening in recent centuries. This additional amount is only 4 inches over 100 years.
§ Other projections, such as for hurricanes, rainfall, and snow cover, are not significantly different than under natural variability, and most will advance more slowly than the decadal oscillations. With regard to ocean acidity, shell formation problems should have shown up already in areas where there are naturally high levels of CO2. They have not.
Above all, the IPCC Impact Assessment discounts the benefits that come with a warming climate and accentuates the negatives. Most negatives lie within the unrealistic worst case climate scenarios. Whether a fish in the ocean, a shrimp in a pond, or a bean on a vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate. More crops grow where it is warm than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants - basic facts that seem lost in this discussion. However, the impact is visible to NASA satellites, which have detected a 6% greening of the Earth in the last 2 decades from a warmer, wetter, higher-CO2 Earth (NASA 2003). Findings like this are rarely highlighted in IPCC SPM documents.
Supporting details for the above and for my responses are on
my website. I would be pleased to elaborate further, if requested.
Sincerely,
Dr.
John T. Everett
President
Ocean
Associates, Incorporated
4007
N. Abingdon Street
Arlington,
Virginia USA 22207
JohnEverett@OceanAssoc.com
On
the web at http://www.OceanAssoc.com,
and
http://www.ClimateChangeFacts.info
QUESTIONS FROM THE
HONORABLE MADELEINE BORDALLO
CHAIRWOMAN
In your testimony you note that a
combination of human activities including overfishing, pollution of estuaries
and the coastal ocean, and the destruction of habitat-particularly wetlands and
seagrasses-currently exert a far more powerful effect on world marine fisheries
than is expected from climate change.
1.
Do you think we are currently doing enough to address
those problems here in the United States? If not, can you elaborate on what we
should be doing differently?
I think we are putting about the
right amount of resources into these issues, but we could do more if we weren’t
hampered by our institutional arrangements. I think the people in NOAA, the
states, EPA, the Corps, and all the other bodies are working hard towards
achieving the correct goals, but that institutional barriers are more of a
hindrance than lack of funding. For a dozen years I was Director of NMFS Policy
and Planning. I was also a Senate staffer and during that time I led the
negotiations on behalf of both Houses on the first reauthorization of the FCMA.
I also have been closely affiliated with FAO since 1999. These are some of the
experiences underlying my view. We have had over 30 years to get it right and
we are not there yet. This, alone, serves as a reality check for the merits of
the system we have established.
I have always said that if I were
Prince of Fish, I would do things much differently. Our problem in managing
fisheries is that we live in a democracy where authority is diffuse and nearly
everything requires negotiation. This may lead to a better solution, but
everything takes a long time to accomplish and the driving force is usually
some disaster, whether a crashed stock or some ecosystem imbalance which
disrupts normal function, such as sharks replacing codfish. Sometimes there are
stalemates that may prevent rational management.
The different entities involved
in resource management, such as communities, counties, states, tribal
organizations, state commissions, Councils, international treaty bodies, and
bilateral organizations all complicate the process. As much as I admire our
system of government, I think it sometimes brings chaos to resource management.
Imagine for a moment having one agency (or a Prince) responsible for all
fisheries throughout their range, able to cut across all agency fiefdoms. There
would be no hiding behind some perceived failure of somebody else. If there is
mismanagement, we know who is responsible and if something needs to be done, we
know who gets the task. So, if we want to do something dramatic, that reduces
the cost and inefficiencies in the existing system, I think we should start
with a clean slate, design an ideal system, then modify our institutions to
accommodate it. This will require a very heavy hand indeed.
2. Dr.
Everett, like Bill McKibben, you acknowledge that a changing climate will
produce winners and losers. Yet unlike Mr. McKibben, who views climate change
as an opportunity to transform our society into a 21st Century
“Green Economy” which will produce many more winners than losers, you seem
satisfied to tinker around the edges the status quo to avoid taking potentially
unnecessary changes to address the problem.
I support moving towards a Green
Economy, and working to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is a valid
objective within this ideal. However, it may or may not be important to the
Earth’s climate system. Let us not forget that just a few years ago, many of
the same NGOs who are alarmed about warming and CO2 emissions, were arguing
with the same fervor that our fossil fuels were running out. Many still are. It
can’t be both ways - using more for decades and running out in a few years.
There are probably not enough fuels left in the ground to allow the forecast
acceleration of their consumption. We are seeing some price increases now,
across all fuels, and even for corn, driven by the shortage of fossil fuels. I
believe this will continue and will accelerate remarkably in the decades to
come, greatly restricting CO2 emissions. The market place and the finite
resources will largely reduce consumption, but we should also subsidize
research to clean up coal (and other difficult fuels) consumption throughout
the world. I was alarmed by some of my fellow panelists who advocated cessation
of coal production. We hold the world’s largest inventories of coal and it is a
major competitive advantage. We need to make it more environmentally friendly
and use it.
The green economy goal is
excellent and I agree with it, but it cannot be reached in one country alone
because there is a world marketplace. When there are equal or lower costs, this
is great for all of us. If we move to wind power by legislative fiat, on the
other hand, and the production costs in our factories rise, our jobs will
migrate overseas even faster than at present. Thus, we run the very real risk
of having far more losers than winners in the USA if we respond to this threat
in an unwise way.
I am glad you consider me to be
“tinkering”. Tinkering is good, provided you have established goals. It is one
of the best strategies for dealing with a complex problem such as this (Lindblom,
1959) where the issue is fuzzy at best, the correct course of action is
uncertain, and a wrong course is perilous. We do not know enough to put all our
eggs in the global warming catastrophe basket. Any eggs we put there should be
refundable and of value on other objectives, such as energy independence and
efficiency, and leaving some fossil fuels in the ground for use by future
generations.
I grew up as a fisherman,
learning from my father the need to put the little clams and lobsters back
gently, and to protect them from predators while we could. I am very conscious
of our role as a good steward of the Earth and have practiced stewardship all
my life.
I am concerned we are at the
verge of a potential colossal public policy failure that will damage our
economy. This is a similar situation to that of several decades ago when
uninformed hysteria led to halting the growth and technological advancement of
our nuclear power industry. Other nations, such as France, with no significant
fossil fuels, continued on the nuclear path, soon replacing us as exporters of
nuclear technology and gaining clean electrical power that is largely from
nuclear sources. We were left only with a fossil fuels option and now we are in
a catch-up mode.
3. Your
position seems contrary to our Nation’s history of boldly confronting new
challenges. Why are you advocating for a more cautious and incremental
approach? Do you believe that our Nation is not up to this daunting task?
The daunting task is to keep
ourselves informed and cautious in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence
that global warming is man-induced and that it is harmful. I am not convinced
either is true. In fact both are probably mostly false. Therefore, we must move
cautiously on things that will cost us competitive advantage in the
marketplace, but expeditiously on things that make sense in their own right.
This is an adaptive, incremental approach following the teachings of Charles
Lindblom, 1959. If there is warming, things will be different, not worse,
just as they are different whenever the Atlantic Oscillation and the Pacific
Oscillation and the ENSO (El Nińo Southern Oscillation) change phase, with far
greater (and immediate) temperature and wind changes than are forecast by IPCC
models. The easiest way to see this is to consider what might happen if the
temperature were to be falling, which it just might be since reaching the
latest peak in 1998. Just a slight cooling would largely destroy our
agriculture (as we know it) – yet a slight warming would mean faster
growth, and longer, more productive seasons. This is evident
from NASA satellites showing a 6% increase over the last 20 years in the
greenness of the earth. Further, the Earth’s temperature has been higher and
the CO2 has been higher many times in the past, certainly during the last time
we were between ice ages, and perhaps since the last one ended just 10,000
years ago.
On my website (http://www.ClimateChangeFacts.info),
I explain this in considerable detail, providing the claims of scientists who
think we are having unprecedented warming and that it is caused by humans. I
also have the non-trivial counter claims by those who disagree on both aspects,
with links to resources supporting all the views and ideas. I also have a
series of items I believe we should do whether the Earth is warming or cooling
and whether or not mankind’s small contribution to the total CO2 budget matters
or not. I also have a series of items we should not do. Since these latter
items are more important, for the present discussion, I will start with them
first.
What Actions Should We Not
Take to Respond to Climate Change?
We must respond prudently to the
threats from climate change. We live in a global economy, much of it with lower
production costs than our own in the developed world. Whether we live in the
USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand or the EU, we know our job losses are
draining our countries, making it more difficult to support our retirement
programs, health benefits, schools, and even our national defense. We must not
exacerbate the high costs of our products and services. So we --
· Should
not commit to actions that put us at a competitive disadvantage in the world
market for goods and services, whether it is through the Kyoto protocol or some
other vehicle;
· Should
consider that if a taxing regime is implemented to discourage use of fossil
fuels, it must separate production uses (such as manufacturing, agriculture,
and fishing) from personal consumption such as in home heating, and for
personal cars used for discretionary travel. We should not place taxes on
inputs to production and services that will hurt our ability to compete in the
global market place.
· Should
not forget that the most valuable things we have are our health, our lives, and
our family, and we should not place them at risk by driving, or riding in,
vehicles that put ourselves at risk in order to save energy or other costs.
· Should
not stop breathing even though it would be one of the most immediate steps to
slow CO2 emissions.
· Should
not do things without thinking. There are many ideas that may not have merit.
For example, buying local vegetables to reduce transportation costs may
actually increase energy use if the far off producer is more fuel efficient.
Another example is in using biofuels that have a high fossil energy input in
fertilizer or machinery, or planting trees to reduce CO2, but finding out they
also absorb solar radiation (heat) more than what they replace.
What Actions Should We
Take to Respond to Climate Change?
We should respond prudently to
the threats from climate change. Our actions should include things that make
sense in their own right and which will be important whether the Earth warms or
cools in the near future, or continues about the same until the next ice age
arrives some 30,000 years or so in the future, according to our present
knowledge of solar variability and orbital mechanics (IPCC 2007). We should aim
to reduce the production costs in our industries and, at the consumer level,
our living expenses, while at the same time "cleaning up our act" in
the amount and type of energy we consume. Here is what we should do now:
· Lead
by personal example. One way to check progress? Look at your household energy
consumption. It should be dropping steadily over the years through
o
household maintenance and upgrading of insulation
o
appliance replacement and replacing light bulbs with
fluorescents (all lights on timers, for example, should be fluorescents.
o
adjusting the thermostat for when nobody is home or
awake
o
limiting our shower from being just a little too long
o
getting a watt-hour meter and seeing what each home
appliance, electronics, and plug-in light costs to run.
o
reducing the number of parasitic loads. If a TV or VCR
or Cable TV Box is sitting in the basement, and is rarely used, put it on a
powerstrip and shut everything off when you leave the room.
o
getting an energy audit, particularly if it is free
from the power company.
o
considering energy efficiencies on all appliances and
vehicles.
o
check our home’s water heater, or the pipes leaving it.
If hot, insulate them. It is not just a loss of energy, but in the summer, the
heater is fighting the air conditioner.
o
Shut off the light when it is not being used. Put your
computer to sleep or shut it off (and all the peripherals).
o
Use fans and open windows for cooling.
o
When the air conditioner is on, be extra careful about
adding heat that then has to be removed, doubling the amounts of energy used,
and often at the higher “summer rate”.
· Build
our reliance on domestic energy sources. This includes the green technologies
of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and tidal and recycling sources such as biogas
and municipal solid waste. It also includes fossil fuels (from the time the
Earth was really warm and productive), coal, oil, and gas - but in as clean a
mode as possible. We need to be mindful that wind and solar are intermittent
sources and require a backup supply AND a larger electrical grid (with more
transmission lines and towers) than any other source.
· Conserve
our energy through efficiency in all we do. This includes mundane things such
as multipurpose trips when we run our errands or visit our clients.
· Make
mass transit more extensive, more economical, and user friendly.
· Review
building codes to ensure new homes and buildings are constructed to be more
energy efficient, perhaps having different grading levels (with payback periods
estimated) so purchasers can choose how far above a threshold value they wish
to go. Standards for commercial buildings need to consider the global economy
and whether production costs will be increased. Innovative ideas, such as using
waste water from restroom sinks, or laundry machines, to flush toilets on lower
floors, need to be considered.
· Implement
consumer education programs at all levels, particularly within commercial
establishments that produce goods and services. For example: provide energy
saving tips, and management advice and software to truck and automobile fleet
owners, to fishing vessel and maritime vessel owners, and highway designers.
· Develop
and disseminate practical energy conservation packages for the general
population and for industry sectors such as agriculture, trucking, airline,
fishing, mining, refining, warehousing. These packages should contain
reasonable energy reduction targets, milestones and estimates of savings if
achieved.
· Review
traffic flow measures that cause vehicles to stop and go, or wait unnecessarily
for non-existent pedestrians or intersecting traffic.
· Vehicles:
share rides in a car pool; inflate tires properly; time for a tuneup with new
sparkplugs?; air filter dirty?; unnecessary weight in the trunk?
· Pay
or subsidize research on all the above energy forms, particularly big ticket
items such as nuclear and coal and on efficiencies in how we use power.
· Conserve
our energy through less use of machinery. Examples are using clothes lines for
drying, walking or riding a bike to work or for neighborhood errands and
visits, using the stairs instead of elevators, forgetting about motorboats and
buying sail boats, and putting down the leaf blower and picking up the rake.
· Make
it easy everywhere for excess energy to be added to the electricity grid by
consumers and industry with permanent or temporary excess power, such as from
wind, methane, hydro, and solar - and at reasonable rates, at or near the
highest rate tier actually being used at the time. This provides incentive to
oversize individual production systems, leading to extra robustness in the
overall grid.
· Foster
new residential and commercial construction near mass transportation hubs, such
as subway and railroad stations, airports, and bus terminals.
· Ensure
that all our communities have safe routes where people can walk or bike to
work, or at least use motorbikes safely. Highway and bridge rebuilding projects
should provide dedicated lanes with appropriate separation of pedestrians and
bicycles from motor vehicle traffic.
· All
jobs should be reviewed by employers to determine if it makes sense to allow
telecommuting one or more days per week.
· State
extension agents (e.g., agricultural agents) should be trained in energy
conservation approaches and benefits.
· Increase
taxes on energy consumption that is not used for production of goods and
services. This is not a blind "carbon tax", but a tax aimed at
consumer level consumption.
· Recycle
items as much as is worthwhile. Sometimes this can be counterproductive if
there is not enough volume or recycling requires too much energy or cost.
· Conduct
research on the effect of any these actions on wildlife and on human health,
and on the economic vitality of our nation.
· Increase
the amount of our business done electronically to minimize travel and
transportation and the use of paper.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE PATRICK KENNEDY
Regardless
of whether or not we take actions to control and reduce green house gas
emissions, wildlife and wildlife habitat and the ocean environment are going to
change and adapt, often unpredictably, to a warming climate. Consequently, we
should take steps now to develop strategies to allow for the future
conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of a healthy and resilient
environment.
1. Keeping
in mind that any transition to a new “Green Economy” will take decades to
achieve and that most members of Congress will want to limit unnecessary
disruptions of social and economic systems, can you be more specific on what
practical types of adaptive management strategies we should consider to
mitigate the negative effects of climate change on our collective wildlife and
ocean resources?
There are a series of steps that we should do whether or not
the warming (1 deg. F) of the last 150 years continues or, having reached a
peak in 1998, continues to decline, or stays at the new plateau.
I will address
oceans and fisheries, because I have greater knowledge in this area. We need
better information at the ecosystem level on how organisms interact with their
environment. Information is most valuable if there are institutions and
management mechanisms to use it. Research on improved mechanisms is needed so
that fisheries can operate more efficiently with global warming, as well as in
the naturally varying climate of today. There is relatively little research
underway on such mechanisms. Knowledge of the reproductive strategies of many
species and links between recruitment and environment is poor.
The following items are needed specifically because of
climate change. Other types of research, which are prerequisites for dealing
with such concerns but which support the day-to-day needs of fisheries managers
or relate more to understanding how ecosystems function, are not included.
·
Determine how fish adapt to natural extreme
environmental changes, how fishing affects their ability to survive unfavorable
conditions, and how reproduction strategies and environments are linked. Link
fishery ecology and regional climate models to enable broader projections of
climate-change impacts and improve fishery management strategies.
·
Implement regional and multinational systems to detect
and monitor climate change and its impacts—building on and integrating
existing research programs. Fish can be indicators of climate change and
ecological status and trends. Assemble baseline data now so comparisons can be
made later.
·
Develop ecological models to assess multiple impacts of
human activities.
·
Determine the fisheries most likely to be impacted, and
develop adaptation strategies.
·
Assess the potential leaching of toxic chemicals,
viruses, and bacteria due to sea-level rise and how they might affect both fish
and the seafood supply.
·
Determine institutional changes needed to deal with a
changing climate. Such changes are likely the same ones needed for mastering
overfishing and coping with the variability and uncertainty of present
conditions. Improved institutions would probably reduce stock variability more
than climate change would increase it.
·
Study the historical ability of societies to adapt
their activities when their resources are impacted by climate changes.
·
Research activities to better understand processes in
the oceans, in particular the role of the oceans in the natural variability of
the climate system at seasonal, interannual, and decadal to century timescales.
·
Long-term monitoring and mapping of: water-level
changes, ice coverage, and thermal expansion of the oceans; sea-surface
temperature and surface air temperature; extratropical storms and tropical
cyclones; changes in upwelling regimes along the coasts of California, Peru,
and West Africa; UV-B radiation, particularly in polar regions, and its impact
on aquatic ecosystems; regional effects on distribution of species and their
sensitivity to environmental factors; changes in ocean biogeochemical cycles.
·
Socioeconomic research activities to document human responses to global change
· Establish
management institutions that recognize shifting distributions, abundances and
accessibility, and that balance conservation with economic efficiency and
stability
· Support
innovation by research on management systems and aquatic ecosystems
· Expand
aquaculture to increase and stabilize seafood supplies and employment, and
carefully, to augment wild stocks
· Integrate
fisheries and CZ management
· Monitor
health problems (e.g., red tides, ciguatera, cholera)
· Coastal
planners and owners of coastal properties and infrastructure should carefully
consider projected relative sea level changes when evaluating new or
reconstruction projects.
· Coastal
planners and environmental decision-makers should consider that a healthy
environment is a prerequisite for coral reefs, mangroves and sea grasses to
keep pace with a rising sea and to continue their coastal protection benefits
2. Should
we be doing more to re-evaluate our current policies for land use planning and
public acquisition of land for wildlife habitat? Should we be adopting a
broader landscape and ecosystem-based approach for protecting wildlife?
I do not feel qualified to
provide guidance in this area and defer to more land-based people.
3. Finally,
how might such ideas be applied to the ocean and coastal environment and the
wildlife therein?
This is addressed above. In essence, we need to stop our
species-by-species approach to management and embrace the ecosystem-based
management concept we have been discussing for more than 30 years. In some
fisheries and protected species, we are closing in on the amount and types on
information necessary, but major changes will be needed in how society and
resource managers view these interactions. Not all is as it appears to be. Over
fishing is blamed for problems that likely are rooted in ecosystem imbalances
among species and in environmental effects that are just beginning to be
understood, as was pointed out in the testimony of Dr. Gary Sharp. Further
background is available at his website at http://sharpgary.org
.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE HENRY BROWN
MINORITY RANKING MEMBER
1.
Do you or have you (or your organization) received any
funding from the Pew Charitable Trust or the David and Lucille Packard
Foundation? If so, please elaborate.
None.
2.
Are you currently a party to any law suit against the
Department of the Interior or the Department of Commerce (or any of the
agencies within these departments)? If so, please describe
No.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE WAYNE GILCHREST
1.
If paleo-records
show that corals existed in the past under high atmospheric CO2
concentrations, why is it a problem now?
I do not believe it is a problem.
I think we will run out of easily-available oil, gas, and coal before the
oceans become so acidic that there is a significant problem. I understand that
many of the same coral genera were present during the mid-cretaceous period
when CO2 was 2-4 times higher and coral reefs much more expansive, per the NOAA paleo
website. If the corals and other animals with shells that cannot form due
to high CO2 concentrations are impeded, their ecological niche apparently
becomes filled by other organisms, some with silica based shells. Things will
be different, but life continues.
2.
Among the various effects of climate change to wildlife
and the oceans, are there issues that are more pressing than the others? Why?
For fisheries, the most important issue is the movement of
centers of fisheries production to new locations, perhaps across a national
border. Institutions and communities are not set up to deal with this. At
present the El Nińo and the Atlantic and Pacific Oscillations give us an
indication of what will happen.
Also, near the top of the priorities list is a decision
whether to encourage or retard opening of the Northwest passage to shipping,
and secondly, how do we deal with the possible pollution effects, and the eased
migration of whales and other mammals between the oceans. This Arctic ice has
probably been blocking exchange for about 120,000 years. There are a myriad of
important questions, such as; Do we want the gene pool refreshed in both
oceans?
3.
In the U.S., as plant and animal species migrate north
and to higher elevations, what does that mean for the regions they leave
behind? For instance, it has been said that some U.S. states that border Canada
might actually benefit from the next few decades of climate change, but what
will it mean for the states further to the South, and especially those on the
coast?
The way to look at this is to see what happens closer to the
equator. All suitable places have life and the speciation is greater there than
further north. If there is food and water, all voids will be filled quickly.
Warmer, wetter climates have the most diverse life. Further, within the average
global temperature change, more change occurs as one moves towards the poles.
The southern states will see less change. Sea level rise is also important. It
has been going on since the last ice age ended just 10,000 years ago. Georges
Bank, Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket were part of the mainland just a few
thousand years ago. The first settlers walked there and did not need canoes.
Whether or not there is any impact (acceleration) caused by human actions, it
will continue until we start our slide towards the next glaciation, some 30,000
years away. During the last period between ice ages (about 125,000 years ago),
the global average sea level was 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) higher than
during the 20th century, and average Arctic temperatures at that time were 5.7
to 9.5 deg. F (3 to 5 deg. C) higher than present (IPCC, 2007). El Nino and other
climate oscillations show us that the distribution of species and their mix
changes in a few months to a year, with winners and losers everywhere, just as
with the industries and communities that depend on these resources. From a
practical standpoint, nearly everything in the ocean grows faster when it is
warmer, as do the things they eat. Some will no longer be available nearby, and
some will be greatly reduced by interrupted feeding patterns, but they are here
today, somewhere, just as they have been through countless other cycles of
warming and cooling, waiting for their turn once again.
4.
How do shifts in habitat range of plants and animals
affect human interests such as agriculture or the spread of invasive species
and diseases? How can we adaptively plan for such changes?
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to offer advice and I
defer to land-based experts.
5.
The IPCC reports with 80% certainty that the changes in
water temperatures, ice cover, salinity and ocean circulation are impacting the
ranges and migration patterns of aquatic organisms. How will this affect
management and use of these resources, and how can we prepare for any changes?
Fisheries are most affected when artificial barriers (e.g.,
national borders) stop pursuit by fishers in one country, causing local
disruption, as centers of abundance move. Also fleets and processing plants and
related infrastructure will move once it appears a change will be long-term.
This is disruptive to fisheries-dependent communities. Of course, there is an
equal-sized winner within the gaining group. We can prepare for this by making
arrangements with neighboring countries in advance, for example by issuing
individual vessel catch quotas that can be bought and sold across borders, even
if the vessels are not allowed to continue fishing.
6.
In the Chesapeake Bay, we are losing marshland to
rising sea levels. Can you talk about what is happening to coastal wetland
areas in other areas of the country and what that is doing to their ecosystems
and the local economies that depend upon these natural resources?
A very high proportion of all fisheries depend on estuarine
waters and marshes. Within a few months a major NOAA/NMFS report will be
published describing the status of our fisheries habitats. Under preparation
for several years, it is called Our Living Oceans – Habitat. Generally
the coastal habitats are in good condition and major habitat loss has been
greatly slowed. There are local problems, and there are sea level problems,
particularly where land subsidence adds to the ~2 mm/year natural rise of the
sea.
7.
What roll do marshlands play in sequestering carbon? Is
marsh restoration a viable alternative in carbon sequestration?
I have too little background to answer this question
adequately, but it would be difficult to imagine a worthwhile benefit/cost
ratio for a restoration project for the purpose of carbon sequestration alone.
Further the reflectance of the marsh will be much lower than whatever it
replaces, perhaps contributing more warming as heat sinks than reduction
through CO2 sequestration, much as trees have recently been found to do. If in
doubt, walk across a marsh on a sunny day. The black and green colors absorb so
much sunlight, the marsh seems like an oven.
8.
The latest IPCC report warns that ocean acidification
poses a threat to coral reefs and shell-forming organisms that form the base of
the aquatic food chain. But the report says more study is needed to determine
the full scope of the threat. What do we know about the potential impacts to
U.S. coastal ecosystems today and how quickly is our understanding of
acidification improving? What can Congress do to improve upon this
understanding? Do we know enough to act?
As I stated above, I
think this problem is overrated. However, I would support a research program
that actually measures CO2 levels and coral health on reefs (not in a
laboratory. One way to look at this is by noting the rapid growth of molluscan
(e.g., clams and oysters) aquaculture. These shells certainly are in good shape
and forming rapidly in waters all over the globe (note that these shells nearly
permanently remove CO2 from the system). I am not aware of any incidence of
failure to form shells, and I am actively involved in aquaculture consulting.
9.
What additional resources or tools will the Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service need to adequately
prepare and address the impacts of global warming on wildlife over the next
decade?
NMFS needs to finish the recapitalization of the research
fleet and get more of its scientists broadly based in species interactions and
similar ecosystem level science.
10.
We’ve heard a lot about the polar bear and the petition
to list the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Opponents of
listing claim that the effects of global warming are in fact unclear. What
evidence is there that global warming is already having a dramatic effect on
the species across its range? How will an ESA listing help polar bears?
Polar bears have endured warmer periods than are forecast by
IPCC, having evolved into their present form some 700,000 years
ago (or 100,000
years ago) (or 200,000
years ago) (or before
the beginning of the last interglacial) and their molars changed some 10,000 to 20,000 years
ago. Importantly, polar bears were likely present in some final version of
their present form, during the last interglacial (130-110,000 years ago) when
there was virtually no ice at the North Pole and average Arctic temperatures at
that time were 5.7 to 9.5 deg. F (3 to 5 deg. C) higher than present (IPCC, 2007). This date of evolution
should be determined factually, as a first step, before taking action. If polar
bears survived the past interglacial, the present warming may be of little
consequence. In any case, the 20 polar bear populations need to be looked at
individually, in terms of their threats and adaptability, and the management
systems that govern their conservation.