[Senate Hearing 110-971]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-971
GLOBAL WARMING AND WILDLIFE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVATE SECTOR
AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS TO
GLOBAL WARMING AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-823PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming
and Wildlife Protection
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Mantana JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 7, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 5
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 7
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 1
Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia 3
WITNESSES
Foote, A. Lee, Associate Professor, University of Alberta........ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Kelly, Brendan P., Associate Vice President for Research,
University of
Alaska......................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Lovejoy, Thomas E., President, Heinz Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment.................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Mann, Roger, Director for Research and Advisory Services, School
of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
College of William and Mary.................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Stalling, David H., Western Field Coordinator, Trout Unlimited... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 39
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies...................... 112
Scientists and Evangelicals.................................. 108
Sportsmen and Wildlife conservation groups................... 114
Statements:......................................................
Clark, Jamie Rappaport, Executive Vice President, Defenders
of Wildlife................................................ 46
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)........ 104
National Wildlife Federation, Nationwide Opinion, Survey of
Hunters and Anglers, March/April 2006...................... 87
Schweiger, Larry J., President & CEO, National Wildlife
Federation................................................. 61
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................... 129
GLOBAL WARMING AND WILDLIFE
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to
Global Warming and Wildlife Protection,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Joseph
Lieberman (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Warner, Boxer, Inhofe,
Isakson, Alexander
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Good morning, and welcome to this first
hearing of the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer
Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection.
It is my honor to convene this first hearing. In doing so,
I want to thank the Chairman of the overall Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Senator Boxer, for creating this
subcommittee focused on these challenges. It is a measure of
her commitment and I think the committee's, on a bipartisan
basis, to get something done, and particularly to seize the
moment and the momentum that is building across our country and
in most importantly, in the world of science and scientific
inquiry and conclusion that global warming is real and that we
have got to do something about it to protect ourselves and
those who will follow us here on Earth.
I am very happy and honored that Senator Warner has agreed
to become the ranking Republican on this subcommittee. He is a
dear friend, a great Senator and I know wants to go forward and
see if we can get some things done. I thank the other members
who are here, Senator Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the
overall committee, and Senator Isakson.
Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
known generally as the IPCC, issued its most recent report, in
which it found a greater than 90 percent probability, this is
the language of science, but this number has gone up
dramatically in each of the IPCC reports, more than 90 percent
probability that greenhouse gases release by human activities,
such as burning coal in power plants or using gasoline from oil
in our cars and trucks, have caused most of the global warming
observed over the last 50 years. If we fail to reduce our
emissions of greenhouse gases now, or as soon as possible, the
report says, the global average surface air temperature will
rise by 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.
That is an astounding number, an enormous jump in global
temperatures, which has reached the point where it is
comprehensible by us non-scientists, to see how significant the
potential changes are here.
As a result, according to the IPCC, sea levels will rise,
snow cover will contract and sea ice will recede. Heat waves
will become more frequent, hurricanes and typhoons will become
more intense and rainfall will become less frequent in the sub-
tropics. I don't read this report as a plea for panic, but it
certainly is a summons to action, and quickly. The purpose of
today's hearing is to build on our knowledge of the impacts,
real and potential, of global warming on wildlife in different
regions of this country and the world, to see how climate
change is already having an effect on the species and what
further impacts the experts we have before us would expect if
the IPCC, based on the IPCC report.
Let me just give you as one recent example, just 2 months
ago, within the last 2 months, the Director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate and the
resulting melting of sea ice as the primary reason polar bears
may now be threatened as a species and may in fact be
endangered, as a matter of law. We will hear today that the
polar bear is not the only species so endangered by the warming
of the globe, and that Arctic is not the only region of the
world with such climate-sensitive species.
I must say that the diversity of voices in this country,
not talking about the world, expressing concern about the harm
done to wildlife by global warming, is striking and impressive.
A poll conducted last spring by the National Wildlife
Federation found that 67 percent of hunters and anglers in this
country believe global warming is an urgent problem requiring
immediate action. Seventy-five percent believe Congress should
pass legislation that sets a clear national goal for reducing
global warming pollution with mandatory time lines.
I am going to ask unanimous consent to put that National
Wildlife Federation report into the record.
[The referenced material can be found on page 87.]
Senator Lieberman. Last month, prominent evangelical
leaders in this country, including the Rev. Richard Cizik of
the National Association of Evangelicals and the Rev. Jim Ball
of the Evangelical Environmental Network signed a statement
asserting that the earth is ``seriously imperiled by human
behavior,'' that is a quote, and ``the harm is seen throughout
the natural world, including in the form of global warming.''
The IPCC's new assessment finds that greenhouse gases we
have emitted over the past decades will inevitably cause some
global warming. There is no stopping it. When Congress
hopefully soon enacts legislation to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions, the legislation will, I hope, include measures
designed to help wildlife species deal with the changes that
are now unavoidable, while obviously reducing greater changes
in the future.
The bill that I recently re-introduced with Senator McCain
and others includes such measures. I believe we can make these
provisions even stronger, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues, as well as sportsmen, sportswomen, wildlife
conservation advocates and academic experts to do so.
I do want to put in the record a letter from 375 sportsmen
and wildlife conservation groups, asking that funding for fish
and wildlife protection and conservation be included in any
global warming legislation, as well as a letter from the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies of our country,
supporting the provisions in our bill that allocate funds from
auctioned emission allowances to help fish and wildlife adapt
to the warming of the globe that the IPCC now tells us is
unavoidable.
[The referenced letter can be found on page 114.]
Senator Lieberman. I really look forward to working with my
fellow members of this subcommittee and the overall committee
to see if we can't find bipartisan, non-partisan common ground
to begin to take action and assume responsibility for a problem
that it certainly seems to me we are causing. I thank all the
witnesses who are here, and I look forward to hearing their
testimony.
At this point, I would invite Senator Warner to make an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to defer to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, and
I want to thank you, Senator Inhofe, for honoring my request,
which is the only one I made to the committee, and that is to
serve on this Subcommittee. If you would like to proceed, I
will follow you.
Senator Inhofe. You go ahead.
Senator Warner. I will just ask to include in the record my
opening statement and maybe make a personal observation.
I come to this issue, I would have to tell you, uninformed,
and with an open and an objective mind, to learn about it. I
don't claim to be an expert in this area. But I have an intense
interest. You said something about the sportsmen. I have to
tell you, my personal habits are, when I can't go to sleep, I
reach over and get either my magazine on Trout Unlimited or one
of my shooting volumes to read, and then I can quietly go to
sleep.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. And my lovely wife and I just rehabbed our
house, we bought a house that needed substantial rehab. And I
soon recognized that I was going to have almost no voice
whatsoever in what was to be done. But I did prevail on one
thing, and that is in our library, I finally got the gun case I
always wanted, with glass panels. And in it is a shotgun given
to me by my father when I was 12 years old. And to give you a
point in time, I will be 80 in 2 weeks. That gun has seen some
action.
Anyway, I love the outdoors, and I cherish the moments I am
with my grandchildren now, sharing the simple joys of fishing
and hunting that I had with my wonderful father and others in
years past. So I feel an obligation to make this work.
Lastly, of all of our hearings, I don't know, this will be
the one I perhaps look forward to the most, because I am
interested in this. I just simply say this. There is such
controversy out here that it is really a challenge for this
subcommittee to try and plow through that and find the solid
factual base on which any conclusions that the Congress may
make has to rest. In doing that, I observe one thing, with no
disrespect to anyone in the audience, with their particular
constituency they are representing, the wildlife and the plant
species are not represented by any lobbyist. And how they react
to today's climate is a pure, clear science. It could well
provide the benchmarks, the indicators, the early indicators of
what direction our Nation and a collective group of nations
must move to solve this problem.
So long live the wildlife and the plant life and I am
anxious to hear what you have to say.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Warner. Congratulations
in that small victory in the ongoing spousal disputes that we
all have.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. And may I say, I believe I speak for
everyone in the room, I certainly speak for myself, that I hope
I am looking and doing as well as you are when I approach 80.
God bless you.
Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I am
very pleased at the makeup of this subcommittee, and pleased
that you and Senator Warner are launching this early hearing.
Today, we address a very important topic as we continue to
consider global warming and its impact on our planet,
particularly global warming's effect on wildlife, and I won't
go over the IPCC report, because I think Senator Lieberman laid
it out very clearly.
But I think it is important to note that that report was 3
years in the making was, 1,200 scientists directly involved. If
you consider all the scientists, it was about 2,500 for more
than 100 countries, including the United States of America. As
a matter of fact, the Bush administration took credit, in large
part, for the report, said that they had been very much in the
lead in putting it together.
Now, the catastrophic effects that are discussed in the
report including melting of Arctic ice, rising sea levels,
destruction of coral reefs, deadly heat waves, increases in
extreme weather events, negative impacts on food production and
water supplies, and many other dangerous impacts that can
affect our national security, our economic security and, as
Senator Warner pointed out, our qualify of life with our
families.
While the impacts on humans will be severe if we don't act,
and of course, I am an optimist and I believe we will act, the
impacts on wildlife and endangered species can be equally
devastating if we don't act to curb global warming. Because if
the earth continues to warm, many animals will find themselves
living under conditions for which they are not well adapted,
and many of these species are already under great pressure from
development and other human activities. Global warming could
magnify those effects many times over. The affected wildlife
could include many game species that are both culturally and
economically important to us in a variety of ways.
I just want to show you three charts. I love charts. The
first one is the statement of Secretary of the Interior
Kempthorne: ``We are concerned the polar bears' habitat may be
literally melting.'' He said that December 27, 2006, when he
acted to consider whether the polar bear really is a threatened
species.
And then I want to show you just two pictures of the many I
have, but I culled it down to two, showing the polar bear, just
needs that ice to be solid, that one. And then this next one.
Global warming's impacts on wildlife do not just affect
individual species. They have a tremendous impact on our
economy. And I think that is important, because people say,
well, what is the cost of stopping global warming? Well, what
is the cost of doing nothing? I think we have heard from the
economists in the Stern Review that it is a huge cost, and that
a dollar that we invest today will save $5.00 in the future.
My home State of California is one of the most biologically
diverse regions of the planet, because of the number of
climates and ecosystems on its borders. From sports fishing on
the north coast of California to big game viewing in the Sierra
Nevada, this biodiversity is one of the most valuable natural
resources helping our fragile rural economies.
In 2001, more than 7.2 million people spent nearly $5.7
billion on wildlife viewing, hunting and fishing in California,
directly supporting 114,000 jobs. In short, biodiversity is big
enjoyment for our families. It is also big business.
So curbing global warming will save thousands of California
jobs, maintain many important industries and maintain the
quality of life for our families. I am very eager to hear the
testimony of this distinguished panel, and I would say to my
friends who are heading this committee, Senators Lieberman and
Warner, thank you so much. There is a conflicting hearing on
global warming in the Commerce Committee on which I serve, so I
may be running back and forth. But I am just so pleased that
you took the time out of your hectic schedules to look at this
issue. Thank you.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Boxer.
Senator Inhofe, we appreciate your taking the time to be
here this morning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't
have this as a part of my opening statement, but I want to
respond to a couple of things that have been said in the
opening statements.
First of all, the IPCC report that is out, was out last
Friday, is not the report, that is the summary for policy
makers. It is not the scientists. That report comes out some
time in May or June.
Interestingly enough, even in the summary, they stated that
in terms of the sea level rising, that has been reduced by 50
percent from 36 feet, I believe, to 17 feet. They also said
that they have downgraded the contribution, Senator Boxer, of
man's contribution to global warming or to climate change by 25
percent. This comes from IPCC in just the summary for policy
makers. And they also state that livestock now is producing
more of the gases that would affect climate, if you were to buy
into it, than human beings.
And as far as the evangelistic organization goes, I am sure
that neither of you are aware of this, but the Richard Cizik
you refer to is on his own, and I am sure he is being well
rewarded for doing it, he has been rejected by the National
Association of Evangelicals. So I just wanted to mention those
little corrections.
I think it goes without saying that the earth has
experienced climate change that has affected species. The
concern I continue to voice is the leap of faith that human
beings are responsible for any variation in climate or that
species will go extinct if we don't regulate greenhouse gases.
Animals are fun and fuzzy and I love them and obviously they
can be used to advance another agenda.
The fact is that the relationship between species and
climate is not clearly understood. Our growing knowledge about
the planet is still in its infancy. For example, just last year
we discovered for the first time a great discovery, and that
was that trees emit methane. Methane is a form of greenhouse
gas. This was never thought of before and it never entered into
any of the models that have been used.
Our lack of understanding doesn't stop some from trying to
force linkages between climate change and species, as is the
case with the proposal to list the polar bear under the
Endangered Species Act. Based on the scientific literature, I
don't believe we have a firm understanding of what is actually
occurring in the Arctic. Sea ice data is incomplete for one of
the most important Arctic climate variables, precipitation and
evaporation.
The Arctic climate impact assessment found, and I am
quoting now from the Arctic climate impact assessment,
uncertainties concerning even the present day distribution of
precipitation and evaporation are sufficiently large that
evaluations of recent variations in trends are problematic. So
how can we predict future trends and their impact on polar
bears if we don't--they just handed me this. We were talking
about Richard Cizik a minute ago, and the fact that he has been
discredited. If you don't believe this, read the recent article
that just came out on him called Feeling the Heat.
Anyway, as far as the polar bear data, this is kind of
interesting, Mr. Chairman, because there are 19 populations of
polar bears around. I think we all understand that. Of the 19
populations, 14 are either stable or are increasing. There is
no evidence of decline in those.
Now, overall, and this is very significant, I say to my
good friend, and she is a good friend, Senator Boxer, is that
since the 1950s and 1960s, the polar bear population has more
than doubled. It has gone up from 10,000 to 25,000. The Fish
and Wildlife Service base their listings on entire polar bear
populations on data from a single population. This happens to
be in western Hudson Bay. The population has declined some 22
percent, they are saying, in the past 17 years.
However, hunting is accountable for 460 of the bears. Now,
that is based on a 5-year average. So if you take that, that
amount is equal or more than equal to the decline in population
over a 17-year period. So that has to be something that is one
of the considerations.
I believe the proposal to list the polar bear, and more
broadly, to link climate changes and species is part of an
effort to alter energy policy and shut down development, not
just in Alaska, but across the Nation. This agenda was made
clear just last week when the Center for Biological Diversity
filed a petition asking seven Federal agencies, including the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, to consider the potential effects of global
warming on species when undertaking any major action, such as
highway construction or energy permitting. It is clear that
environmentalists are seeking to use America's love for
wildlife as a way to bring about climate changes that they
can't get through science alone.
You know, I think it is very important to understand also
that those of us who are, who question, in fact, right now,
more of the scientists who are lined up, as we will bring out
in some of the questions later on, marching in the aisles and
saying it is man-made gases are now coming around and saying
that it is not the case.
Claude Allegre is a good example, from France. He was
member of both the French and American Academy of Sciences. He
is a geophysicist. And he was one of the strongest promoters in
France that it was man-made gases causing climate change. He
has now come around and he said, no, the science does not
support that any longer. And I can name scientist after
scientist who has come to this conclusion. They say it is
really all about money. That is what Claude Allegre said. And I
think there is a lot of money in this issue, a lot of money.
Lastly, it is true as we go through, we know about the
little ice age and the Medieval warming period. We know what
happened starting in the middle 1940s in terms of the heating
that took place at that time, up through about 1975, from about
1950 to 1975. And at that time, all the magazines who are now
talking about the world is coming to end because of global
warming were saying another ice age is coming and we are all
going to die.
So with that, thank you for having this hearing.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Isakson, welcome to the Subcommittee. It is the
first chance I have had to publicly thank you for the great
representation you give my children and grandchildren who live
in Georgia.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. I am delighted to do it, Mr. Chairman. I
am honored to be here. In light of the subject and the previous
statements, I will not take time away from the panel, except to
associate myself with the remarks of Senator Warner. I thought
he made an excellent statement. I think I come to the meeting
in the same way that he does, with an open mind, seeking
unvarnished and unbiased fact in an issue that has an awful lot
of both. So I appreciate Senator Warner's statement, I
appreciate the panelists being here today. I thank the Chairman
for letting me have a moment.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
Now we will go to our witnesses. We have an outstanding
panel, it is the only panel that the hearing will hear. I know
I speak for myself and the whole subcommittee when I say we are
really looking forward to listening and learning and then
asking some questions.
The first witness is Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, who is Director of
the Heinz Center for Science, Economic sand the Environment. He
has served on science and environmental councils and committees
in the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations. He is the
originator of the concept of debt-for-nature swaps and created
the public television series, Nature. He is the author of
several books, including one on climate change and
biodiversity.
Dr. Lovejoy, it is a pleasure to welcome you and to see you
again.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. LOVEJOY, PRESIDENT, HEINZ CENTER FOR
SCIENCE, ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lovejoy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members,
for the opportunity to share my testimony on climate change and
the world of nature. It has been a subject I have been
following for two decades. I have done two books on it, brought
the second one for the committee, along with the scientific
citations behind the main points in my testimony.
Between the first book and the second book, which came out
2 years ago, the difference is that one can definitely see
signals in nature of plants and animal species and populations
responding to the climate change. It has also moved from being
essentially single examples, sort of anecdotal evidence to
statistically robust evidence. We are seeing changes in the
timing of flowering, we are seeing changes in the time of
migration, changes in the time of nest building, egg laying. We
are seeing changes in the actual distributions of some species,
where they occur. And we are beginning to see some mismatches
occur between species that are related, like a butterfly and
its food plant species for the caterpillar stage.
The more important thing, I think, is to move from those
signals of the moment to look forward with further climate
change. And one can say the following things about it. Based on
how biological communities responded to climate change in the
geologic past, we can expect biological communities not to sort
of move as a unit, but rather for the individual species to
move in their own particular directions and at their own
particular rates, which means that ecological communities will
disassemble and the constituent species will assembly into
novel communities.
It is going to be a messy picture, watching that happen.
The major difference between their response in the past and
what we can expect in the future, of course, is that we have
highly modified landscapes in many parts of the country and in
the world, basically creating an obstacle course as species
attempt to track their required environmental conditions.
And some species will actually have nowhere to go. With a
certain amount of sea level rise, the Key deer in the Florida
Keys will have no habitat left. Species on tops of mountains as
the climate warms will have no further up altitude direction to
go. And we are also going to see a lot of ecosystem thresholds
passed. We have already seen a couple in this country. The
warmer nights have been favoring certain insect pests like the
wooly adelgid in Virginia and the pine bark beetle in British
Columbia, Alaska and in the northwest. In the latter case, it
is really quite dramatic, in some places up to 70 percent of
the trees have died as a consequence. It looks like autumn
foliage, except it is pine trees and it is a very serious
forest management and fire management problem.
So we are going to see these tipping points within
ecosystems, many of which will be very hard to predict in
advance. And we are also seeing system changes. The most
prominent of those is the acidification of the oceans, which
comes not from the climate change per se, but from the
increased CO2 in the atmosphere. So today,
literally, the oceans are 30 percent more acid than in pre-
industrial times, which has serious implications for any
organism that builds a skeleton out of calcium carbonate.
So one can conclude from all of that that the natural world
is indeed highly sensitive to climate change. Although it is
hard to make the detailed projections, I think it is pretty
clear that a doubling of CO2 would be disastrous for
the natural world. And even the figure of 450 parts per
million, which some conservation groups have identified as a
safe level to stop at, could be pretty messy in itself.
So that is an overview of the topic, and thank you for the
opportunity.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Dr. Lovejoy. It was a
sobering beginning of our discussion. We look forward to
questions.
Dr. Roger Mann is our next witness. He is the Director of
Research and Advisory Services at the Virginia Institute of
Marine Services, School of Marine Science, which is the College
of William and Mary's professional graduate school in marine
science. Dr. Mann is a marine ecologist who focuses on oysters,
clams and invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay. He has been a
researcher examining natural ecosystems and their management
for both ecological services and sustained harvests of
commercially valuable products for over 30 years. We are
delighted to have you here and look forward to your testimony
now, Dr. Mann.
Senator Warner. Would you indulge me, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Lieberman. Excuse me, I yield to my friend from
Virginia.
Senator Warner. I want to welcome my constituent. The one
thing that this witness has at his immediate disposal is one of
the most precious and largest ecosystems in all of our United
States, our Chesapeake Bay. The Congress has, year after fear,
tried to support the rehabilitation of that system. And subject
to his concurrence, I will give you my own opinion, having
introduced with Senator Mathias, a long-time colleague here in
the Senate, the initial legislation to try and reverse the
trends in the Bay, we simply have not made any real,
significant success. The Bay has continued to decline.
So you have a built-in laboratory within a stone's throw of
where you are living your life in that magnificent community of
Williamsburg, VA. So I thank this witness for taking the time
to go up here through wind, sleet and snow this morning to
joint us.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Warner.
Dr. Mann.
STATEMENT OF ROGER MANN, DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH AND ADVISORY
SERVICES, SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF
MARINE SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator
for those kind words. The Chesapeake Bay is indeed a national
treasure and we should do whatever we can to ensure that it
stays pure.
I have been a researcher examining these natural systems,
as was mentioned, for over 30 years. While my primary focus has
been estuarine and coastal systems, it is really quite
difficult to imagine how you can look at those without also
examining and coming to understand the complexity of the
watersheds that provide the rivers that flow into those
systems.
So indeed, in order to do my job, I have to know something
about all the way to the feet of the Appalachians. Today I am
going to talk to you with a regional focus on the Commonwealth
of Virginia. As the Senator mentioned, the current worldwide
projections for increase in temperature over the next century
go between 3 and 7 degrees Fahrenheit. All of these are based
on models, and one of the things that is difficult about these
large, global models is that when you try to look at small
regional levels, they sometimes don't work quite as well in
terms of predictions.
So when we look at the issue with Virginia, our predictions
go anywhere from a 3 to 4 to 5 degree rise, or even one model
that I've seen that goes as far as 11 degrees, very substantial
changes. What is also bad about these models is they are not
quite as good as predicting rainfall as they are looking at
temperature, and really the two go together. So I have seen
instances where we get drier conditions, wetter conditions,
wetter conditions with more rain in the spring but less in the
fall, or those combined with more tumultuous events like
hurricanes. So there are lots of things on the palette here.
Nearly all of them are bad.
If you look at the whole issue and ask one question, is
fresh water important, it is absolutely seminal. Fresh water
affects everything that happens in wildlife. So when we look at
these models, all of them are cause for concern.
Virginia is indeed an excellent example as a laboratory to
look at this, not just because of the Chesapeake Bay. But if
you take a short walk across Virginia, you go from the
Appalachians, through its foothills and the forests, through
the rich areas of agricultural land into the freshwater
marshes, into the salty estuaries that feed into the Chesapeake
Bay with its salt marches, out into the continental areas where
you see barrier islands and indeed, out onto the shallow
continental shelf itself.
This is a relatively small transact when one looks at it
with respect to the size of this country. But when one looks at
the animal and plant communities that exist along it, there is
remarkable diversity. There is diversity in the east-west and
the north-south direction. And the changes, as you look at
these communities going one to the next, the biogeographic
regions, the borders between them are all very subject to
climate change. They will indeed move, as was described by Dr.
Lovejoy. And in fact, we are watching those movements.
Again, perhaps to be a little repetitive, if there is one
message that I can leave you today, just one, it is that
destabilizing the habitat relationships between all of these
animal and plant species that live in these single communities,
then if you destabilize them, there is a potential domino
effects. You take out one species or you alter it, then it
affects the next species and then the next and then the next.
So often the sort of signals that you do see and will see
from climate change are not necessarily those that affect every
species, but they start with this one small step. Probably the
best analogy I can find is that of a spider's web, where all
parts contribute to stability and function. But if you break a
limited number of the strands, the web is weakened. You only
have to break a few more before the thing starts to disassemble
very quickly. It is actually, I think, a fairly good analogy.
And in talking to many of my colleagues who work with wildlife
throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, their concern is that
we are starting to pick away at individual threads in this web.
Again, if we take that quick walk across Virginia and we
ask what are the predicted impacts, some of which we already
have evidence for, but some of which we also expect, they go
from the Appalachians to the coastal shelf. This is a quick
list, and it is frightening: a higher prevalence of forest
fires; increased impacts of insects on forest resources;
fragmentation of the forest itself, which has considerable
problems for the birds and wildlife; increased displacement of
native plants by invasive species and forest freshwater
wetlands and managed agriculture.
That comment came from people who work in forestry and in
agriculture many times. It is not just my particular bias
towards invasive species.
Changes in the nutritional value of farm crops. There is a
lot of wildlife that eat farmed crops, as well as we do.
Changes in river flow and water quality impact on freshwater
fishes in both the rivers and in the lakes. Increased low
dissolved oxygen seasonal dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay.
This is truly frightening. Large parts of the deeper waters in
the Chesapeake Bay have no oxygen in the summer. This is
projected to get worse. It forces animals out of these deep
water areas into the shallows where it is warmer. The end
product is that they become more susceptible to diseases and we
do see increasing diseases in both the fish populations.
For those of you who have ever fished for striped bass,
this is a magnificent fish. Striped bass is very susceptible
here. Oysters the same. Two years ago, we saw a large dieback
in the submerged aquatic vegetation in the shallows of the bay,
temperature related. This is the crucial habitat for small
crabs and fishes.
As you go out onto the eastern shore, we see real threats
to the food species for migratory birds that move up and down
the Atlantic flyway. These are birds that just move through,
but we are an important feeding stop. And when you move out
onto the continental shelf, there are numerous species that are
now moving northwards in their distributions and into deeper
water. This is well documented. My graduate students have done
it, amongst many others.
Across Virginia from the Appalachians to the
intercontinental shelf, we are observing these changes. They
can arguably be linked to global warming and we expect these
trends to continue. As biologists, those of us who are watching
it, we are concerned. All of us, all of us as custodians of
this rich natural resource should be concerned and support
action to try and halt these trends.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much, Dr. Mann. Excellent
testimony.
We now welcome David Stalling. Mr. Stalling is the Western
Field Coordinator of Tout Unlimited. He lives and works in
Missoula, MT. As part of Trout Unlimited's public lands
initiative, Mr. Stalling helps to inform and rally hunters and
anglers to protect public wildlands for the American west.
Mr. Stalling, my original text here in introducing you now
says ``Mr. Stalling is a former Marine.'' I know there is no
such thing as a former Marine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. So you are a Marine and an avid
fisherman and bow hunter. Mr. Stalling has been hunting elk in
Montana's back country for more than 17 years. He has written
hundreds of articles on elk, elk hunting, conservation,
wildlife management and natural history. Perhaps you have an
avid reader of some of your articles to my right here.
He recently contributed a chapter to the Wildlife
Management Institute volume ``North American Elk: Ecology and
Management.'' It is a pleasure to have you here, and we look
forward to your testimony now.
STATEMENT OF DAVID H. STALLING, WESTERN FIELD COORDINATOR,
TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Stalling. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner. Would you indulge me a minute?
Mr. Stalling. Yes.
Senator Warner. I hosted a breakfast for the Commandant of
the Marine Corps right above this room this morning for about
150 people. Were you present?
Mr. Stalling. I was not, Senator.
Senator Warner. Then your absence should be noted. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stalling. Thank you for this opportunity, but more
importantly, thank you for taking on this vital issue and
trying to find immediate solutions.
As mentioned, I am not a scientist, I am not a wildlife
biologist. However, I am an avid hunter and angler and
backpacker, and I spend a lot of time out in the wilds,
particularly in Montana, and know the wilds there well, and
spend a lot of time among the hunters and anglers of Montana
and other places in the west.
I cherish these wild places. I am very passionate about
protecting them. That is what brought me to Montana when I left
the Marine Corps in 1986, and it is what keeps me in Montana.
It is also what keeps me fighting for their protection. And as
mentioned, I do organize hunters and anglers throughout the
west to help protect wetlands. I am also the past president of
the Montana Wildlife Federation, which is Montana's oldest and
largest conservation organization. And I volunteer for the
National Wildlife Federation, in addition to working for Trout
Unlimited. Prior to that I worked for the Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation in Missoula.
The scientific evidence regarding global warming, and in my
writing, I try to make the connection for people to understand
the connection between good science and good wildlife
management. So I do read a lot of the science, even though I am
not a scientist. It seems the evidence regarding global warming
is conclusive and overwhelming. Those of us closest to the land
are seeing some of this first-hand, some of the things that
scientists have been warning us about for years.
Two summers ago I took a leave of absence from work, and I
hiked from my front porch in Missoula, Montana all the way to
Waterton, Alberta. It took me eight weeks. It was about 800
miles, through some pretty wild country. I only crossed three
roads. I went through the Bob Marshall, the Scapegoat, the
Great Bear Wilderness, the Mission Mountain Wilderness, Glacier
National Park and on up into Canada. I saw grizzly bears, heard
wolves, saw mountain lion tracks, saw a lot of elk and mule
deer. This country has some of the wildest country left in the
lower 48, some of the best hunting and fishing and back country
opportunities left in the world, I think.
And even back here, in some of this most remote wild,
precious country, I saw some of the things first-hand that
scientists have been warning us about. A lot of the streams and
rivers back there are very low and drying out. Trout were
congregated in pools where they were very lethargic and having
trouble with the heat of the summer and more susceptible to
predation.
I walked through large swaths of forest that were affected
by pine beetle and saw where there large, intense fires that
were beyond what historically occurred and did a lot of damage.
I also saw a lot of dead and dying white bark pines up in the
alpine country, which I am told is a critical food source for
grizzly bears.
So I saw a lot of stuff, and of course, when I went through
Glacier National Park at the end of my journey, I could see
obvious declines in the size of the glaciers there. I have a
picture of me and my father being up at some of those glaciers
20 years ago, and was able to compare some of those photos with
photos I took during this trip. A lot of park rangers and
scientists are now predicting those glaciers will be completely
gone within 20 years.
And I am not the only hunter and angler talking about this
and seeing these changes. I talk to hunters and anglers
throughout Montana who are saying the same thing. And as
Senator Lieberman referred to earlier, the National Wildlife
Commission just commissioned a survey looking at attitudes of
hunters and anglers which I find pretty consistent with what I
am seeing on the ground. Some of the highlights are 85 percent
of us do believe we have a moral responsibility to do something
about this issue; 80 percent of us believe the United States
should be a leader in this issue; and 75 percent of us think
Congress should take immediate action to do something about it.
Hunters tend to be a pretty stubborn and conservative
bunch. A lot of them are Republicans and Democrats and
Independents. This is not and should not be a partisan issue.
All the people I talk to, we may have our differences, but we
all have a common concern there in Montana about what we are
seeing on the land and how it is going to affect the thing we
really cherish.
So I join them in urging you to take some immediate steps
in addressing this issue. I urge you to pass legislation that
starts reducing greenhouse gas emissions and start helping us
develop more responsible energy policies in this country that
look at renewable sources of energy, alternative sources of
energy, and more efficient ways of using energy that not only
will help reduce greenhouse gases, but could help protect some
of these wild places that we have also seen threatened by
increased gas and oil development in the last 4 or 5 years.
Also I think we need to take immediate steps to reconnect
and restore and protect some of this critical wildlife habitat
I am talking about. At Trout Unlimited we use our hand and
fingers to illustrate some of this, particularly with rate and
threatened species like bull trout. If this was a main stretch
of a river going up to the little tributaries, which would be
my fingers, up in the mountains, we have confined species like
bull trout and west slope cutthroat to just some of these
tributaries. They are already rare and threatened species. And
with global warming, and we are seeing the reduction of water
and increased flooding and things like that, they are going to
be even more threatened.
So we have to protect those tributaries, protect the
habitat, reconnect that habitat with where they historically
used to roam, then restore parts of that habitat so these
wildlife are better able to adapt to the changes we are seeing
on the ground. Therefore, I think any legislation, and I urge
you that any legislation you do put forth includes funding for
the State wildlife agencies to help us protect, conserve,
restore and reconnect that habitat.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Stalling. Excellent
testimony. I must say, hearing about some of the things you do
makes me wonder whether I made the right career choice.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. The next witness is Dr. Lee Foote, an
Associate Professor in the Department of Renewable Resources at
the University of Alberta. He also serves as Chair of the World
Conservation Union's North America Sustainable Use Specialist
Group. Dr. Foote's work focuses on wildlife habitat creation,
especially waterfowl disturbance and reclamation. It is a
pleasure to have you here, and we look forward to your
testimony now.
STATEMENT OF A. LEE FOOTE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
ALBERTA
Mr. Foote. Thank you, Senator. I too thank you for the
opportunity to speak to this group.
I am speaking today as an individual and a professor at the
University of Alberta. I am not a climatologist or a polar bear
researcher. I spent 7 years working as a research ecologist for
the U.S. Geological Survey, though. I am currently a dual
citizen of Canada and the U.S. So it is germane to talk about
climate change and polar bears, given the endangered species
legislation that seems to be looming.
In my 5 minutes, I would like to talk about three main
points. First, there are limits to our ability to understand
and predict population responses of polar bears in response to
climate change. It is important that we not ask more of science
than science can deliver. Dr. Lovejoy has pointed out very
clearly that there are great uncertainties in this.
Second, I would like to talk about the results of the U.S.
policies and Endangered Species Act and to point out that there
are very real costs to people that live in proximity to these
polar bears, especially in Canada's north. These compound
insults from climate change.
Finally, hope to make some suggestions. Uncertainty.
Predicting future population levels of any organism, especially
mammals, with reasonable precision, is somewhere between
difficult and impossible. I would like to quote from two peer-
reviewed papers in the Journal Climate Research. They are
written by a couple of Canada's top ecologists, Dr. Charles
Krebs, the author of the top ecology textbook in Canada, and
Dr. Dominique Berteaux, who is a Canada research chair, similar
to our NSF research chairs. The titles are Problems and
Pitfalls in Relating Climate Variability to Population Dynamics
and the second paper is Constraints to Projecting the Effects
of Climate Change on Mammals.
I would like to quote from this 2006 issue: ``Our best
short- term strategy is to measure and try to understand the
observed small scale changes in population parameters without
pretending to be able to predict long-term consequences.'' The
second quote: ``Complex hypotheses with predictions tens of
years ahead are fairy tales. There is no limit to an
ecologist's ability to explain events after the fact, and
without rigorous scientific constraints, we will be little more
than storytellers.''
Reading the polar bear literature, it shows that it is both
art, science, traditional knowledge and in the absence of data
on many ranges of polar bears, it is a lot of necessity
guesswork. Several well-studied populations are declining.
Several lightly studied sub-populations are stable, and too
many of our sub-populations, the 19 mentioned by Senator
Inhofe, are poorly known or completely unsurveyed. When one
considers the variability in climate predictions, ice
responses, ringed seal distributions, polar bear adaptability
and movement and human interactions, the probabilities are
cumulative. I liken this to trying to stack four bowling balls
on top of each other, let them fall and make some prediction
which direction the top bowling ball will actually go. It won't
be the same direction any two times.
My second point today is a bit of a deviation. It relates
to human welfare. Very roughly, there are approximately the
same number of rural Inuit people living in Canada's polar bear
ranges as there are polar bears, about 16,000, once you remove
the larger towns. This is spread out over an area roughly the
size of the sub-continent of India. In our media, we hear a lot
about bears, but little about the Inuit. The bear is indeed an
icon. In a book I edited 2 years ago called Conservation
Hunting, we used a polar bear on the cover. It is used in soft
drink advertisements and candy bar wrappers. And the media
loves this imagery.
But the Inuit have a day to day reality and a history of
living with bears, of bear hunting and in some cases being
hunted by the bears over the last 3,000 years. Polar bears are
a powerful symbol and a meaningful component of Inuit culture.
Now, they have become a meaningful component of their economic
lives. The Inuit manage their polar bears well and with deep
understanding. They have made use of, sometimes modifying, the
best scientific data presented as well. They kill approximately
400 polar bears each year and this hunt has great meaning to
them.
They also sell a much smaller number, between and 25
percent of these hunts, to sportsmen, like some of the
individuals have mentioned here, the sporting tradition. I too
am a sportsman. I will never hunt a polar bear, probably, and
have really no desire to. But some do. This brings in crucial
dollars to the Inuit culture, between $650,000 and $1.5 million
per year. The hardest hunt on earth, conducted on dog sleds in
sub-zero weather, 10 to 14 day hunts, which is truly a
pivotal--it is like going back in time, is the way it is
described.
Under this regime, polar bears have been existing for,
well, at the levels of 20,000 to 24,000, is what the data says,
since 2001, which is about as far back as the truly trustworthy
data goes. Ordinarily, I would recommend a prudent and
precautionary principle. However, this impinges so heavily on
individual cultures that I think we need to take a second look
at the listing of ESP species.
My third point is recommendation, and I have five quick
ones. First, continue to build on the excellent nodes of polar
bear research science that are ongoing right now. These include
people like USGS's Steven Amstrup, Canadian Wildlife Services'
Ian Stirling, University of Alberta Andy Derocher, Nunavut
biologist Mitch Taylor. These folks are asking the right
questions for us to understand and make informed decisions.
Second, I would suggest we fund a wider study of sub-
populations to bring them to the management forefront of
science. Third, hold off on top-down policies like Endangered
Species Act at this time. They are redundant, cumbersome,
divisive, and appear indefensible scientifically when they are
moving this forecast out 45 years. They may backfire, as well.
We need to avoid simple reductionist black and white
statements, although the media and the court of law love this
approach. We live in a an area of shades of gray on this issue.
Fourth, empower bottom-up policy that involves traditional
ecological knowledge, hunter trapper organizations, in addition
to the excellent work by the polar bear technical committees.
And finally, fifth, use and modify existing management
structures to protect critical habitat. And there are many of
these.
All of these suggestions are compatible with simultaneously
reducing emissions. Senator Boxer, you will be pleased to know
that the Society of Wetland Scientists, on which I serve, will
have a carbon neutral annual meeting in Sacramento this year.
And I voted for that. I support that.
We need to be aware that treating polar bear issues is
treating the symptoms of climate change, though, and not the
disease. Polar bears are a response variable, not a driver in
this case. As symbolic as they might be, we need to keep that
in mind.
Thank you very much.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Dr. Foote, for your testimony. I
appreciate it.
Our final witness on this panel is Dr. Brendan Kelly, who
is an Associate Professor of Marine Biology and the Associate
Vice President for Research at the University of Alaska. For 30
years, Dr. Kelly has studied Arctic wildlife, especially ice-
associated marine mammals.
Dr. Kelly, thanks for making the trip, and we look forward
to your testimony now.
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN P. KELLY, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR
RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Senator Lieberman and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this
morning.
My own university training includes a bachelor's degree
from the University of California, a master's degree from the
University of Alaska and a Ph.D from Purdue University, all in
biology. But my real world teachers were Yupik and Inupiaq
Eskimo hunters. For the past 30 years, I have studied Arctic
wildlife, especially ice-associated marine mammals, whales,
seals and walruses.
The Arctic ecosystem is dominated by seasonal sea ice,
which at least earlier in my career covered as much as 14
million square kilometers. That ice strongly influences the
climate, oceanography and biology of the Arctic ocean and
surrounding lands. One consequence of our warming climate is
the melting of that sea ice.
The ecological implications start with a specialized type
of algae adapted to very low light levels and able to grow in
and on that sea ice. Blooms of those algae on the under-surface
of the ice are the basis for an elaborate food web leading
through zooplankton and fish to seals, whales, polar bears and
humans.
The ice also strongly influences winds and water
temperature, both of which are key determinants of upwelling,
whereby nutrient rich waters are brought up to depths where
there is sufficient sunlight for phytoplankton to make use of
those nutrients.
The Bering Sea produces our Nation's largest commercial
fish harvest, as well as supporting subsistence economies of
Alaska Natives. Ultimately, the fish populations depend on
plankton blooms, which in turn are controlled by the extent and
location of the sea ice in the spring.
Still higher in the food web are walruses and seals, for
which the ice provides an important resting place. In fact, the
greatest number of seal species occurs in the ice-covered polar
seas. Seals and walruses have played and continue to play key
roles in Eskimo subsistence economies. How those marine mammals
will be impacted by climate change reflects their species-
specific relationships to ice and snow.
I would like to illustrate with two examples. Walruses feed
on clams and other bottom-dwelling organisms. Over a nursing
period of two or more years, the females alternate their time
between attending their calf on the ice and diving to the
bottom to feed themselves. The record ice retreat observed in
recent summers has extended the ice north of the shallow
continental shelf. The result is the ice surface on which the
calves are nurse is over water too deep for the female walruses
to feed. The female thus must choose between feeding their
calves or themselves.
Ringed seals can dive and feed at greater depths. And their
vulnerability to climate change involves their dependence on
the snow cover on the surface of the ice. Ringed seals give
birth in snow caves excavated above breathing holes they
maintain in the sea ice. The snow caves protect the pups from
extreme cold, and to a certain extent, from predators. As the
climate warms, however, snow melt has been arriving
increasingly early in the Arctic. And the seals' snow caves
collapse before the pups are weaned. Declines in ringed seals
will impact other species, not least polar bears, for which
they are the major prey.
Whether the changes underway today will be survived by
walruses, seals, polar bears, Eskimo culture, our economies and
ways of life will depend critically on the pace of change.
Ecosystems have changed before. Species have become extinct
before. What is critically important about our changing climate
is the rapid rate of change and its predicted acceleration.
Adaption, biological and social, requires time for adjustment.
The current rates of climate change, however, are very
steep. Witness that the summer ice cover has decreased 26
percent during my career.
If the biological and social environments change too
rapidly, species and societies will not be able to keep pace.
Thank you for your attention.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Dr. Kelly, for those examples
that you have observed, and also for the warning at the end.
Before we do get into questions, I do want to indicate that
maybe I should notice you, Mr. Stalling, on this, that Larry
Schweiger, President and CEO of National Wildlife Federation,
asked that we submit testimony on his behalf, with thanks to
you for testifying. Same for Jamie Rappaport Clark, who is
Executive Vice President of the Defenders of Wildlife.
[The referenced material can be found on page 46.]
Senator Lieberman. We will do seven minutes of questioning
each and see where that gets us.
Dr. Lovejoy, let me begin with you. In your testimony, you
mentioned that the shuffling of the ecological deck caused by
unchecked global warming will favor opportunistic species, such
as weeds and pests and diseases. I wonder if you could expand
on that statement at this point, and also indicate what it
might mean for agriculture in our country.
Mr. Lovejoy. Well, it is a pretty standard topic that, in
disturbed ecosystems, invasive species seem to do particularly
well. And much less so in relatively pristine, highly diverse
biological communities.
So we are actually seeing that already with the wooly
adelgid in Virginia, we are seeing it with the pine bark beetle
in our northwestern forests.
Senator Lieberman. Say a little bit more about what you are
seeing in Virginia.
Mr. Lovejoy. Well, the wooly adelgid, which is an invasive
species from Europe, I think, originally, particularly goes
after hemlocks.
Senator Lieberman. What is it, actually?
Mr. Lovejoy. It is an insect. And it is sort of a white,
fuzzy little thing. But it attacks coniferous trees. The
mortality rate from the wooly adelgid has become a serious
problem in Virginia.
Senator Lieberman. And the climate has done that, we think?
Mr. Lovejoy. It is because the night-time temperatures have
been warmer, and as a consequence, the populations don't get
knocked back as much and kept in relative balance. In the case
of the northwestern forests with the pine bark beetle, that
actually is a native insect pest. But again, the balance has
been tilted highly in favor of the pest.
Senator Lieberman. By the temperature?
Mr. Lovejoy. By successive mild winters and higher night-
time temperatures.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Lovejoy. So basically we can expect some of those
things to spill over into agriculture. We may not be able to
predict which ones. But it is highly likely.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you.
Dr. Mann, as someone who follows the temperature, seasonal
timing and weather pattern changes that other scientists have
been observing and predicting for Virginia, in the case of
global warming continuing and expanding and increasing, can you
say that those predictions include increased water temperature
in the Chesapeake Bay, and assuming that is so, can you list
again some of the impacts that you believe warmer water in the
Chesapeake Bay would have on species that inhabit the Bay?
Mr. Mann. I think there is a general consensus that we will
see increasing temperatures in the Chesapeake Bay, and there
are two effects, if you are looking at them, at the 10,000 feet
level. Normal winters, cold winters typically knock back many
of the diseases, so that when the warmer summers come, those
diseases start to progress. If you have warmer winters, those
diseases often get a foothold earlier in the year and the sorts
of things that they attack, oysters and fish, are subject to a
greater disease stress through the summer, simply because of
this temperature cycling.
Higher temperatures in the summer. The Chesapeake Bay is an
interesting system, because it is an estuary. Saltwater comes
in from the ocean, freshwater comes down from the watershed.
The freshwater is less dense than the saltwater, because there
is typically not much wind, the fresh water tends to sit over
the top of the denser sea water. It doesn't mix.
What happens then is that the oxygen in the lower part of
this gradually gets depleted by biological activity and you get
an oxygen-free zone, effectively a dead zone in the deep water.
Clearly, anything that is down there or should be down there no
longer exists. In warming scenarios, this dead zone sets up
earlier and it gets bigger.
But the actual occurrence of that dead zone forces other
things to happen. Animals that typically would go into that
dead zone or into those deeper waters which are typically
cooler, lose this lower temperature refuge. I gave the example
of striped bass, an absolutely magnificent fish. We know that
about 80 percent of the striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay are
infected with a bacterium called mycobacterium. This is
typically at very low levels and it doesn't manifest itself, it
doesn't alter the health of the animal.
If, however, you force these animals into the shallow
waters in the summer where it is warmer, one of the things that
we have a strong evidence trail for at this point in time, is
that that disease starts to proliferate. You only have to push
the temperature up a little bit, and what you see is 30, 40, 50
percent of these magnificent fish occurring on anglers' lines
with large red lesions on them. They are really rather painful
to look at.
This is the result of a small temperature change. But it is
this chain-like effect that starts with stratification and
increased temperature.
The Chesapeake Bay sits at the southern end of the
distribution of a species called zostera, it is eel grass. Most
of us don't think very much about eel grass. But when you go
out into the shallows in the Chesapeake Bay, it forms little
forests, literally about this deep. Eel grass is an
extraordinarily important habitat. It is where small fish and
small crabs go to hide. They are hiding in there so that they
can grow, so that they can move out when they get a little bit
bigger and not get taken by the predators.
In part because of the distribution of eel grass in this
north-south direction, in the summer of 2005 when we had an
unusually warm summer in the Chesapeake Bay, the water went up
to 30 degrees centigrade. I apologize, I think in centigrade,
not Fahrenheit.
Senator Lieberman. Compared to the norm?
Mr. Mann. To the norm, which is about 28. A couple of extra
degrees. What you saw was a large dieback in this habitat. The
problem is that eel grass grows very slowly in terms of
building a bed. One warm summer, the loss of a lot of habitat,
the prospect of a long time for it go grow back, and if it
doesn't have more cool summers, it won't grow back. What that
means is that the crabs and the fish that typically use it as
habitat have to look for other pieces of real estate, and they
don't find any that are as accommodating.
You could say, well, won't other grasses move in, aren't
there other grasses that do this? There are other grasses that
potentially might move in, but they are different in their
nature. They form small, ephemeral stands that last for a year
or two and then move on.
So rather like we have seen the suggestions that pine bark
borers actually destroy parts of pine forests, large stable
pieces of community over long periods of time, that it takes a
long time to grow back after disturbance, the eel grass beds
are much the same. Very small temperature changes, very
significant losses, very long time periods for them to grow
back. Very long time periods for critical habitats, fish and
juvenile crabs.
So when we go through this list, what we are seeing is not
sort of a gradual change. You see what is a step function. You
go past a certain temperature for a certain time and lots of
things start changing, and they have domino effects.
So in the Chesapeake Bay there are a number of these. And
of course, not the last of which and not the least of which are
the oyster diseases. As the good Senator noted, large amounts
of money have been invested in trying to restore the ecosystems
of the Chesapeake Bay. The oysters are actually central to
that. The oysters at this point in time are challenged by not
one but two very significant diseases. The activity of those
diseases is strongly related to temperature. As the temperature
goes up in the summer, the diseases get worse.
And indeed, those diseases, one of which used to have a
distribution from the Chesapeake Bay down into Texas, over the
last 10 to 15 years, we have seen the northern distribution of
that disease go all the way to Long Island Sound. Long Island
Sound has gone up by about 1 and a half degrees in the summer.
Very small changes, very large effects, and definitely not
linear, long time to recovery. The Chesapeake Bay is a
laboratory in which we see lots of these.
Senator Lieberman. That is very compelling, because it is
evidence you have observed. I appreciate your testimony. My
time is up.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. I would like to yield to the distinguished
Ranking Member, and then I will follow in sequence.
Senator Inhofe. I thank Senator Warner for that gesture. We
are both working on the Armed Services, and there are events
with our Chairman on the Floor right now, that are taking
place.
I was going to ask a question that I am not going to ask
now, because I think it would probably take up too much of the
time for my line of questioning. But during my opening remarks,
I did refer to some of the individuals that have changed their
position, some of the well-known scientists, climatologists,
meteorologists, geophysicists and others who had very strong,
they were certain about their position at one time, then they
changed their position. I mentioned Claude Allegre from France.
There is also David Bellamy from the U.K. who was
absolutely certain of his position, and he has now reversed
that as a result of the science that he has looked at over the
past few years. Patrick Moore, who is one of the co-founders of
Greenpeace, went through the same conversion. And just today, I
found out about, a guy that I have been following, his name is
Nir Shariv, he is the top astrophysicist in Israel, and he was
one of them who was certain in his position also that it was in
fact man-made contributions that are causing climate change.
So with all of this that is taking place, my only position
has been, let's be real sure. If we are going to undergo the
financial devastation in this country that, according to the
Wharton Econometric Survey and others have said would happen,
with some of the things with the greenhouse gases, or with the
regulation of CO2, we want to be sure that the
science is right. I go back and look at some of the scientists,
such as Tom Wiggly, who happened to be Al Gore's scientist,
after an exhaustive study, that if all of the developed Nations
signed onto Kyoto and followed its emissions requirements, it
would only reduce the temperature over a 50-year period by 6/
100 of 1 degree centigrade.
So you folks are scientists and we are not. But we have to
look at what the scientists are saying. And let me just deviate
for a minute, Mr. Stalling, I was listening to you. Back when I
enjoyed life, and I was about your age, I used to do the same
things that you are doing. So that was most enjoyable, and I am
quite envious of your lifestyle now.
This morning, there was an article that you probably have
missed, because it just came out in Newsweek this morning, by
George Will. He said over the millennium, the planet has warmed
and cooled for reasons that are unclear, but clearly were
unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice was a mile thick
covering Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm the
Vikings were farming there? Are you sure that the climate at
this particular moment is exactly right and that it must be
preserved no matter the cost?
So rather than to ask you, if you were to have your choice
of where a climate should be right now, would it be today's, or
would it have been back in the 1250s during the Medieval
warming period, where some believe it was warmer than it is
today? Or perhaps the 1650s during the little ice age or
perhaps 1950 immediately following a period of warming and
going into a cooling period? Maybe for the record you could
send that back to me.
But I do want to ask Dr. Foote some questions. The reason I
want to ask this, we are talking about polar bears, and
certainly you can't look at the pictures that were shown by my
good friend, Senator Boxer, without being sympathetic. However,
when there is a discussion as to going into a 1-year process,
determining whether or not to list the polar bear, I did start
reading extensively. Now, in my opening statement, Dr. Foote,
you heard me say, of the 19 populations that 14 were relatively
stable, and that perhaps the one population that is being used
right now as the model is that of western Hudson Bay, where I
concluded, after looking at it, we don't have the exact time
frame, but we have 5 years and 17 years, that approximately the
reduction in population now is about the same as it would have
been if hunting had not take place.
Now, also the fact that in the 1950s, 50 years ago, the
population has increased from 10,000 to approximately 25,000,
more than doubled over that period of time. Do you agree with
my analysis of the statistics that we had?
Mr. Foote. There is some merit there. However, the Polar
Bear Technical Committee, which is the brain trust of all polar
bear research at present, is meeting at Edmonton, Alberta
today. Just last week I called one of the participants and
asked specifically about the early data. He said that those
were, the 1960s and 1970s estimates are really not completely
to be trusted. They were a rough index, 2001 is where our best
data point comes. And it shows, it does show some moderate
increase, even between that period.
Senator Inhofe. Between 2001 and today?
Mr. Foote. And today, 2006 was the last set of surveys.
Your reference to western Hudson Bay, I have to compliment
Ian Stirling on an exquisite piece of research and the program
there. But it has to be kept in context. That is the
southernmost population of polar bears and should be the first
one to be affected and possibly affect----
Senator Inhofe. So range shift, this might be an example of
range shift?
Mr. Foote. Well, it may be, and that is the question that
was so eloquently put by the previous speakers about the oyster
diseases moving northward. It is a bit simplistic, but I will
use the analogy of a belt around the circumpolar Arctic, that
the belt doesn't necessarily get narrower, it may just shift
upwards and back. There are many examples in the ecological
literature and within conservation biology theory of this
happening. But that is an uncertainty at this point.
Therefore, my plea for greater research dollars to
understand possible increases in bear population to the north,
it could be compensatory with the losses to the south. It is
one of the models. Is it absolute loss? Is it a range shift?
And I would also welcome input or thoughts after this meeting
from somebody that actually has studied ice, here sitting to my
left, to know whether conditions actually can improve in the
north for ringed seals to be able to become accessible to polar
bears, whether multi-year ice conversion to annual sea ice in
some situations, such as Davis Strait, could become a net
positive.
But these are the questions, and therefore my plea for
greater research.
Senator Inhofe. I see. And you have expressed concern that
the proposed listing of the polar bear due to climate change is
really about energy policy. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Foote. I have underlined that, that was brought to my
attention by the actual petitioners in a recent article. I have
the quote here, December 2006, ESP listing decision is the
reference. And one of their lead counsel said, it gives me hope
that we can get the United States to reduce greenhouse gas
pollution before it is too late to save the Arctic. That was in
reference to the petition. So it started a logical thought
process that maybe there was some other agenda at work here.
Senator Inhofe. I see. Thank you very much, Dr. Foote, and
the whole panel. This has been very enlightening to me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Dr. Foote, thank you for your
comments about going to Sacramento in an environmentally sound
way.
Mr. Foote. I am looking forward to that meeting.
Senator Boxer. You signed a letter in 2002, along with
dozens of Canadian scientists, that said, ``We must reduce
greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible. Contrary to
the views often portrayed by the press and industry
spokespersons, there is little disagreement in the scientific
community about climate warming.'' Do you stand by that?
Mr. Foote. I am full of questions, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Do you take that back, then? I don't have a
lot of time, I just want to know if you have changed your mind
since then.
Mr. Foote. It has evolved substantially, and it will
continue to evolve.
Senator Boxer. So you don't stand by the statement you made
in 2002?
Mr. Foote. I would stand by a modified version of that.
Senator Boxer. Okay, that is fair. Modified version, okay.
Now, it is true that you work with the International Union
for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, often known
as the World Conservation, Union, correct? And you were a
regional chair for North American Within the Sustainable Use
Specialist Group, is that correct?
Mr. Foote. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. Okay. Is it not true that your position is
directly contrary to the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources?
Mr. Foote. I speak as an individual.
Senator Boxer. Yes, isn't it true that they disagree with
you?
Mr. Foote. I do not know their position.
Senator Boxer. Well, their position is that the polar bear
is listed as vulnerable. The Polar Bear Specialist Group
determined that due to decreasing sea ice because of global
warming, the polar bear is in decline and listed as vulnerable.
I just wanted to make the point that you stand alone from that
group that you were a part of.
I also want to put in the record parts of this review, if I
can, Mr. Chairman. It is the analysis of our Fish and Wildlife
Service, dated December 21, 2006.
Senator Lieberman. It will be entered into the record
without objection.
[The referenced material can be found on page 129.]
Senator Boxer. Certain pages I want to put in here, it is
an amazing picture of a polar bear here, and then on the
inside, they say, observations, and these are peer reviewed,
have shown a decline in late summer Arctic sea ice extent of
7.7 percent per decade, and in the perennial sea ice area of
9.8 percent per decade. And it goes on. The fact that our
Administration would, before they even utter the words climate
change or global warming, would come out with this, I think,
Dr. Foote, it puts you at odds with a tremendous number of
scientists here.
I want to show you another photograph, if I can, and I am
sorry Senator Inhofe has left, because I know he loves these
photographs. This is a photograph of some baby polar bears and
how they--where's Jeff? It is the babies. The babies in the
den.
Where's Jim Inhofe when I--Andrew? Could you call Senator
Inhofe back. I wanted to show him this photograph.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. What happens when this ice goes away? It is
serious business. And Dr. Foote, I know you care about the
hunting of the Indian tribes, and I have great sympathy for
their way of life, believe me. But at some point, science is
science and we have to all deal with the science.
So I am going to move on. I want to talk to Dr. Lovejoy.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave after these
questions, which I am sure Dr. Foote will be happy to know.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. This is the best panel. I mean, as we were
saying quietly, they're just, they're understated, they're
speaking from their heart, from their mind and from their
experience. Dr. Lovejoy, could you explain to me the issue of
the oceans acting as a sink for carbon, and how much do the
oceans absorb of the carbon? I know some it is man-made, some
of it is natural. But do you have a picture of that, and what
is the impact of this continuing action of the oceans to act as
a sink? And at what point will it stop acting as a sink? Will
there be a point where they can't take in any more?
Mr. Lovejoy. I can't give you all the precise numbers, but
I can get them for you. The reason we don't have a lot more
climate change is because the oceans have been taking up a huge
amount.
Senator Boxer. Is it about 30 percent?
Mr. Lovejoy. It is at least 30 percent. They have been
taking up a huge amount of heat and a huge amount of
CO2. And a certain amount of that has translated, as
I mentioned, into a rise in acidity. We remember acid lakes and
acid rain, and we dealt with that pretty well with a great----
Senator Boxer. In the air.
Mr. Lovejoy.--market mechanism, and sulfur in the coal. But
in this case, you are talking about two-thirds of the earth's
surface changing its basic chemistry. It is simple high school
chemistry.
Senator Boxer. Well, I wanted Senator Warner, because he is
a fisherman, to hear this again. So right now, the oceans are
absorbing at least a third of the carbon dioxide, and it is
causing more acid. That is having an impact on the sea life.
And how is that showing up, if it is showing up right now?
Mr. Lovejoy. This has been a bit of a surprise to the
scientific community. You didn't even hear about it 2 or 3
years ago. They actually so far have not picked up any
immediate effects. But what we do know is that the calcium
carbonate equilibrium, which just tens of thousands of
different kinds of species used to build their shells, whether
they are corals or clams or oysters or tiny little things which
exist in the trillions as basis of food chains, at a certain
point many of them will have difficulty just constructing their
shells. If it continues further, they reach a point in which in
fact their shells will go into solution while the animals are
still alive.
Senator Boxer. Oh, boy, so anything with a shell.
What about, and anybody who wants to comment on this last
question, what about the warming of the oceans? So we have an
impact of the acidity and then, is there a separate impact with
the warming?
Mr. Lovejoy. Let me just lead off. The first parts of the
ocean which have shown themselves to be particularly sensitive
to the warming are coral reefs. Corals are basically a
partnership between an algae and an animal. Just the smallest
increase in water temperature will cause the coral to expel the
alga, so you get what are called bleaching events. And all of a
sudden, these extraordinary technicolor environments turn into
a black and white movie.
Those are happening more and more frequently, and the issue
is, how soon will we see coral reefs that have so much, such
frequent bleaching that they can't recover?
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Anybody else want to add to that.
I still have a few seconds left.
Mr. Mann. I think that is the prime example that we all
see. I think the issue about the redistribution of species
becomes a second part of this. Again, it is this issue of when
you redistribute species, they also get out of synchrony with
one another. What can typically happen is that you have food
blooms, food species that are necessarily connected to seasonal
daylight, typically over evolutionary time, the things that eat
those food species have become in synchrony, but often the
thing that synchronizes them is temperature. So if you are
looking at something changing something else, the first one may
be sunlight, the second one might be temperature.
If you change the synchronizing function in the second
part, it misses the food bloom. And there are in fact
documented cases of this, it has been a debate in the fisheries
literature for over 100 years, called a simple mis-match
theory. What you are liable to see is larger numbers of mis-
matches. When you see larger numbers of mis-matches, you see
failures to recruit, you see failures of year class in
fisheries. That has not only great ecological effects, it
potentially also has very significant economic effects. It
doesn't take much of a temperature change to do this.
Senator Boxer. A mis-match?
Mr. Mann. A mis-match.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Boxer, for
spending the time with us and for your continuing commitment to
see this committee through to some accomplishment on this
subject matter.
Senator Warner, it is all yours.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
take my round and then following your questions, maybe a few
more.
Just again on a personal note here, I am not much of a
traveling Senator, at least other than to Iraq and Afghanistan,
where I have been going constantly for 3 years, as most of us
have, too. But I was thinking, Mr. Chairman, and I say to both
distinguished chairmen, I look back on the mistakes I have made
in my 29 years in the Senate. And one was the failure to join
John Chafee when he was chairman of this committee on some
marvelous trips he put together. I remember I wanted to go down
and study the rain forest in Brazil and others, where he
actually went out and put a hands-on attitude.
And I am thinking this subject is so important, and I will
put this question to each of you to answer in your own way, is
there a possible benefit if members of this committee, maybe
you could assign some members to do one and some members to do
another, if you were to organize a field trip somewhere
geographically in your own area where we could go out and see
with our own eyes, possibly, some of the facts that you bring
to bear.
And probably more importantly, I talked to some of the old-
timers. I am particular partial to old-timers now.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. But I remember going with my father into
the upper reaches of the Blue Ridge Mountains as a small boy,
trout fishing. And the trout were in abundance. Today, the acid
rain has virtually removed them from many of the streams in my
beloved Blue Ridge Mountains. Because those mountains are in
the direct path of the effluent that comes out of the
industrial valleys of American and the coal burning facilities,
that is another whole story. I am not here to talk against
coal, or I would be voted out of office tomorrow, given my
State's position in coal. But I have fought for many years on
trying to clean up these plants.
Regrettably, if I may digress a minute, literally millions
and millions of dollars, Bob Byrd and I and the other coal
States have taken out of the Senate to study clean coal
technology, they are building a brand new coal plant, I mean a
big coal-fired plant in Virginia, and they are not spending a
dollar on trying to clean up the effluent. Now, maybe some
modification, I understand there is something in that plant,
isn't there? Well, I can't even get the staff to talk about it.
Maybe I had better correct the record. But none of this clean
coal technology is coming into effect on the coal plants.
But anyway, back to my question. If for instance my good
friend, my new friend and going to be a good one, Mr. Stalling
here from Montana, I would be glad to head the mission to
Montana.
Senator Lieberman. I was just going to say that I was going
to head the mission to go trout fishing with Mr. Stalling.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. I have been to the Antarctic and I have
seen the polar bears. You go up there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. Dr. Kelly, I will see you.
Senator Warner. And talk to some of the old-timers who with
their own eyes, talk about all this scientific data, have seen,
as my father if he were living would vouch and I can vouch, we
have seen it in our own States through the years, those of us
who still walk through the hills. So that we can bring back to
the Senate some of our own ideas.
Now, I will start out here in order. Do you think a field
trip, you could organize it on your particular subjects, to
some geographic area in this country that would be of value?
Mr. Lovejoy. Absolutely. Seeing is believing.
Senator Warner. What would we see?
Mr. Lovejoy. I think it would be important to start off
with something really dramatic, like the dying forests of the
northwest from that pine bark beetle.
Senator Warner. I have seen that recently.
Mr. Lovejoy. There are some stretches in northern Arizona
where the trees are just gone because of climate change
drought.
Senator Warner. All right, so you could put together for
maybe a two-day trip or something, something that would be
beneficial, and you would round up a couple of old guys like
myself who could actually relate to it, is that right?
Mr. Lovejoy. Absolutely.
Senator Warner. Good. Mr. Mann.
Mr. Mann. I would be delighted to host such a trip. I can
take you everywhere from the remains of the current SAV, the
submerged aquatic vegetations, if there are any striped bass
around, we will give you a rod and reel, and failing that we
will cheat and use a troll net. If I can get my friends in the
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, very
good friends who have worked with me on this, we can certainly
find you some places where there are some invasive species and
we can maybe, if there is enough time, even get you into the
forestry areas. I would be happy, happy to host such a trip.
Senator Warner. Mr. Stalling.
Mr. Stalling. Oh, yes, I would be thrilled to take people
up to the Rocky Mountain front where the Great Plains meet the
Rockies on the east side of Glacier National Park, which is a
place where legislation was recently passed, in an effort led
by hunters, to protect from irresponsible gas an oil
development. But there are impacts there as far as the loss of
white bark pine and the declining glaciers and impacts to some
of the last strongholds for pure strains of west slope
cutthroat trout, like Badger Creek and Two Medicine Creek that
seem to be drying up every year.
Senator Warner. All right, seriously, I sent Mr. Stalling a
note that in 1943, in preparation for trying to build myself up
to go into World War II, which I did the last year, my father
bought me a train ticket to Missoula, Montana, your town, and I
got a job with the Forest Service as a firefighter. It is
interesting, I went back with the Forest Service here 2 years
ago, out at Coeur d'Alene, to find our camps, which were hard
to find. I saw the devastation to the white pine from that
beetle. It is tragic, these magnificent trees just dying as far
as the eye can see. That is one of the most valuable pieces of
lumber that we have.
Mr. Stalling. Another value to going up there would be you
would be able to meet a lot of hunters and anglers and tribal
leaders and ranchers and all kinds of folks who are very
concerned about this issue.
Senator Warner. All right. I am talking about people who
have seen it with their own eyes.
Mr. Foote. Senator Warner, you may have some border issues
getting into Canada with the recent flux of movement back and
forth. So I am going to nominate Dr. Kelly to be our tour guide
for the Arctic, where you can talk to the ultimate old- timers,
the Inupiat and the Nuvialuit individuals whose direct linage
goes back 3,000 years in close concert with climate change and
polar bears.
Mr. Kelly. Senator Warner, I would be happy to introduce
you to some elders, that is how the natives refer to the old-
timers, as you put it----
Senator Warner. You ought to hear what they call me around
here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kelly. Well, these are gentlemen----
Senator Lieberman. We call him Senator, or Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. The old bull they turned back into the back
40 acres here recently. Go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kelly. I would be happy to introduce you to a gentleman
who received shotguns from their fathers as well and have fond
memories of learning to hunt from their fathers. And I think
you would be impressed to hear their descriptions of the
changes in their environment in their lifetime. And to see the
sadness in their eyes when they talk about the likelihood that
their children will not experience it the way they did, because
the changes are so profound. I think I detected a bit of
disinterest in going to the Poles again on your part, but I
think you would find these people very eloquent in their
explanations of what is really happening.
Senator Warner. I thoroughly enjoyed both of my trips, both
to the North and South Pole. But that is when I was Secretary
of the Navy, had my own plane and my own submarine to punch up
through the ice. It was a little easier.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kelly. I can't compete with that.
Senator Warner. Well, there we are. I think we have a
challenge.
Senator Lieberman. Yes.
Senator Warner. And I want to get into some other
questions, but you go ahead and then----
Senator Lieberman. Oh, you go right ahead.
Senator Warner. Well, I wanted to come back.
Senator Lieberman. Let me just say what a pleasure it is
going to be to work with you on this Subcommittee. I am already
enjoying it. So thank you for your interest.
Senator Warner. This is an exciting panel. Some of these
scientists are going to come in here and we are going to have
to get anti-doze pills.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. We really need, there is nothing like
getting out of Washington. We all think this is the pinnacle of
all knowledge. Well, it isn't. We have to get out and do a
little hands-on.
Senator Lieberman. Yes, sir, I totally agree. I want to
respond briefly before you do your questions, and we will start
the clock back at seven minutes.
It is a great idea. Senator Boxer, before she left, said
she is planning a trip to Greenland. I think it would be a
great thing just to start in Virginia for a day, right next
door, easy enough to get there and then we will systematically
visit the other spots. Thank you for that suggestion.
Senator Warner. Thank you. Well, let's see what we can do,
because I just think that we need anecdotal, I mean, all of
this scientific data, and I don't disparage scientists, but to
get our attention of our colleagues, just get them to go back
and talk to their own constituents. Just ask all the other 98
Senators to pack up and make their own inquiries.
I am fascinated with Dr. Mann's story about the dead zones
in Chesapeake Bay. As I have traveled here in the last couple
of years, I have been hearing about hat. Is there any evidence,
now let me give you a point, I was privileged to get through a
piece of legislation here recently to provide a little modest
Federal funding to support going back and taking Captain John
Smith's diaries and go up to all the inlets in 1608. He kept
prolific diaries.
Do you have any record of the dead zones being detected
years back, or is it a phenomena that has come on here in the
past 10 or 15 years or whatever period of time?
Mr. Mann. I think the problem with most of the things in
science is that you actually don't know if things are there
until you actually go and look. I also have looked at some of
John Smith's diaries, and they are wonderful natural history
records.
The problem with the dead zone though is that you really
have to go out into the Chesapeake Bay and take instrumentation
that you can put to the bottom to measure the oxygen.
Unfortunately, John Smith didn't have such instrumentation
available.
Senator Warner. But he could have seen the striped bass
with these lesions on them, which you and I have seen.
Mr. Mann. He could have seen if they had been there. In
fact, they have really become more prevalent over the last
decade or so. Prior to that, mycobacteriosis, or myco, as it is
common called, was not something that was very prevalent and it
didn't cause much concern. When it did arrive on the proverbial
scene, it was really quite widespread and it was a very sudden
event. I think lots of individuals were worried about what this
might be. A certain microorganism called physteria was
originally invoked. It turns out not to be the case.
But I think the striped bass observations over the past
decade are very typical of the sorts of things that we expect
to see, not just in aquatic systems, but everywhere else, as my
colleagues here have pointed out, significant changes can occur
and nothing appears to happen. Then you pass thresholds which
affect the biology of the animal very significantly, and then
terrible things happen. The coral reefs are a good example.
Most organisms that live on coral reefs live very near that
temperature maximum. But generally, the temperature doesn't go
past it, so you don't see them actually changing. You push the
temperature up a little bit and lots of things go wrong very
quickly.
So I think when you look at these particular canaries, if
you like, you will start to see very large numbers of them.
Several of my colleagues here have mentioned pine bore beetles.
In preparation for this testimony, I spoke to a friend of mine
who works in the Forestry Department in Virginia, and he said
his biggest concern at the moment, his biggest concern, is that
beetles that typically have a 2-year life cycle, it takes them
2 years to go through their life cycle, and while they are
alive, they munch on trees, if it warms up just a little bit,
they will go to a 1-year life cycle. If they go to a 1-year
life cycle, instantly the numbers of them double.
And this is one of these very step functions, if you can
imagine suddenly just doubling all the populations of
destructive beetles. So when you look at this, there are people
who are waiting for these to happen. And he bases his
observations on what has happened in the west. He is gravely
concerned that this might happen in the pine forests in
Virginia as well.
Senator Warner. Well, we have to be very careful when we
blame all the ills of our natural environment, not to attribute
it all to global warming. As an old trial lawyer, you have to
have a chain of proof, almost beyond a reasonable doubt, I
think, before we are going to see any real action here. Because
the economic interests of a drastic change in our energy
supplies and so forth, which affect this, are going to whipsaw,
believe me. Talk about this institution where you and I have
been now a couple of decades. If you want to get one issue that
you can't deal with unless you have an answer, it is the loss
of jobs. And that could be impacted by various steps we have to
take.
But that is not to say I am deterred. But I just want to
make sure that this chain of evidence, as an old trial lawyer,
it has to be almost beyond a reasonable doubt if you are going
to tie it and warp it around global warming.
Back to the striped bass, I recall a couple of years ago,
you may have the accurate dates, we actually put an embargo,
stopped all the fishing and everything. And I have forgotten
how many years we shut it down, but then they just came back in
increased numbers, almost. Can you correlate that? And that is
within the last decade. We have the accurate facts when we shut
it down and when we opened it up again.
Mr. Mann. Actually, it is a little bit older than that,
sir. It is about the last 15 years.
Senator Warner. Fifteen.
Mr. Mann. But the closure was really a response to a
fishing effort.
Senator Warner. Probably was.
Mr. Mann. And of course, there are few things that you can
control in natural populations except the exploitation rate.
And it certainly was very unpopular when the suggestion was
that you close it and let the stock rebuild. But nonetheless,
the closures took place, and now we have a fairly healthy
population in terms of its size. It certainly is one of the
good examples of working with fishermen to actually rebuild the
stock and then to try to manage it, so that everybody has an
opportunity to use it, whether it is commercially or
recreationally.
Senator Warner. Right. But that gives you an example of how
a species can regenerate itself if you take a certain pressure
off. Now, if they were going through some extraordinary 1 or 2
years of climate change, that pressure may diminish that
species. But if Mother Nature comes swinging back again to more
normal temperature changes, I would think there hopefully could
be a regeneration of the species again. But if we react too
quickly to these abnormal cycles that we are experiencing now,
and we have a very significant detriment to our economy, the
fish may come back but the jobs may not.
Mr. Mann. I agree.
Senator Warner. Take me on as hard as you want. Let's not
be pleasant about this thing. Let's just get our brass knuckles
out and go at it.
Mr. Mann. Caution is the word of the day. I think all of my
colleagues here have also said that.
Senator Warner. All right, thank you. I will come back
maybe with another question.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much.
Dr. Kelly, I know that your work doesn't focus on the polar
bear, the much-mentioned polar bear, much-loved. But obviously
the polar bear exists in the environment in which you are
working. So I want to ask you to comment, testify to any
alterations that you have seen in the polar bear environment
and in the species itself, if any. And also I suppose just
comment maybe on your reaction to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service beginning a process which it concludes will list the
polar bear as a threatened species and list climate change as
one of the reasons for that.
Mr. Kelly. I would be happy to. I have spent some time
working on polar bears with Steve Amstrup with the U.S.
Geological Survey. And as I mentioned, the species that I spent
a lot of my career studying, ringed seals, are the prime food
of, in fact, 90 percent of what polar bears eat in Alaska are
ringed seals. So we encounter them frequently in our field
work.
Senator Lieberman. And you are, just to repeat in your
testimony, you said you are already seeing the environment of
the ringed seals compromising their numbers.
Mr. Kelly. What we are seeing is these premature snow melts
that are exposing the young seal pups prematurely to both
predation and extreme weather events. This can only have a
negative impact on the seals and hence the bears.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Kelly. I think, all I can say in terms of the proposed
listing of polar bears is that you know, there are lots of
things that as scientists we get really picky about, levels of
confidence about statements we make and about the data and we
are trained to be very, very conservative in our analysis of
data.
But as policy makers, I think you are in a different
position. You need to look out for the welfare of the whole
Nation and the wildlife. I think it is important to listen to
the different points of view and recognize that you have to
decide when you have enough information to act and when waiting
is not a prudent thing to do.
I think it is not, there are lots of things that are hard
to predict in terms of ecological responses to changes in
environment. But changes to ringed seals, polar bears,
walruses, these ice-associated marine mammals, are pretty
straightforward to predict. It is clearly going to have an
extremely negative impact on them and it could in fact lead.
So I guess I would have to say I think it is with good
foresight that the Fish and Wildlife Service predicts that this
kind of a change in habitat will in fact threaten polar bears.
Senator Lieberman. Let me take you one more step in this.
You indicated in your testimony that in your career you had
seen the summer ice diminish by 26 percent. So when we see the
pictures that Senator Boxer showed of the polar bears, seeming
to be stranded on a piece of ice or jumping from one to the
other, the layman's conclusion is, well, the ice is melting so
the area in which the polar bear can exist is smaller,
therefore the species is threatened.
Is that, for the record, that is the layman's reaction. I
want you to speak to how the disappearance of 26 percent of the
summer ice affects the polar bear. Maybe that is not direct,
but you know what I am asking.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, I do, I think. I am a little bit reluctant
to participate too much in this idea of using polar bears as
sort of the poster species, simply because then all of a
sudden, the argument starts to about a single species. And what
is important, in my view, is the entire ecosystem. Hence I
talked about algae that live in the ice. I talked about fish
and plankton that are all associated with that.
So you have to understand that, I sort of think this is not
like, well, we have just wiped out all the bison, but now we
are rolling up the plains behind them, to having the sea ice go
away. It is taking the whole ecosystem out. It is not just
taking the charismatic mega fauna away.
Senator Lieberman. Very good point, and I take it.
Mr. Kelly. And that said, the fact is that yes, I was there
when that photo was taken of the bear pouncing. That was taken
up near Angle Island. Yes, you can show polar bears doing that
in situations where the local conditions are quite healthy and
fine.
But just last week in Anchorage, at a science symposium, I
heard presentations by the polar bear research community on
their latest research. One of the things that was particularly
compelling to me was that they had very good information on
denning sites from satellite tracking that has gone on for
several decades. And what they see is a substantial shift from,
most bears in Alaska used to den on the sea ice, and few on
land. And now increasingly larger numbers are denning on land,
because the ice is so far offshore.
This is a big response, a big change. And it is for reasons
like that, I think there are data out there that we would be
foolish not to extrapolate and be proactive rather than waiting
until we can show with 95 percent confidence that the
population has declined by X amount.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you. I appreciate that answer very
much. It is very helpful.
Mr. Stalling, let me ask you a last question. In your
testimony you talked about changes you have observed in the
trout. Neither you nor I are scientists. But I presume, correct
me, that you have read some of the science here and if I am
right, to the extent that you have, what does the science tell
you to explain the changes that you have observed in trout? And
obviously, particularly to the extent that it is convincing,
the effect of global warming.
Mr. Stalling. With less snow pack and less waters in the
streams and hotter conditions and the water evaporating and
drying out quicker, we are just seeing less stream flows and
lower streams. I have seen a lot of trout in the streams that I
fish bunch up more in what deep pools still remain. And as the
water gets warmer and the fish are bunched up more, there is a
lack of oxygen and increased algae which further takes the
oxygen and puts a lot of stress on the fish. It makes them more
susceptible to predation.
In fact, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is
increasingly closing our rivers, many of our rivers, like the
Big Hole, and the Badger and the Dearborn, fishing earlier and
earlier in the summer, because they are drying up so quickly.
And the fish are so stressed that it is just not looking so
good for them.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Let me follow onto that important question.
I recited what I have seen in acid rain. But do you see changes
in trout populations in either the east or the west or east
coast? We are east coast here, obviously, the Blue Ridge
Mountains. But what about the west coast?
Mr. Stalling. That I am not familiar with, Senator, but I
could find out and get back to you.
Senator Warner. I think we need to look at the entire
geographic spectrum on that. Of course, we know that the trout
is a magnificent fighting fish, that is why we spend so much of
our lives trying to outwit it. And it is a smart fish.
But are they more susceptible than other species? I mean,
the old catfish in our ponds in Virginia and the crappie and
other things, they seem to proliferate, nothing can stop them.
Is it because of the weakness of their system?
Mr. Stalling. Senator, they are real sensitive to warmer
temperatures, they are generally in cold fisheries. They need
that cold, clear water that we get in the mountains of Montana.
Senator Warner. My last question, Mr. Chairman, is to
follow on your question with Dr. Kelly.
Is there any correlation between the problems that the
commercial fishermen in the Antarctic are experiencing to
global warming?
Mr. Kelly. Did you say in the Antarctic?
Senator Warner. Well, up there in the Arctic, in that whole
region, the Antarctic or Arctic.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, the rich Bering Sea fishery, as I stated in
my testimony, is very much linked into the ecology of the ocean
as, it is really dominated by sea ice. And starting with the
plant production----
Senator Warner. Dominated by sea ice?
Mr. Kelly. Sea ice, that is correct. Oceanography and where
the nutrients go, where the primary production happens, the
plant life that supports the fish population is very much
driven by where sea ice is in the springtime. So what we are
beginning to see are, we think, a shift from a community where
the bottom communities are where a lot of the nutrients end up,
to a very different situation where, because of the changing
oceanography associated with ice retreat, the nutrients are
more concentrated in the water column. That means a very
different suite of organisms living there. It may mean a less
productive system.
But most importantly, I think, for commercial fisheries is
that it is a very abrupt shift in what is there and what is
available to be captured. So this is one of many ways in which
we are likely to see very substantial economic impacts. This is
huge in terms of over half of our national fisheries.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, we should congratulate this
panel, who have come from distances afar to join us here today.
I think their associates and colleagues and following
constituencies, as we say, across America, should be grateful
to them.
Senator Lieberman. Hear, hear. I agree. I thank you all,
not only for your testimony that you have offered here and the
answers that you have given to our questions, but each of you
has submitted testimony that I know you worked on for the
record of the Subcommittee. It is really worth reading. It is
very, very important and to me very impressive.
I will say that in the time that I have been interested in
this problem, I will either give credit or blame to Tom Lovejoy
for having done some of the first work. We go back to Yale
together. But he is self-evidently younger than I.
Senator Warner. Does that old school tie hunt out in
Montana, Tom? That dog don't hunt out there, does it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. In the time that he has been working on
this, and helped others of us wonder about it, we have gone
from basically projecting scientific models to some of the
consequences to seeing some of the consequences. And you have
testified today very quietly, very methodically, to what you
have observed, although I do think that some weight of your
testimony cries out quite loudly for us to try to find a way to
respond to this challenge.
So I thank you very much. The record of the hearing will be
kept open for 10 days, if you want to submit any additional
comments, if we want to burden you with any additional
questions for you to answer. But I thank you very, very much
for the work you have done here. Senator Warner, I thank you
for your interest in this. I truly look forward to working
through this with you to some good result.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Thomas E. Lovejoy, President, Heinz Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on climate change and its
effects on wildlife, namely the rest of life on earth or biodiversity.
I am Thomas Lovejoy, President of the Heinz Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment, a non-partisan no-advocacy environmental
policy center that engages business, Government, academia and
environmental groups in developing environmental policy.
I have been engaged in the topic of this hearing for more than two
decades, having produced the first book on the subject with Rob Peters
in 1992 and just 2 years ago a completely new one with Lee Hannah, a
copy of which I present here. The distinct difference between the two,
and indeed what led to doing a new one, is that today there are well
documented and statistically significant examples of nature responding
to climate change. Some of these changes involve different timing in
the annual cycles such as migration or flowering, others involve
changes in where species occur, yet others involve threshold changes in
ecosystems, and some involve systemic changes such as the acidification
of the oceans. The data have moved from the anecdotal to the
statistically significant and they demonstrate unequivocally that
nature is on the move. There is by now a global scientific literature
on this subject but I will restrict myself here to American science and
examples.
Climate change is not new in the history of the earth, but it is
new in the history of human civilization and our dependence on the
natural world. For the last ten thousand years, the entire human
enterprise has been built on the assumption of a stable climate,
including the origin of agriculture which in turn made human
settlements possible, and our entire recorded history. For that period
the patterns of nature and of individual species and organisms have
been attuned to the unusual period of stability. Today we can see the
first stirrings. The map of geographical growing zones that constitute
a bible for gardeners as to what they can or cannot grow, has recently
been revised to accurately reflect the climate change that has already
taken place. Tree swallows were laying eggs nine days earlier by 1991
in comparison to 1959 (2), In the western United States there is
earlier flowering by 2 days per decade for lilacs and 3.8 days per
decade for honeysuckle (3). In the mid-Atlantic experimental evidence
shows that poison ivy is favored by higher concentrations of the
greenhouse gas CO2. One of the best studied butterfly
species in the United States, the Edith's Checkerspot has changed its
geographical range generally moving northward and upslope (4).
One of the immediate consequences and a foreshadowing of things to
come are mismatches between species and their environment and linked
species. For example if one species depends on temperature for cues and
the other day length, climate change will change one and not the other.
This has been occurring between the checker spot and the flower species
on which it depends (5). In the arctic some seabird species which feed
on the Arctic cod, a species which lives on the underside of the ice,
are no longer able to breed successfully because the ice edge is too
far from the land on which they must nest (6).
The important issue before us is not the stirrings we can already
document but the changes that further climate change is likely to
engender. Here we can turn for glimpses of the future by pairing
climate model projections with what we know of how nature responded to
natural climate change in the past--such as during the glacial
interglacial swings which preceded the stable climate ``sweet spot''
which has been so favorable to human civilization. We can anticipate
multiple and massive mismatching and wrenching changes in the
ecosystems on which we depend. It is quite clear from the fossil record
that biological communities do not move as units like Birnam Wood in
Macbeth, but rather that individual species move individually at
different rates and sometimes in different directions as they attempt
to track their required conditions. Basically ecosystems will
disassemble and the individual species will assemble into novel
biological communities: both a nightmare for natural resource managers
as well as for the rest of us, as the shuffling of the ecological decks
favors opportunistic species such as weeds, pests and diseases.
It is already clear that there will be threshold changes in
ecosystems. One clear-cut example has been occurring in the coniferous
forest of western Canada and the northwest United States. There, the
naturally occurring pine bark beetle--always part of the ecosystem but
held largely in check by other species, has had the balance tipped in
its favor by a succession of mild winters and elevated summer night
time temperatures. There has been massive die off of trees, the red
color of which makes the landscape reminiscent of autumn color in New
England (7). Even if it were not to spread farther (and there is no
obvious biological barrier) it has had a huge impact on the timber
industry and all species that live in those forest, as well creating
conditions for forest fires of a magnitude we have never seen.
Threshold changes and more gradual linear changes in ecosystems
are driven not only by temperature difference but also by change in
precipitation patterns. Obviously that will be a problem for freshwater
ecosystems already coping with temperature change. In the American
southwest there already is a dramatic example of a threshold change
driven by a marked drop in precipitation: in northern Arizona drought
has caused a complete die off of trees (8).
It is important to note that the oceans and marine organisms are
similarly vulnerable to climate change. (The United States has the
greatest amount of marine environment of any Nation because of its
extensive economic zones). Coral reefs prove to be particularly
temperature sensitive and experience bleaching events in which the
algal partner of the coral animals is ejected turning that Technicolor
world into something approaching a black and white movie. Even more
disturbing we have only recently learned (9) that the oceans are
increasing in acidity because of the additional carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. This is essentially simple high school chemistry: the more
CO2 in the atmosphere the more acid the oceans become. They
are already 30 percent more acid (0.1 pH unit). Increasing acidity has
profound implications for all organisms that build shells from calcium
carbonate from corals to clams to tiny plankton at the base of most
food chains. The calcium carbonate equilibrium is pH dependent.
If this is the case with current climate change, there could be
profound effects if climate change is allowed beyond that which is
already programmed by current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations.
All five of the global climate models for example show that with double
pre-industrial levels of CO2 the sugar maple will no longer
be able to exist in New England. That is not great news for lovers of
maple sugar or autumn foliage. It is even worse news for those
organisms that depend of the sugar maple as part of the northeastern
deciduous forest.
One of the biggest problems plants and animals will face is the
highly modified landscape of modern times. In many instances landscapes
will represent obstacles to organisms as they attempt to disperse and
track their required conditions. In the case of organisms near the tops
of mountains or on low islands, there will be nowhere to go but into
thin air regardless of whether they are modified by human activity or
not. This has already been noted in pika populations on individual
mountains in the American west (10) and foreseen for the key deer with
sea level rise (11).
If this is the case with current climate change, there could be
profound effects if climate change is allowed beyond that which is
already programmed by current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations.
This has led to a projection of extinctions from climate change (12). I
am not here to defend the exact number, but the general point is that
it is a large number if climate change is allowed to go on business as
usual.
The question then is where is the danger zone in climate change
which should be avoided. Where to stop short? All biologists who have
looked at the question believe that double pre-industrial
CO2 would be disastrous for plants, animals, and ecosystems.
There is some consensus among the conservation organizations that 450
parts per million should be the limit. I for one think that is probably
too generous, impractical as that may seem with our current level being
at 380. Now there is discussion around what is worse for wildlife: to
go into the danger zone and then come down to something like 450 or
below, or whether that brings dangers in itself.
What is abundantly clear is that the living world on which we
depend is far more sensitive than almost anything else to climate
change. Life on earth is sending an urgent warning signal that climate
change needs to be engaged with--and with an urgency and scale hitherto
not contemplated.
__________
Statement of Roger Mann, Director for Research and Advisory Services,
School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College
of William and Mary
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here
today in response to your invitation to provide testimony on Global
Warming and Wildlife.
My name is Roger Mann. I am a Professor of Marine Science and
Director for Research and Advisory Services at the School of Marine
Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and
Mary. I have been a researcher examining natural ecosystems and their
management for both ecological services and sustained harvest of
commercially valuable products for over 30 years. While my primary
focus has been on estuarine and coastal systems it is impossible to
examine such systems without an appreciation of the biology of the
complex watersheds that are the source of the rivers that feed these
estuarine and coastal systems. Today I focus my remarks on the
magnitude of predicted global warming events, and discuss wildlife
impacts using examples from my adopted home State, the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Global warming is a real phenomenon. Worldwide projections of
temperature rise over the next century vary between 1.5o C
and 5.5o C. A current scientific challenge is to refine
models that were designed to make predictions at the global level and
make them amenable to predictions at the regional level. There are
roughly twenty different global models operating on about 14
supercomputers around the world that are focusing on these problems. At
the regional level the models do a better job of predicting temperature
than they do of predicting rainfall. The scenarios for Virginia in the
coming century predict temperature increases from 3.5o C to
as high as 6.5o C clustered in the summer months, but the
accompanying overall rainfall patterns vary between drier and wetter in
total amount, sometimes with a wetter spring but drier fall months, and
often with more extreme rainfall events. Fresh water supply dominates
much of what we see in wildlife biology. These warm and wet, or warm
and dry scenarios have clear implications for change in natural
populations in Virginia and elsewhere.
I argue that Virginia is an excellent example of a natural
laboratory in which to study the impacts of global warming, that
impacts are becoming evident in all natural systems within the State,
and that they are cause for concern. Virginia sits at a number of
important biogeographic boundaries where animal and plant species, both
terrestrial and aquatic, change in north-south and east-west
directions. Climate, and particularly temperature, is a causative agent
in determining these boundaries. A simple viewing of a weather map on
the evening news illustrates the role of climate. In the winter the jet
stream can dip in a southerly direction and cold air moves in from the
mid-west and southern Canada. As the jet stream moves north, warmer air
displaces the cold air. By contrast, summer weather is dominated by
warm, humid air masses from the Gulf of Mexico. Gradual changes in the
duration and extensions of these respective air masses in a north to
south direction translates into shorter and warmer winters and/or
longer and wetter summers. Again, both have implications for the
natural populations.
A transect from west to east across the landscape of Virginia
includes the forested foothills of the Appalachians, the coastal plains
that support a mixture of forestry and agriculture, freshwater wetlands
whose values as filters of water have only recently been fully
appreciated, tidal salty estuaries feeding the Chesapeake Bay with its
fringing marshes, coastal barrier islands and the inner continental
shelf. Remarkable diversity exists both along the transect and within
each habitat type. Indeed, it is the rich biodiversity within local
habitats that contribute to their stability. The plant and animal
communities that occupy these habitats have evolved over geological
time. The complex interaction between these community members is all
important, and if there is a single message that I leave with you today
it is that destabilizing the relationships between just a few of these
contributing species can have a domino like effect resulting in large
and deleterious impacts on the entire community. Consider as an analogy
a spider's web, all parts contributing to stability in function. But
break a limited number of strands and the web is weakened. Just a few
more strands and the web collapses. A universal concern among
biologists throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia is that global
warming will unravel just a few of those strands with cascading
impacts.
Let me walk you from the Appalachians to the ocean shelf and
provide just a few examples of our concern.
As summer temperatures increase there is expectation that forest
species typical of the Appalachian foothills will move north and to
higher altitude. Warmer temperatures in combination with lower rainfall
favor conditions that promote fires and increase the probability that
stressed trees will eventually succumb to insect and disease problems--
especially so when insect species can migrate faster than trees.
All plants respond on a seasonal basis to both temperature and
day length in their annual cycles of growth and reproduction. Changing
the synchrony of these events by elevating temperature in a fixed
sequence of day lengths can be expected to disrupt the equilibrium in
forest communities. Insects play important roles in forest ecosystems
as both food for higher tropic levels, such as birds and small mammals,
and as destructive agents of trees. Warmer temperatures will both
increase the range of destructive insects and alter insect life cycles;
for example reducing 2-year life cycles to 1-year with obvious doubling
of the impact on the host trees. Such situations have already been
documented in western States where warming has allowed the pine borer
beetle to move to higher latitudes and attack stands of lodgepole and
ponderosa pines. Pine beetles now attack white bark pines, essential
habitat for grizzly bears.
Changes in physical forest structure by the death of trees
creates fragmentation of the footprints of forest growth on larger
spatial scales. Disturbance at the edge of forested areas provides
opportunity for invasive species, usually non-native to the
Commonwealth but introduced over time either intentionally or by
accident, to establish a foothold and eventually expand their range
with displacement of native species. Non-native plant species often
remain green through warmer periods that stress native forest plants,
compounding their advantage in warmer conditions. Indeed, invasive
species such as the Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Japanese
Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and the Multiflora Rose (Rosa
multiflora) have been documented to make up one half of the biomass in
some stressed and invaded forest communities in Virginia. Changes in
forest composition may pose grave problems for the many migratory birds
that pass through the region. Virginia's Department of Forestry closely
monitors this situation.
Managed agricultural land in Virginia is richly used by wildlife.
It is possible that climate and water conditions will help some
commercial crops in the short run, but it is also likely that climate
changes will lead to lower yields and many important food crops would
be less nutritious. Maintenance of productivity on Virginia farms lands
is a constant adaptive response to rainfall, temperature, and the
vagaries of pests, parasites and weed species, many of which are
invasive. A general increase in temperature will drive out native
animals and encourage the spread of potentially destructive tropical
plant and insect invasive species, such as, tropical soda apple
(Solanum viarum), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrical), water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes), and pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus
hirsutus). The vigilance of Virginia's Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services insures rapid response to local threats.
Invasive plants such as the common reed Phragmites australis
threaten stressed freshwater marsh habitat resulting in significant
change in community structure and opportunities for native wildlife.
Temperature and rainfall both drive in-stream river flow and
water quality parameters that are central to successful growth and
reproduction of freshwater fishes in Virginia rivers.
Divergence of long-term temperature and day length synchrony
could impact food chains supporting resident fishes in rivers and
streams. Studies in Seattle's Lake Washington have demonstrated an
advance in the timing of the spring plankton bloom with warming
temperature; however, key zooplankton species (on which fish feed) that
typically graze on the bloom have not changed their seasonal activity
and now miss the optimal grazing period. Fish go hungry.
Estuaries are enormously complicated ecosystems, changing over
time and across spatial scales. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest
estuary in the Nation, with a watershed covering 8500 square
kilometers, 60 percent of which are forested, and a resident population
of over 15 million people. This water body is a national treasure in
terms of its recreational, commercial and societal value. Oxygen
solubility in seawater decreases as temperature increases creating an
increasingly stressful environment for resident species living in
shallow waters, but it can and does get worse in deeper water. Each
summer part of the main stem of the Bay stratifies as warmer, fresher
water layers above denser, saltier water. The deep layers do not mix
and their oxygen content is depleted-- hypoxia (low oxygen) and
eventually anoxia (no oxygen) dominate. Such deep regions have been
described as dead zones. We know the dead zone is getting bigger each
year and all the projections associated with global warming scenarios
predict an increase in its size.
Dead zones force species that typically seek refuge in deeper,
colder water into warmer shallower water where they suffer
physiological stress. A prime example is the striped bass (Morone
saxatilis). Ecologically important, recreationally and commercially
valuable--a magnificent fish. We know that 80 percent of the striped
bass in the Bay are infected with a disease called Mycobacteriois, but
this is manifested predominantly in stressed fish. Warmer waters, we
suspect, bring increases in the numbers of fish characterized by large
skin lesions.
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the shallow waters of the
bay form complex shallow water habitats that are critical for small
crabs and fish. Bay SAV populations are under stress. The single
dominant native SAV species, eelgrass (Zostera marina), is already at
the southern end of its range and increased temperature contributes to
its local instability. Indeed, a significant die off in eelgrass in
2005 has been related to local high water temperature. The prospect for
displacement of the native eel grass by the more temperature tolerant
widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) is not comforting in that widgeon grass
is more ephemeral in nature.
Oyster (Crassostrea Virginia) populations in the Bay have been
ravaged over the past 4 decades by two diseases, commonly termed MSX
(Haplosporidium nelsoni) and Dermo (Perkinsus marinus), whose activity
is temperature dependent. Indeed increasing water temperature has been
identified as the primary agent allowing the range extension of Dermo,
with its deleterious impacts, from the Chesapeake Bay northwards to the
Delaware Bay and Long Island Sound over the past two decades. Very
large investments have and are being made to restore the Bay's oyster
resource and the industry that it supports. The added challenge of
increased disease prevalence and intensity makes this task yet more
difficult.
The Eastern Shore of Virginia is a critical feeding station on
the Atlantic flight path for migratory birds. As food species are
stressed, consider for example the value of horseshoe crab (Limulus
polyphemus) eggs during breeding events between the tide lines, these
bird populations face literal life and death situations.
On the inner continental shelf the bottom dwelling dominant
species, the surf clam (Spisula solidissima, also a notable fishery
resource) is changing in distribution. Forty years ago this species was
abundant between the Virginia Capes and Cape Hatteras in North
Carolina. Now, they are virtually absent south of the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay. The populations are increasingly being limited to more
northerly and deeper waters by increasing summer water temperatures. We
suspect this offshore migration describes the distribution of many Mid-
Atlantic species.
The addition of climate change to the mix of stressors already
affecting valued habitats and endangered species will present a major
challenge to future conservation of U.S. ecological resources. Across
Virginia, from the Appalachians to the inner continental shelf, we are
observing changes in natural populations of endemic plants and animals
that can arguably be linked to global warming, and we expect trends to
continue. As biologists we are concerned. As custodians of this rich
natural resource we should all be concerned.
__________
Statement of David H. Stalling, Western Field Coordinator,
Trout Unlimited
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony regarding global
warming and wildlife. More importantly, thank you for boldly taking on
this vital, often controversial issue, and seeking solutions to the
greatest challenge of our time.
My name is David Stalling, and I live in Missoula, Montana. I am
not a scientist or a wildlife biologist. However, I am an avid hunter,
fisherman, backpacker, hiker, mountain biker, back country skier and
snow boarder who deeply cherishes the wildlife and wildlands
surrounding my home. That is what brought me to Montana when I was
honorably discharged from the Marine Corps in 1986, and it's what keeps
me here. It's my passion and love for wildlife and wild places--
inspired by my hunting and fishing--that keeps me fighting for the
conservation and protection of fish and wildlife habitat and the wild
places that sustains them. Currently, I work as a grassroots organizer
for Trout Unlimited, a national nonprofit dedicated to the protection
of coldwater fisheries and watersheds. Prior to that, I worked for the
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, another nonprofit dedicated to the
protection of critical habitat for elk and other wildlife. I have also
served two terms as President of the Montana Wildlife Federation,
Montana's oldest and largest hunting, fishing and conservation
organization, and often volunteer for the National Wildlife Federation.
In addition, I write about wildlife, conservation and natural history
for a variety of national magazines, helping people develop a better
understanding of science and policy in regards to wildlife and wild
places.
The scientific evidence regarding climate change, and the
consequences of human-caused release of global warming pollution, is
conclusive and overwhelming, with even stronger evidence seeming to
come forth every week. Those of us who are close to the land, and spend
time among wildlife in wild places, are seeing much of this evidence
first hand.
Two summers ago, I hiked from my front porch in Missoula to
Waterton, Alberta. During this eight-week, 800-mile backpack trip,
mostly off trail, I only crossed three roads, traveling through the
Rattlesnake, Mission Mountains, Bob Marshall, Great Bear and Scapegoat
Wilderness Areas, and Glacier National Park. This is some of the
wildest, most unique and precious country left in the United States,
providing the last strongholds for rare, threatened and endangered
species such as grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions, lynx, wolverines
and pure strains of Westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. With
strong populations of elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, mountain goats,
moose and other wildlife, these places also provide some of the best
hunting and fishing left in the Nation.
But even here, in such remote, wild places, I witnessed evidence of
what scientists and wildlife biologists have been warning us about for
years. Snowpacks, so crucial in the arid West for supplying water to
our rivers and streams, are rapidly declining. Diminished water flows
makes for shallower, warmer streams, with less oxygen, making it more
difficult for coldwater fish such as trout to survive. Increasingly,
the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks are implementing
summer closures of rivers to fishing to protect trout overly-stressed
from hot, dry conditions. On my journey, I also saw large chunks of
forest impacted by increased occurrence of mountain pine beetle, which
scientists are linking to trees being less resistant to insect and
disease because of drier, more stressful conditions, and was
particularly concerned by the rapid death of most white bark pines,
which provides an important food source for grizzlies and other
wildlife. I also walked through large expanses of charred forests
burned by recent wildfires. Our western forests evolved with, and are
adapted well to fire. However, drier conditions, combined with an
increase in dead trees from beetle infestations, are resulting in more
frequent, more damaging fires than what historically and naturally
occurred, with serious implications for wildlife. Towards the end of my
adventure, while hiking through Glacier National Park, I could visible
notice a profound decline in the size of glaciers I have visited in
past trips. Many scientists are predicting the glaciers in the park
will be gone within 10 years.
I work with and speak to hunters, anglers, outfitters, guides,
ranchers, county commissioners, tribal leaders and others throughout
Montana and the West, and I hear similar reports and concerns from them
about changes on the landscape, and its impacts to water, fish,
wildlife and our western way of life. What I hear from fellow hunters
and anglers is consistent with a recent survey commissioned by the
National Wildlife Federation, examining the attitude of hunters and
anglers regarding Global Warming; We hunters and anglers are witnessing
the effects of global warming and believe immediate action is necessary
to address it. Eighty five percent of us believe we have a moral
responsibility to confront global warming, and eighty percent of us
believe our Nation should be a world leader in addressing this issue. I
am definitely among the 75 percent of hunters and anglers who agree
that Congress should pass legislation that sets a clear national goal
for reducing global warming pollution with mandatory timelines.
Others can speak more authoritatively about the importance of these
wild places, wildlife, and associated hunting, fishing and other
recreational opportunities to the economy of Montana and the West. And
it's true. In Montana alone, more than one million people enjoy our
State's abundant wildlife each year, contributing more than $880
million to our State's economy. But more importantly, our Nation's
wildlife and wild lands--along with related hunting, fishing and other
outdoor recreational pursuits--provide unique cultural, social and even
spiritual values not only for us Montanans, but for all Americans. This
is why great American leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt fought so long
and hard to protect what remained, in his day, of our Nation's wildlife
and wild places. Today, our wildlife and wildlands face threats that
Roosevelt probably could never have fathomed. But I am confident he
would not have shied away from the challenge. Neither should we.
This is not, nor should be, a partisan issue. In Montana, I know
Republicans, Democrats and Independents who all share a concern about
global warming, and a desire to see something done about it. Thank you
to those Senators and Congressmen who are boldly taking steps to
confront this issue. For those who are still not on board: I urge you
to take a closer look at the scientific evidence and consensus, to
listen to us citizens who are witnessing the impacts first hand, set
aside partisan politics and various industrial and corporate pressures,
and tackle this issue with the sense of urgency and immediacy required.
We do, indeed, have a moral obligation to do what we can and as quickly
as possible.
I urge you to take immediate steps to curtail green house gas
emissions; develop more conservative, responsible energy policies that
include alternative and renewable sources of energy, more efficient
ways of using energy, and reduce our need to burn fossil fuels. Even
with immediate, yet important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
changes will continue with negative impacts to fish, wildlife and wild
places. Therefore, I also urge you to include, in legislation regarding
climate change, funding specifically dedicated to help protect and
restore fish and wildlife habitat through the Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration account of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.
As for my part, I will continue to do my best to help persuade and
rally citizens to support your worthy efforts. I know that a majority
of my fellow hunters and anglers in Montana, and elsewhere in our
country, are already sending a message loud and clear: The time for
action is now.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity.
__________
Statement of A. Lee Foote, Associate Professor, University of Alberta
introduction
I speak today as an individual on the faculty of the University of
Alberta and as a scientist with a circumspect overview of renewable and
sustainable resource use. I have paid my way here from my private funds
with no other donations or source of support. I am a citizen of both
the US and Canada.
Rationale for comments:
(1) It is a unique opportunity to broaden the discussion of
appropriate resource use which is the core of my professional life
activities.
(2) My southern country (USA) is poised to exert a pivotal
influence on the livelihoods of Inuit citizens of my northern country
(Canada) without full consideration of the implications. A ``crack-the-
whip effect'' is developing whereby climate change may affect sea ice
persistence which affects some polar bear habitats, which sparks
endangered species policy which affects rural Inuit livelihood. There
is approximately the same number of rural people as there are polar
bears living in the polar bear's range. I believe the culture and
welfare of these Inuit, Inuvialuit, Greenlanders and Siberian
subsistence users have received insufficient consideration in relation
to polar bear management, particularly their role in resource
management.
(3) I remain concerned about possible misuse of science and logic
in arguments around the polar bear/climate change debate.
My history with sustainable use comes from participation, research
and publication on community based natural resource management on three
continents, and an advisory role in arctic research programs. From the
2007 IPCC projections\1\ I recognize and accept that climate has
rapidly changed in the north. Finally, I am not a climatologist or a
polar bear researcher and I have never sought or received grants or
support for either of these topics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4--SPM--
PlenaryApproved.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Errors in the application of climate change information to polar bear
management
Conservation connotes use of resources; otherwise, protection
efforts are better classified as preservation\2\. Sustainable use
principles are an appropriate framework for considering extractive use
(hunting)\3\ of polar bears in light of concerns over habitat-driven
changes in their habitats. The conditions that permit the carefully
managed conservation hunting of polar bears are highly relevant in
demonstrating sustainability\4\ as discussion proceeds with the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's comment period on re-classifying the polar
bear as an endangered species\5\. To add to this comment period it is
important to consider error sources in the interpretation of risks to
polar bears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Foote, A. L. 2005. Pp 65-68 (In) Conservation Hunting: People
and Wildlife in Canada's North. M Freeman, B Hudson and L Foote (Eds).
Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occasional Publ No. 56.
\3\Adams, WM. 2004. Against extinction. Earthscan Press
\4\Wenzel G. and M Dowsley p37-45 (In) Conservation Hunting: People
and Wildlife in Canada's North. M Freeman, B Hudson and L Foote (Eds).
Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occas Publ. No. 56.
\5\http://pbsg.npolar.no/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar bear data is at risk of being misused in the following six
ways, thus representing a rationale for not listing polar bears as
endangered until better and more objective policy consideration has
been completed.
1. Errors of logic. Polar bears are being used as an icon of global
climate change, yet populations of these bears are a response to, not a
cause of climate change. Regardless of bear populations, climate will
be unaffected by them, hence more protections for bears is illogical in
remedying climate change. Simple association does not imply causation.
2. Errors of insufficient data. Polar bears are an extremely
adaptable and persistent species that have occupied the arctic for at
least the last 120,000 years\6\ . Their range constitutes a circumpolar
belt that, if it follows many other species range shifts, will have
moved northward and southward in response to previous episodes of ice
ages and climate warming conditions\7\. We need more information on the
conditions leading to reductions in ice and in habitat quality at the
southern fringes of polar bear range and whether a commensurate and
offsetting improvement occurs at the northern fringe of the polar bear
ranges. The hypothesis of shifting ranges needs extensive investigation
by bear surveys in the poorly known northern ranges. For example, if
healthy bears are found giving birth to triplets instead of twins in
the north and skinny smaller bears are having singletons instead of
twins in the south, evidence for population-wide compensation to
climate may exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Pers coms Dr. Mitch Taylor, 3 February 2007.
\7\ http://www.abcbirds.org/climatechange/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Errors of conflation. The listing of polar bears as endangered
is likely premature because there is insufficient data on most northern
ranges to identify whether conditions are improving in response to
climate change even as the southern fringes appear to be degrading. The
knowledge of Hudson Bay (HB) bears is the best available for any polar
bear subpopulation in existence\8\. The HB populations are the:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Stirling I, NJ Lund, and J Iocozza. 1999. Arctic 52:294-306.
(a) most southerly,
(b) most accessible,
(c) most handled, for example, 174 bears were anesthetized and
helicopter ferried out of Churchill in 2005 alone (Tyrell),
(d) most habituated to humans and human food as they spend months
near thousands of people in Churchill, some of whom feed them.
Extrapolation from the HB sub population to all other more
northerly polar bear populations is inappropriate, yet this leap of
conflation is commonly taken by the media. Understanding of the 17
other global polar bear subpopulations north of HB are less robust (but
see reference\9\), yet, many polar bear biologists on the agree that
some subpopulations are increasing, some are stable, and some are
believed to be decreasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Stirling, I 2002. Arctic 55 Supplement 1:59-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Errors of bad faith. Charismatic species are useful for
marketing perceptions of sports teams (Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions),
retail products (Chevrolet Impala, polar bears for soft drinks) and
causes (Free Willy, Born Free Foundation). Credibility is lost,
however, when scientific knowledge is misused to achieve a political
end such as unsubstantiated emotional appeals for polar bear survival
when the ultimate goal is to influence U.S. energy policy. As one of
those petitioning for ESA listing\10\ of polar bears said: ``[the
December 2006, ESA listing decision] gives me hope that we can get the
United States to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution before it is too late
to save the Arctic''\11\. The goal of reducing climate change is
honorable, the highly selective use of polar bear information for this
is less so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://pbsg.npolar.no/
\11\http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2007/01/15/siegel/
index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Confusion of proximate and ultimate causes: The ultimate cause
of polar bear population reductions (absolute decreases over decadal
time frames) is habitat reduction, particularly less sea ice. In the
absence of immediate proximate factors, the long-term population levels
of polar bears will be determined by ultimate factors. Proximate
factors may include reduced fecundity, cub abandonment, cannibalism,
starvation, hunter harvests and increased energy demands from changing
conditions. These sources of mortality are appropriate in that they
reflect a form of population regulation to more closely match bear
numbers with the ranges' ability to support them.
6. Lack of specificity: The blanket listing of polar bears is a
blunt and non-specific regulation that does not accurately target the
threatened subpopulations of polar bears. The Endangered Species Act as
applied to Grizzly Bears occurring on U.S. lands shows the flexibility
to list the grizzlies in the coterminous States as endangered, yet
those in Alaska as abundant enough for sustainable harvests and export.
Even if this same mechanism were applied to polar bears, it redundantly
mimics the Marine Mammals Protection Act that already provides
protection for those specific populations most at risk and acknowledges
the increases/stability where they are known for subpopulations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Gissing, D. 2005. p 72 (In) Conservation Hunting: People and
Wildlife in Canada's North. Milton Freeman, Bob Hudson and Lee Foote
(Eds). Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occas. Publication No. 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar bear watching
Bears are powerful and potentially dangerous predators, so polar
bear watching is rarely promoted as a tourist activity given the lack
of amenities available in the polar bears' territories. The principal
place where polar bear watching has been developed (Churchill,
Manitoba, the self-styled `Polar bear capital of the World') is
accessible by rail and air and hosts 6-8,000 tourists each fall to
watch the bears from the safety of sturdy 'Tundra Buggies' made from
modified buses. Most bear observations are from 0-30 meters and bears
are approached approximately every 10 minutes during the day.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Dyck, MG and RK Baydak. 2006. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
11:143-145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tourist amenities are well-developed because Churchill hosts not
only polar bear watchers, but visitors at other times of year who
variously watch whales, arctic/subarctic birds, and the Aurora
Borealis, and who attend courses at the Churchill Northern Studies
Center, or to fish, hunt, or engage in ecotourism expeditions.
In North Alaska a small number of tourists visit Barrow and
Kaktovik where they observe whaling activities and view polar bears
attracted to the whale carcasses.
Churchill, Manitoba is unique in having good access, good
concentrations of bears and tourist infrastructure. It is a highly
valued experience available for $3,000-$6,000. This form of tourism is
not widespread. For example, seeing a solitary bear in a remote arctic
village (necessarily at a distance, for safety reasons) is less
attractive than the opportunity available at Churchill, every day of
the visit, to photograph dozens of bears at very close range. There
have been problems with bear watching too. Tour operators are purported
to attract bears with blocks of lard, by rubbing fish oils on the
wheels of their tour buggies, and by hauling whale carcasses as
attractants to nearby beaches to ensure client viewing opportunities.
Habituated bears sometimes become nuisance bears, necessitating an
identifying paint mark on their hide, sometimes temporary restraint in
Churchill's ``bear jail'' holding facility and occasionally helicopter
translocation of bears to remote areas. In 2004 there were 174 bears
helicopter-transported out of Churchill. The remote northern town of
Arviat, 150 miles up the coast from Churchill was simultaneously
beleaguered with nuisance polar bears, many of which carried an
identifying paint mark on them\14\. In earlier times, polar bear
hunting was a crucial management tool in remote villages and possibly
structured the bear-human relationship in ways that no longer occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Dr. Martina Tyrell--Unpublished Document
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar bear hunting
In contrast to the bear-watching industry, polar bear hunters need
almost no amenities beyond those available to local people. Visiting
hunters spend very little time in the communities, yet contribute a
significant source of revenue. A recent study of polar bear
conservation hunting determined that the nine Inuit communities in
Nunavut Territory who hosted visiting polar bear hunters received about
$650,000 for allocating 15 percent of their subsistence quota to
visiting hunters\15\. These revenues were paid out as wages (a guide
may earn more than $7,000 for accompanying a hunter on a two-week hunt
and may work three hunts per season), to the outfitter for making all
arrangements, and to various community members for making suitable
clothing, preparing the trophies for shipment, and for local purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Foote, AL and G Wenzel--Reciprocal benefits of polar bear
hunting (In Press).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the local residents, polar bear hunting is culturally,
socially, economically, and nutritionally important, and for those
engaged in outfitting and guiding visiting hunters, that seasonal
occupation provides meaningful employment at a time of year when other
jobs are scarce or non-existent\16\. Conservation hunts by foreign
sportsmen do not increase the harvested numbers of bears; rather,
foreign hunters purchase a small percentage of the harvest quota from
participating communities. Reducing the number of U.S. sportsmen
legally hunting polar bears would not result in fewer bears being
killed as local hunters will, in every case, fully utilize the allotted
tag numbers\17\. The loss of revenue from conservation hunts may
actually increase demand for a larger Inuit subsistence quota to help
offset the loss of needed revenue that visiting hunters brought into
the community. The willingness to kill nuisance bears that approach
remote villages is currently thwarted by the community's recognition of
the very high economic and social values seen in polar bears. In the
absence of a lucrative hunting arrangement, the value of polar bears is
likely to be reduced and bears near villages are more likely to be
viewed as a nuisance than a valued resource.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Keith, D. 2005. Inuit Qujimaningit Nanurnut; Inuit knowledge of
polar bears. Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press.
\17\Wenzel G. and M Dowsley p37-45 (In) Conservation Hunting:
People and Wildlife in Canada's North. M Freeman, B Hudson and L Foote
(Eds). Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occasional Publ. No. 56.
\18\Pokiak, F. p 52 (In) Conservation Hunting: People and Wildlife
in Canada's North. M Freeman, B Hudson and L Foote (Eds). Canadian
Circumpolar Institute Occasional Publication No. 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The polar bear technical committee (meeting in Edmonton 5-9 Feb 07)
represents a very knowledgeable group with great expertise which will
help lead the data collection and management of polar bear populations.
Their collected wisdom is pivotal to our biological and distributional
understanding. Native groups' observations may strongly supplement this
understanding through hypothesis formulation, mechanism of population
change, and bear behaviors within a smaller geographic range. These
cross-linkages have started and need to be encouraged\19\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Diduck, A, N Banks, D Clark, and D Armitage. 2005. Pp 269-290
in Breaking Ice, Berkes et al. (Eds). University of Calgary Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued debate is essential for allocation of polar bear kills.
This specific mortality factor is not considered a singular risk in the
proposed ESA petition; therefore, if polar bears are re-classified as
endangered, exemptions for managed harvest and importation are
important considerations for the act.
__________
Statement of Brendan P. Kelly, Associate Vice President for Research,
University of Alaska
Senator Lieberman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on the impacts of climate change on
Arctic wildlife. For the past 30 years, I have studied Arctic wildlife,
primarily ice-associated marine mammals (whales, seals, and walruses).
My studies have benefited by collaboration with colleagues in the
scientific community and with Yupik and Inupiaq Eskimos who generously
shared their knowledge and observations. Over millennia, Eskimo people
evolved a rich culture around the seasonal sea ice and the plant and
animal life that, in turn, had adapted to sea ice.
In the late 1800s, immediately following the decimation of bowhead
whale and walrus populations by commercial whalers, approximately 50
percent of the Eskimo population in the Bering Strait region starved to
death. One hundred years later, I began learning about ice-associated
animals from Native hunters such as Mr. Alex Akeya, a descendant of the
survivors of the famine. By that time, the walrus population had
recovered, the whales were recovering, but the Eskimo population
remained below its historical size.
The plants and animals that Alex and his kin depend on exist, of
course, not in isolation but as part of an ecosystem. This particular
ecosystem is dominated by seasonal sea ice which strongly influences
the climate, oceanography, and biology of the Arctic Ocean and
surrounding lands.
Sea ice influences not only Arctic climate but, in fact, global
climate in several ways, most notably through a mechanism first
described to me by Mr. Akeya. He told me, as we traveled around St.
Lawrence Island in his walrus skin boat, that in his language (Siberian
Yupik) the island is named Savouqaq, a reference to the shape of the
island. The island looks like something that has been wrung out like a
wet rag. A Yupik creation story described raven diving to the bottom of
the Bering Sea, taking mud in its beak, and, back at the surface,
wringing out the mud to form the island. How, I asked Mr. Akeya, did
his ancestors know that shape of this large island without benefit of
an aerial view? His answer was that in the autumn, when the island is
snow covered and the surrounding sea is not yet ice covered, an image
of the island occasionally is reflected up on to the cloud cover due to
the high reflectivity of the snow in contrast to the low reflectivity
of the water. Indeed, it is now known scientifically that sun and ice
reflect over 90 percent of the incoming sunlight, while sea water
absorbs over 90 percent of the sunlight. That differential reflection
explains not only how ancient Yupiks knew the shape of Savouqaq, but it
also contributes strongly to the faster rate of climate change
experienced today in polar regions. One consequence of our warming
climate is the melting of sea ice. Once that melt begins, it is
accelerated by the resulting change in reflectivity. As the ice changes
to water, the reflectivity of the surface goes from more than 90
percent to less than 10 percent resulting in further warming, more ice
melt, and yet a further decrease in reflectivity. The importance of
this polar amplification effect to global climate can be appreciated
when the surface area of the polar seas--as much as 34,000,000 km2 in
the recent past--is taken into account.
Sea ice strongly influences winds and water temperature, both of
which are key determinants of upwelling, the oceanographic phenomenon
whereby nutrient rich water is brought up to depths at which there is
sufficient sunlight for phytoplankton to make use of those nutrients.
The Bering Sea produces our Nation's largest commercial fish
harvests as well as supporting subsistence economies of Alaskan
Natives. Ultimately, the fish populations depend on plankton blooms
controlled by the extent and location of the ice edge in spring.
Naturally, many other organisms, such as seabirds, seals, walruses, and
whales, depend on primary production, mainly in the form of those
plankton blooms. As Arctic sea ice continues to diminish, the location,
timing, and species make-up of the blooms is changing in ways that
appear to favor a different kind of ecosystem. While much of Bering
Sea's production ends up in a bottom-dwelling community of clams,
crabs, and other organisms favored by walruses, gray whales, bearded
seals, and eider ducks, the altered ecosystem may instead favor
organisms living in the water column. The result would be a radically
altered community of organism favoring a different suite of upper level
consumers. The subsistence and commercial harvests of fish could be
altered radically.
Ecosystem changes, of course, will be profound and effect more
components than the fish. Many changes already have been observed and
are predicted to accelerate along with the rates of climate change. The
changes to the Arctic sea ice ecosystem will be especially rapid and
profound. In my 30 years studying that system, we already have lost
over 25 percent of the summer ice cover.
My colleagues in the scientific community are working diligently to
understand the manifold impacts of our changing climate. There is a
real sense of urgency given the pace of change and the tremendous
economic and social impacts that will ensue. Many of the changes will
not be obvious or, seemingly, even counterintuitive. Two examples
involving marine mammal species may be illustrative.
Walruses feed on clams and other bottom-dwelling organisms. Over a
nursing period of two or more years, the females alternate their time
between attending a calf on the ice and diving to the bottom to feed
themselves. The record ice retreats observed in recent summers
increasing are extending beyond the continental shelf such that the ice
is over water too deep for the female walruses to feed. Thus, the
habitat suitable for adult feeding is becoming disconnected from the
suitable nursing habitat. The prediction is for walrus populations to
once again decline.
Counter-intuitively, ringed seals, the major prey of polar bears
and an important resource to Arctic Eskimos, face the prospect of
freezing deaths as a consequence of global warming. Ringed seals give
birth in snow caves excavated above breathing holes they maintain in
the sea ice. The snow caves protect the pups from extreme cold and to a
large extent from predators. As the climate warms, however, snow melt
comes increasingly early in the Arctic, and the seals' snow caves
collapse before the pups are weaned. The small pups are exposed without
the snow cover and die of hypothermia in subsequent cold periods. The
prematurely exposed pups also are more vulnerable to predation by
arctic foxes, polar bears, gulls, and ravens. Furthermore, gulls and
ravens are arriving increasingly early in the Arctic as springs become
warmer, further increasing their potential to prey on the seal pups.
The net effect of climate change inevitably will be major changes
to the ecosystem. Some species will become extinct, others will adapt
to new habitats. Indeed, the history of the earth has involved many
ecosystem changes and extinctions. Whether the changes underway today
will be survived by walruses, seals, Eskimo culture, our economies and
ways of life, will depend critically on the pace of change.
Adaptation--biological or social--requires time for adjustment. The
current rates of change, however, are very steep.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]