[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MONITORING, MEASUREMENT, AND VERIFICATION
OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,
PARTS I AND II
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
and
APRIL 22, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-3
and
Serial No. 111-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-612 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL D. TONKO, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
How Do We Know What We Are Emitting? Monitoring, Reporting, and
Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions
February 24, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chair, Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 9
Witnesses:
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Biography.................................................... 17
Ms. Jill E. Gravender, Vice President for Policy, The Climate
Registry
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 21
Biography.................................................... 35
Ms. Leslie C. Wong, Director, Greenhouse Gas Programs, Waste
Management, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Biography.................................................... 41
Mr. Rob Ellis, Greenhouse Gas Program Manager, Advanced Waste
Management Systems, Inc. (AWMS)
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Biography.................................................... 46
Discussion....................................................... 47
Upstream vs Downstream Analysis and Monitoring................. 47
International Agreement on Monitoring.......................... 48
Carbon Taxes................................................... 49
More on Monitoring Standards................................... 51
Coordinating Agencies and States............................... 51
Methane and Water Vapor........................................ 52
Carbon Monitoring and trade Registry........................... 55
Lief Cycle Pricing............................................. 56
Preventing Carbon Market Manipulation.......................... 57
Voluntary and Mandatory Standards and Reporting................ 60
Informing the Public........................................... 62
International Carbon Control................................... 63
Closing........................................................ 64
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office............. 66
Ms. Jill E. Gravender, Vice President for Policy, The Climate
Registry....................................................... 70
Ms. Leslie C. Wong, Director, Greenhouse Gas Programs, Waste
Management, Inc................................................ 76
Mr. Rob Ellis, Greenhouse Gas Program Manager, Advanced Waste
Management Systems, Inc. (AWMS)................................ 82
Monitoring, Measurement, and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
II: The Role of Federal and Academic Research and Monitoring Programs
April 22, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 86
Hearing Charter.................................................. 87
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 95
Written Statement............................................ 96
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 96
Written Statement............................................ 98
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 98
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 99
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 99
Witnesses:
Dr. Alexander E. ``Sandy'' MacDonald, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes,
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 101
Written Statement............................................ 102
Biography.................................................... 110
Dr. Beverly Law, Professor, Department of Forest Ecosystems and
Society; Science Chair, AmeriFlux Network, Oregon State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 111
Written Statement............................................ 112
Biography.................................................... 117
Dr. Richard A. Birdsey, Project Leader and Scientist, USDA Forest
Service; Chair, Carbon Cycle Scientific Steering Group
Oral Statement............................................... 118
Written Statement............................................ 119
Biography.................................................... 126
Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Director, Earth Science Division,
Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 126
Written Statement............................................ 128
Biography.................................................... 134
Ms. Dina Kruger, Director, Climate Change Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 134
Written Statement............................................ 136
Biography.................................................... 140
Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Deputy Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 140
Written Statement............................................ 142
Biography.................................................... 146
Dr. Albert J. Heber, Professor, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering Department, Purdue University
Oral Statement............................................... 146
Written Statement............................................ 147
Biography.................................................... 175
Discussion....................................................... 175
Climate Modeling Programs...................................... 175
Remote Sensing Data and Standards Coordination................. 176
Monitoring Resources........................................... 178
Regulating Carbon Credit Sources............................... 179
Baselines and Inventories...................................... 180
Skeptical Arguments............................................ 182
The Effects of Forest Degradation.............................. 186
Gaps in the National Observation Network....................... 187
More on Skeptical Arguments.................................... 188
Greenhouse Gas Measurement..................................... 189
Measuring in Second and Third World Nations.................... 191
Forestry and Ocean Acidification Issues........................ 192
Coordinating Data Collection................................... 194
Economic Considerations........................................ 196
The Human Contribution of Greenhouse Gases..................... 199
Closing........................................................ 201
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Alexander E. ``Sandy'' MacDonald, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes,
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.... 204
Dr. Beverly Law, Professor, Department of Forest Ecosystems and
Society; Science Chair, AmeriFlux Network, Oregon State
University..................................................... 212
Dr. Richard A. Birdsey, Project Leader and Scientist, USDA Forest
Service; Chair, Carbon Cycle Scientific Steering Group......... 214
Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Director, Earth Science Division,
Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).......................................... 217
Ms. Dina Kruger, Director, Climate Change Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Environmental Protection Agency.......... 221
Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Deputy Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.......... 224
Dr. Albert J. Heber, Professor, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering Department, Purdue University...................... 227
HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE EMITTING? MONITORING, REPORTING, AND
VERIFYING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
How Do We Know What
We Are Emitting? Monitoring,
Reporting, and Verifying
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
tuesday, february 24, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On February 24, 2009, the House Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing
entitled ``How Do We Know What We Are Emitting? Monitoring, Reporting,
and Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' The purpose of the hearing is
to determine the federal role in supporting research and development of
monitoring technologies, emissions factors, models, and other tools
necessary to support reliable accounting of baseline greenhouse gas
emissions and changes in emissions relative to the baseline under a
regulatory program for greenhouse gases.
The Subcommittee will receive testimony on the procedures and
methods used to monitor, report, and verify greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from businesses, government agencies, and localities and to
identify the challenges associated with accounting for emissions
associated with different activities. The Subcommittee will also
receive testimony on whether opportunities exist to improve the
technologies, models, or other methods used to track greenhouse gases.
Witnesses
Mr. John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office. Mr. Stephenson
will discuss the systems designed to track greenhouse gas
emissions from businesses and government agencies and the
strengths and limitations of the information provided by
existing greenhouse gas emission registries and the use of this
information in a GHG regulatory system.
Ms. Jill Gravender, Vice President for Policy, The
Climate Registry. The Climate Registry is a nonprofit
organization that establishes standards for businesses and
governments to calculate, verify, and publicly report
greenhouse gas emissions into a single registry. Ms. Gravender
will discuss the general approach The Climate Registry has
taken to develop protocols that both bring consistency to
emissions reporting and provide assurance that the values
reported by members are robust.
Ms. Leslie Wong, Director of Greenhouse Gas Programs,
Waste Management, Inc. Ms. Wong will discuss Waste Management's
efforts to develop a corporate-wide greenhouse gas emission
inventory and the company's participation in the California
Climate Action Registry, the Western Climate Initiative, and
the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Mr. Rob Ellis, Greenhouse Gas Program Manager,
Advanced Waste Management Systems, Inc. Mr. Ellis will discuss
Advanced Waste Management Systems' role in verifying the
information reported to greenhouse gas registries, such as The
Climate Registry.
Background
In order to develop a framework to address greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, it is essential to have a credible system for monitoring,
reporting, and verifying GHG emissions. Accurate accounting of
emissions is used to project changes in the concentration of GHGs in
the atmosphere (inventories) and to determine emission contributions
from specific sources (registries). Inventories of GHGs provide
information about the net emissions within political or geographic
boundaries (states, nations or continents) or within economic sectors
containing many individual entities (e.g., transportation,
manufacturing, power generation). GHG registries provide information
about the emissions from specific entities within sectors (e.g.,
individual companies, towns, or universities) or the emissions
associated with specific projects (e.g., under the Clean Development
Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol). This hearing will concentrate on
information reported to GHG registries.
Measurement, reporting and verification are the backbone of a cap-
and-trade or any other GHG control scheme. In a cap and trade system,
permits to emit GHG's are considered commodities and their price is
established by trading these commodities on the GHG market. Incorrect
emissions data can undermine a program's legitimacy and effectiveness.
Also, determination of the baseline emissions is essential to defining
the emissions cap and to allocating allowances under a cap and trade
system. A successful market-based GHG control scheme will need a fair,
robust, and accurate monitoring, reporting, and verifying system,
thereby ensuring that emissions reductions have, in fact, occurred.
Measuring Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions can be quantified by measuring emissions
of greenhouse gases\1\ directly or by estimating emissions using other
information such as fossil fuel combustion. Estimation is used more
often than direct measurement and is the principle means used to
support the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Emissions
are calculated by multiplying measurable activities such as fuel usage,
with an emissions factor which is a numerical constant that links
estimated emissions to a measurable activity that causes the emissions
to occur.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The six greenhouse gases are: Carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6).
\2\ Office of Policy and International Affairs, United States
Department of Energy. Technical Guidelines: Voluntary Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases (1605(b) ) Program. January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions levels may also be quantified through mass balance
calculations. For example, if two kilograms of the greenhouse gas HFC-
134a was injected into an automobile air conditioner and years later
the remaining kilogram is removed, then one can assume that the other
kilogram was emitted into the atmosphere.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Office of Policy and International Affairs, United States
Department of Energy. Technical Guidelines: Voluntary Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases (1605(b) ) Program. January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions can be directly measured. On type of measurement device
is a continuous emissions monitor (CEM). CEMs are rare in the European
Union, but in the United States they are used to monitor carbon dioxide
(CO2), sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions for entities
regulated under the acid rain program of Title IV of the Clean Air Act.
CEMs continuously monitor the flue gas emitted from coal, oil, and
natural gas power generating units (over 25 MW) and some large
manufacturing facilities. While the Clean Air Act does not currently
regulate CO2, the reporting provision has given utilities
and other combustion sources experience in monitoring CO2
emissions and a baseline of information on CO2 emissions.
Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The information provided by different registries varies with
respect to the gases monitored, the time period for reporting, the
specific reporting protocols, and the data verification required of
participants in the registry. For each registry the goal is to ensure
that all entities are able to produce consistent and robust emissions
data that will enable comparisons to be made from one reporting period
to the next.
In the United States, there are several GHG registries that support
reporting requirements for State and regional programs. At the federal
level, there are currently two voluntary reporting programs, The
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Climate Leaders Program and
the Department of Energy's Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
Program or the 1605(b) program. EPA is expected to issue a notice of
proposed rule-making for a mandatory GHG reporting program very soon.
Over the past few years, states and regions have established
policies to qualify and control GHGs. The California Climate Action
Registry (CCAR) tracks emissions associated with specific entities and
activities in California, and The Climate Registry compiles information
on annual emissions from each member of the registry. Participation in
The Climate Registry is voluntary, and The Registry has members
throughout North America. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) a GHG
emissions trading market also provides a framework for reporting
emissions from entities participating in the Exchange to its registry.
Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In order to ensure consistency and quality of reported emissions
information, a GHG registry will often require third-party verification
of the reported emissions. During a verification audit, the verifier
will check that the proper procedures, emissions inputs, use of
emissions factors, etc., adhere to the registry's guidelines.
Verifiers themselves are accredited by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI evaluates verifiers by assessing
whether they have the technical expertise to perform verifications, are
knowledgeable about monitoring, reporting, and verification protocols,
including the international standard (ISO 14065) and the protocols of
the specific registries they will work with.
Chair Baird. Good morning and thank you all for joining us.
I especially want to welcome the students who are here. This is
the senior class from Herndon, Virginia, do I understand?
Welcome to our Science and Technology Subcommittee hearing, and
we are glad you are all here. Make yourself at home. We will
fit these kids in so they can see a little bit of this hearing
because it is on a topic I think is of great importance to
their future. I am particularly pleased to be able to chair
this subcommittee and excited to be able to work with Mr.
Inglis who is a good friend and with whom I have had the
privilege of traveling to look at some of the effects of
climate change.
By the way, Bob, my take, and you will hear this a lot on
this committee this year, is I am no longer going to refer to
what we are talking about as climate change because it is
actually in my judgment lethal overheating of the planet and
acidification of our oceans. You will hear this a lot from me,
but climate change sounds nice. Change you can believe in just
helped elect the President, and global warming sounds like a
good thing. We like to be warm. But I hate to be overheated,
and acidification of the ocean is actually also happening. I
raised that, and actually we have the sad news today,
apparently a rocket malfunctioned carrying a carbon-observing
satellite and caused that satellite to go into the ocean
instead of space earlier this morning. It was a big setback for
us scientifically. The other side, maybe the satellite knows
something we don't, and it realizes that part of the carbon
problem is in the ocean and we need to spend more attention
there. That is looking on the bright side. Of course, it will
be worthless to us there.
This is an important hearing, and it is going to give us an
opportunity to examine the quality of the information being
collected on the emission of greenhouse gases. A number of
states have established programs to address climate change,
lethal overheating, and to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions. Over 130 nations will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark
this coming December. This is an incredibly important meeting
to negotiate a new agreement to control greenhouse gas
emissions. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the
Senate have stated their intention to develop legislation to
regulate greenhouse gases. And the Environmental Protection
Agency is planning to release a federal register notice soon to
establish a mandatory greenhouse gas reporting system.
However, in order to evaluate programs, either mandatory or
voluntary, for controlling greenhouse gases, we must be able to
track emissions accurately. We need an accurate measurement of
baseline emissions. We need to know the emissions levels we are
starting from, and we need a good baseline estimate as a
benchmark to determine whether control programs are effective
or not in reducing emissions.
We have experience and technologies to monitor emissions
from utilities that we gained through the acid rain program
under Title IV of the Clean Air Act. However, there are many
more entities that need to be monitored under a greenhouse,
ocean acidification gas control program and some of these
organizations have to initiate new programs to track emissions
accurately.
If we are going to develop a program to control greenhouse
and ocean acidification gas emissions, we need to start
developing tools that will enable regulated entities to track
their emissions using methods that are accurate and that are
not overly burdensome.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses today here to tell
us about how this could work. All of our witnesses bring
extraordinary expertise. I look forward to their testimony and
to their recommendations on how we can ensure that information
on greenhouse and ocean acidification gas emissions provides a
reliable measure of emission sources and of the effectiveness
of policies we may put in place to control the emissions.
[The prepared statement of Chair Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Brian Baird
Good morning and welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment in the 111th Congress. I am looking forward
to working with all of you over the next two years.
This morning's hearing provides us with an opportunity to examine
the quality of the information that is being collected on the emissions
of greenhouse gases. A number of states have established programs to
address climate change and to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Over 130 nations will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark this coming December
to negotiate a new agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have
stated their intention to develop legislation to regulate greenhouse
gases. And, the Environmental Protection Agency is planning to release
a Federal Register notice soon to establish a mandatory greenhouse gas
reporting system.
In order to evaluate programs--either mandatory or voluntary--for
controlling greenhouse gases, we must be able to track emissions
accurately. We need an accurate measurement of baseline emissions. We
need to know the emissions levels we are starting from and we need a
good baseline estimate as a benchmark to determine whether control
programs are effective or not in reducing emissions.
We have experience and technologies to monitor emissions from
utilities that we gained through the acid rain program under Title IV
of the Clean Air Act. However, there are many more entities that need
to be monitored under a greenhouse gas control program and some of
these organizations have to initiate new programs to track their
emissions accurately.
If we are going to develop a program to control greenhouse gas
emissions, we need to start developing tools that will enable regulated
entities to track their emissions using methods that are accurate and
that are not overly burdensome.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us here this morning
whose experience encompasses all three aspects of our hearing topic
today. I look forward to their testimony and to their recommendations
on how we can ensure that information on greenhouse gas emissions
provides a reliable measure of emission sources and of the
effectiveness of the policies we put in place to control these
emissions.
Chair Baird. With that, I would recognize my friend and
colleague, Mr. Inglis, for his opening statement.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all, let
me congratulate you on having the gavel in this committee. For
those of you who don't know, Dr. Brian Baird is really quite an
expert on the topics he was just speaking about and has taught
me a great deal. And I think it really is a great thing to have
you in the chair, and we look forward to working with you in a
collaborative fashion. You know, my view is that compromise is
not really what we want. That is a zero-sum game where somebody
has won and somebody else has papered over a loss.
Collaboration is where you draw the strengths from both
parties, and you figure out how to use those strengths to
produce something better than either party acting alone could
produce. And so that is the spirit that I think that Chairman
Baird brings to this committee and one that I also want to make
evident here.
And so I am excited about this first hearing in this
committee because I am hoping the panel, Mr. Chairman, is going
to help with an idea that we are working on in my office that I
have mentioned to you. It has to do with a revenue-neutral
carbon tax as perhaps a better idea than a cap-and-trade
system. Two problems with cap-and-trade, one is a massive tax
increase. Second, it has the vicissitudes of the prices of the
credits going up and down, up and down, traded by Wall Street
traders. I don't think that sounds too good in today's
environment. But a revenue-neutral carbon tax, transparent so
that we can see what the tax is, and revenue-neutral, which
starts with an equal, offsetting tax reduction--the payroll
tax--means that technology then has a source of funding. Reduce
the payroll tax and impose a price on carbon and now people
have money in their pocket to afford the new technology and to
drive into the energy market the kind of transformational
change that we saw with the Internet and the PC. What Microsoft
and Apple did for the Internet and the PC, I think the revenue-
neutral carbon tax can do for energy. It can make it so that
entrepreneurs and inventors get married at a certain point on
that line of that transparent carbon tax because there will be
clear price signals as to when they should marry and when they
should take out the incumbent technology.
So the reason that this hearing is relevant to that is that
we are also trying to figure out a way to make that so that it
does not punish American manufacturing, and the key to that is
perhaps a WTO compliant, and we are struggling to get it WTO
compliant but I think we can get there, border adjustment so
that when products come in from overseas, we are happy to have
them. It is just that we want to apply the same tax that we
have applied domestically to those imported goods. And one of
the key challenges there is figuring out how do you make that
fair adjustment. And if you can tell me some scientific way
that we can judge the carbon output, or I should say carbon
input, into those products that are being imported, and
particularly if it is something mathematical, some easy way of
doing that--of course that easy part may be a little bit
difficult--but if there was some way to project what is the
carbon footprint of imported goods and then apply it equally to
domestically produced goods so that then you really are looking
at the spirit of WTO compliance, and perhaps we can work it
into technical compliance as well with WTO rules.
So I am excited about this hearing because I am hoping you
have some insights into that and how this monitoring might--
that the measuring devices that you are talking about may help
us as we try to figure out a way to measure the carbon
footprint of goods produced and imported here. It is a key part
of this revenue-neutral carbon tax concept. It is also one of
the more complicated parts of it because the last thing we want
is to have American manufacturing subject to this and say the
developing world exempt from it. That results simply in the
export of American manufacturing capacity, and that is why
Kyoto failed 96 to nothing in the U.S. Senate.
So we can improve on that if we collaborate, and I am happy
to be next to my friend, Dr. Baird, here on the Committee and
hope that we can collaborate and look forward to learning from
this panel today, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Thank you for holding this, the first Energy and Environment
Subcommittee hearing of the 111th Congress, Mr. Chairman. This
committee has a long-standing reputation for bipartisanship and
cooperation, and I look forward to carrying on that tradition with you
in this subcommittee.
Last summer, the cap and trade bill withered in the Senate. By
itself, cap and trade is a massive tax increase. That's not such a good
idea in the midst of this economic downturn.
A better solution is to put a price on carbon, and give the
consumer a way to pay for it. All it will take is a simple carbon tax
coupled with an equal, offsetting reduction in payroll taxes. We need
to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and
reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs).
Improving our ability to monitor emissions will help us push
industry, utilities, and manufacturers, to finally internalize the
external costs of carbon emissions. A carbon tax would attach the
national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like
oil, and cause the market to recognize the price of these negative
externalities. That, in turn, can lead us to improve our efficiency in
energy and manufacturing production, create new jobs in a competitive
clean energy market, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I'm excited about this hearing, because it gives us a glimpse of
the tremendous opportunity we have as a country to jump-start a new
energy economy. I'm eager to hear from our witnesses today, and would
invite their thoughts on how to monitor and verify emissions in
international countries like China and India.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis, for your comments. If
there are other Members of the Committee who want to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today and thank
you to our panelists for their testimony.
The issue of regulating Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) is particularly
timely as Congress begins to consider wide-sweeping climate change
legislation during the 111th session. To ensure the success of a cap
and trade system, permits for GHGs must be accurately reported and
assigned a fair price in order to establish a functioning market.
Incorrect emissions data can undermine a program's legitimacy and
effectiveness.
As we all know, climate change is not just a phenomenon unique to
the United States, it is a global problem. It is integral that our own
system of calculating and reporting emissions be established and
precise, not only to ensure its success, but also to effectively
coordinate the framework and structure with other international
standards.
Many energy industries in the U.S. and around the world are in
flux-waiting, relying on Congress to address the incredibly important
policy issue of global warming. It is imperative that the measurements
and standards upon which we base our policies are thoughtfully
considered and accurate. I believe this hearing is a step towards that
end.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for my time and I look forward to hearing
from the panel.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
For any policy regarding cap and trade of greenhouse gas emissions,
we must have good information on how to measure these emissions.
Measurement, reporting, and verification truly are the backbone of
a cap and trade or any other greenhouse gas control scheme.
In addition, we need to be able to determine baseline emissions, so
that we can then define appropriate emissions caps. Only then can we
properly allocate allowances under a cap and trade system.
The Science Committee has an important role to play here. Hearings
like today's will help inform us and give us a sense of the issues to
be considered that will be the foundation of any greenhouse gas-
reducing policy.
The witnesses who will join us are true subject experts. It is my
hope that they can provide Subcommittee Members with good information
that is based on science.
I want to commend Chairman Baird for holding this hearing.
While I anticipate that we may get into some pretty technical
details on just how these emissions are quantified, this is just the
kind of information we need.
Many of the Members of the Science Committee are themselves
scientists.
Many Members of this subcommittee, like me, represent energy
producing states. We care deeply about this issue and have a strong
stake in the proceedings.
We recognize that the Federal Government has some voluntary
reporting repositories for greenhouse gas emissions.
Also, some states are moving toward mandatory reporting
requirements for such emissions.
I am interested to know the witnesses' opinions of the two federal
voluntary reporting programs: the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Climate Leaders Program and the Department of Energy's
Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program or the 1605(b) program.
EPA is expected to issue a notice of proposed rule-making for a
mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program soon.
Mr. Chairman, as a nurse, I am concerned about the effect that
global warming could have on our world food supply. I am concerned that
the ice caps at the Earth's poles are melting. I am concerned that
devastating storms like Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike are damaging
Texas and other gulf states with increasing frequency.
Greenhouse gas emissions are at the root of many of these problems.
We cannot delay in implementing science-based policies to mitigate
these harms.
The United States must demonstrate leadership on this issue. Only
then will other nations move toward positive changes regarding
greenhouse gas emissions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Baird. At this point I would like to introduce our
witnesses. Mr. John Stephenson is the Director of Natural
Resources and Environment at the Government Accountability
Office. Ms. Jill Gravender is the Vice President for Policy at
The Climate Registry. Ms. Leslie Wong is the Director of
Greenhouse Gas Programs at Waste Management, Inc., and Mr. Rob
Ellis is the Greenhouse Gas Program Manager at Advanced Waste
Management Systems, Inc.
As our witnesses know, you will each have five minutes for
your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included
in the record for the hearing, and when you have all completed
your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each
Member of the panel here will have five minutes to question,
and we appreciate again your presence here and look forward to
your input. We will start with Mr. Stephenson.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and other Members of
the Subcommittee. I am here today to talk about the importance
of developing reliable emissions data for carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases. In other words, we must know how many
tons of such gases are actually released into the atmosphere by
power plants, industrial facilities, and thousands of other
emitting sources, and be able to measure the changes in those
emissions over time before we can successfully institute any
market-based mitigation scheme such as cap-and-trade or the tax
program we just heard about that would create a price for all
six primary greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
methane, and the three synthetic gases.
It is important to note that the data needs, whether
emissions on a facility-specific basis or emissions on an
economy-wide basis, depend on the point at which the program
regulates emissions, that is, whether the program attempts to
regulate a small number of up-stream emitters such as fossil
fuel producers and importers or, instead, a much larger number
of downstream emitters such as individual industrial
facilities.
For example, an upstream program for carbon dioxide would
likely regulate fewer than 3,000 sources and cover virtually
all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, whereas a
downstream program would regulate about 10,000 large emitters,
like power plants, and cover only about half of the total
carbon emissions. In general, the challenges in establishing
baseline emissions data, as well as in monitoring, reporting,
and verifying those emissions over time will increase as the
number of regulated entities' activities and greenhouse gases
increase. Upstream programs would generally have less complex
data requirements than downstream programs. The U.S. has
economy-wide fuel use data which could be used for an upstream
program, but this would not be suitable for facility-level
emissions data needed for a downstream program.
The U.S. also has facility-specific data for carbon dioxide
emissions, as you mentioned, for coal-fired power plants, but
such data is not available for other greenhouse gases or other
industry sectors. Experiences with existing cap-and-trade
programs demonstrate the criticality of quality emissions data.
For example, the U.S. has, since 1995, operated a highly
successful cap-and-trade program to limit the emissions of
sulfur dioxide, not a greenhouse gas but a pollutant that
causes acid rain. The Acid Rain Program has been successful
largely because regulated entities are required to routinely
monitor, report and verify emissions. On the other hand, as we
reported in November 2008, the European trading scheme has been
less successful largely because of the lack of quality
emissions data, causing an inaccurate allocation of allowances
in the beginning and the price of a ton of carbon to plummet to
zero.
It is important to note that the EU program is attempting
to regulate only one greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, in only
one industry sector, the power sector. Data on emissions for
other greenhouse gases in sectors such as methane from
landfills, nitrous oxide from agricultural operations, is far
less refined than that for carbon dioxide. Determining
emissions of these gases will be more challenging due to
limited historical monitoring and a lack of reliable emissions
factors. Nevertheless, comprehensive reliable emissions data
for all greenhouse gases in all sectors will be essential for
any market-based mitigation scheme, whether cap-and-trade or
tax currently being debated in the Congress.
There are some existing emissions inventories and
registries, and you will hear about some today, that provides a
starting point for understanding the challenges in establishing
baselines and tracking emissions over time. For example, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains an official U.S.
emissions inventory to meet our commitments to the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change. This inventory uses
models to estimate emissions at the national and the industry
sector level and would not be suitable for a downstream cap-
and-trade system. Several private and non-profit efforts also
provide data collection services. For example, the World
Resources Institute Greenhouse Gas Protocol is a widely used
international accounting system for quantifying and managing
greenhouse gas emissions, and it has developed accounting and
reporting standards that are compatible with most inventory
programs. In addition, The Climate Registry that you will hear
about next includes standards for emissions monitoring and for
reporting those emissions through its website. The Chicago
Climate Exchange also has emissions reduction and trading
scheme and requires its participants to use specific protocols
to establish emissions baselines and track progress toward
emissions reduction goals. But none of these inventories or the
registry is at the scope or complexity contemplated for a
nationwide program.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we believe this hearing
highlights a critical element of the climate change debate, the
need to develop high-quality emissions baselines for all
greenhouse gases in all sectors and the ability to monitor,
report, and verify future emissions against those baselines.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes my statement. I would
be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John B. Stephenson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the importance of high
quality data on greenhouse gas emissions in the development and
implementation of programs intended to address climate change. In
recent years, key scientific assessments have underscored the
importance of reducing or stabilizing emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases--including methane, nitrous oxide, and several
synthetic gases--to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, global temperatures have
already risen 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the 20th
century--with much of this warming occurring in the last 30 years--and
temperatures will likely rise at least another two degrees Fahrenheit,
and potentially more than 11 degrees, over the next 100 years. Most
scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused
primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This warming will cause significant
changes in sea level, ecosystems, and ice cover, among other impacts.
In the Arctic region, temperatures have increased almost twice as much
as the global average, and the landscape is changing rapidly. Figure 1
below identifies the contribution of carbon dioxide emissions, the most
prevalent greenhouse gas, from various sources in the United States.
The Congress is currently considering various proposals to address
or mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, including actions to
limit greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, most debate over
mitigation options generally focuses on market-based programs--such as
carbon tax or cap-and-trade system--that would create a price on
emissions of greenhouse gases. For either program, the point of
regulation may occur (1) ``upstream'' and cover sources of carbon
dioxide when they first enter the economy, such as fossil fuel
producers; (2) ``downstream'' and cover direct and indirect emitters,
such as power plants; or (3) at a combination of upstream and
downstream sources.
In general, under a cap-and-trade program, the government would
limit the overall amount of greenhouse gas emissions from regulated
entities. These entities would need to hold allowances for their
emissions, and each allowance would entitle them to emit a specific
amount of a greenhouse gas. Under such a program, the government could
sell the allowances, give them away, or some combination of the two.
Firms that find ways to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to below
their allowed limit could sell their excess allowances to firms that
emit more than their limits, effectively creating a market for
allowance trading and establishing a price for a ton of emissions based
on supply and demand.
Another possible mitigation policy is a tax on greenhouse gas
emissions. A tax would establish a direct price on emissions by levying
a charge on every ton of carbon dioxide emitted, creating an economic
incentive for emitters of greenhouse gases to decrease their emissions
by, for example, using fossil fuels more efficiently. Unlike a cap-and-
trade program, a tax would provide more certainty as to the cost of
emitting greenhouse gas emissions, but the precise effect of the tax in
reducing emissions would depend on the extent to which producers and
consumers respond to higher prices.
In discussing the emissions data required for a climate change
mitigation program, it also is useful to distinguish between emissions
inventories and emissions registries. Emissions inventories aggregate
emissions data on a high level--for example, by state, industrial
sector or country. Inventories generally account for greenhouse gases
emitted and removed from the atmosphere over a specific timeframe. An
emissions registry, on the other hand, is a tool for collecting,
verifying, and tracking emissions data from individual facilities or
projects. Because registries can serve a variety of purposes, their
structures may vary substantially. For example, registries may vary in
terms of the gases monitored, the timing of data collection, and the
method of data verification.
In this context, my testimony today discusses (1) the need for high
quality data on emissions in the context of a program intended to limit
greenhouse gas emissions, and (2) key considerations in developing
reliable data on greenhouse gas emissions. This testimony is based on
our previously issued work and a review of relevant literature.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We conducted our work in accordance with all sections of GAO's
Quality Assurance Framework that were subject to the objectives of each
engagement. The framework requires that we plan and perform each
engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our
stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We
believe that the information and data obtained, and the analyses
conducted, provided a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions
in these reports.
High Quality Emissions Data Are Critical to the Integrity of Programs
Intended to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The domestic and international experiences with market-based air
pollution control and climate change programs demonstrate that
comprehensive and accurate information on emissions is critical to a
program's success. Since 1995, the United States has operated a cap-
and-trade program to limit sulfur dioxide emissions, an air pollutant
that contributes to acid rain, from electric utilities. Under Title IV
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, this program has reduced
sulfur dioxide emissions by capping total emissions, distributing
allowances to emit sulfur dioxide through a combination of free
allocation and auctions, and allowing electric utilities to buy and
sell allowances as needed to cover their emissions.
Prior GAO reports and independent studies have shown that strong
data collection, monitoring, reporting, and verification requirements
have been central to this program's success. First, with respect to
setting a baseline level of emissions from regulated entities, the
program relied on data spanning several years rather than any one year
in particular. Specifically, it used historical average emissions from
1985 to 1987 as the baseline against which to measure reductions
required to begin in 1995 and 2000. The use of historical data reduced
the covered entities' incentive to increase emissions prior to the
program's establishment to obtain a greater allowance allocation--the
baseline years occurred too far before the announcement of the
program.\2\ Averaging these data across several years also helped to
ensure that the baseline reflected changes in emissions that can result
in a given year due to economic and other conditions. As a result, the
program achieved greater assurances that it reduced emissions from
historical levels. In addition, electricity generating units regulated
under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are required to
monitor and report their sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and carbon
dioxide emissions, among other data. The monitoring and reporting
requirement has ensured a high degree of compliance and overall program
integrity. It is important to note that regulating a single pollutant,
such as sulfur dioxide, from a largely homogeneous population of
electric utilities is less complicated than monitoring, reporting, and
verifying emissions of up to six different greenhouse gases from
diverse types of facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See GAO, Air Pollution: Allowance Trading Offers an Opportunity
to Reduce Emissions at Less Cost, GAO/RCED-95-30 (Washington, D.C.:
Dec. 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Union also has experience implementing a cap-and-trade
program that illustrates the importance of quality data in a market-
based system. As discussed in our November 2008 report, the European
Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) relies on a cap-and-trade model
similar to that used in the U.S. acid rain program.\3\ The ETS began
with a learning period--phase I--to gain experience with emissions
trading from 2005 to 2007. Phase I included approximately 11,000
electric power and industrial installations in 25 member states, which
accounted for about half of the EU's carbon dioxide emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See GAO, International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned
from the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto
Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, GAO-09-151 (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 18, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the first phase provided key lessons about emissions trading,
its cumulative effect on emissions is uncertain because of a lack of
baseline emissions data. In the first phase, each EU member state had
to identify which entities to regulate under the ETS (such as power
plants, oil refineries, and other manufacturing facilities), obtain
baseline emissions data for the covered entities, establish an
emissions cap, and determine how many allowances to distribute to each
covered entity. At the time, most member states had high-level,
aggregated estimates on carbon dioxide emissions that accounted for
sources within and outside the scope of the ETS, but did not have
baseline data on a facility-specific basis. This facility-specific data
was necessary to determine both the total emissions released by all
entities covered under the ETS--a downstream program--as well as how
many allowances each particular entity would need to cover its annual
emissions. In addition, some member states had limited authority to
collect data because they did not yet have in place a national law or
regulation mandating submission of emissions data. Accordingly, member
states based their emissions caps and allocation decisions on business-
as-usual emissions projections and baseline data voluntarily submitted
by covered entities.
The inherent uncertainty about business-as-usual projections--i.e.,
how actual emissions compare to the emissions that would have occurred
in the absence of the ETS--was compounded by the assumptions underlying
the models used by member states to forecast emissions. The models
incorporated assumptions about factors that influence business-as-usual
emissions projections, such as economic growth and relative fuel
prices. Some member states made relatively optimistic assumptions about
economic growth, which resulted in higher projections of emissions. As
such, while the first phase provided key lessons about emissions
trading, the lack of facility-specific baseline data means its
cumulative effect on emissions is uncertain.
The lack of facility-specific baseline data also affected the price
of ETS allowances. Under the ETS, covered entities are required to
report emissions data that have been verified by third parties to their
member states. In 2006, the release of emissions data revealed that the
supply of allowances--the cap--exceeded the demand, and the allowance
price collapsed. This illustrated the problems that can arise when a
program relies on poor baseline emissions data and highlighted the need
for accurate baseline data in setting an effective emissions cap and
achieving the intended environmental objectives. See Figure 2 for a
graph displaying the allowance price trends in phase I.
As we reported in our prior work on lessons learned from the
international climate change programs, many experts participating on a
panel we assembled in cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences
would not expect the United States to encounter the data challenges
experienced in the EU's first trading phase because some baseline
emissions data are already available.\4\ Several experts also stated
that existing data on fossil fuel consumption are sufficient to
establish an emissions trading program. These data can be used to
estimate economy-wide carbon dioxide emissions as well as facility-
specific data on carbon dioxide emissions from certain industrial
sectors, such as power plants that have participated in the U.S. sulfur
dioxide emissions trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See GAO-09-151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collecting and reporting emissions data can also provide benefits
beyond ensuring the integrity and results achieved through a greenhouse
gas reduction program. Such data can be used by researchers to analyze
environmental conditions and trends, create atmospheric and economic
models, and provide early warning of potential environmental problems.
It can also help inform and direct environmental management efforts.
The availability of emissions data may aid strategic planning in the
private sector, enabling individual firms to make better-informed
decisions pertaining to capital investments and energy use. Because
many states, municipalities, and private firms have established
voluntary climate goals, emissions data will enable these organizations
to assess progress and better account for performance. Finally, the
availability of emissions data can provide a consistent and transparent
basis for comparison between countries, industries, and individual
firms and enhance public understanding of emissions sources.
Collecting Reliable Data on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Involves Key
Considerations
Monitoring, reporting, and verification needs for reliable data on
greenhouse gas emissions depend first on the purpose and intended use
of the data; for example, the data required for a mandatory program to
limit emissions may vary substantially from that required for a
business or governmental entity that voluntarily tracks its emissions
for public relations or other purposes.
First, as we have previously reported, the scope of a data
collection effort--i.e., monitoring, reporting, and verification
activities--is determined by the program's point of regulation. An
upstream mitigation program would affect a relatively small population
of regulated entities, such as fuel importers and producers, whose
products could be less difficult to measure and report. The quantity of
emissions associated with those products could be calculated using
available emissions factors.\5\ Under a cap-and-trade program, each
importer or producer would have to hold an allowance for each ton of
carbon dioxide emissions associated with its products. Alternatively,
under an emissions tax, each regulated entity would have to pay the
government a pre-determined amount of money for each ton of emissions
associated with the combustion of its products. Under either system,
accurate reporting and verification of emissions would help ensure the
integrity of the program, and accurate and reliable baseline data would
be necessary to track progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to
relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an
activity associated with the release of that pollutant. These factors
are usually expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by a unit
weight, volume, distance, or duration of the activity emitting the
pollutant (e.g., kilograms of particulate emitted per megagram of coal
burned). Such factors facilitate estimation of emissions from various
sources of air pollution. See, for example, EPA's AP-42 emissions
factors, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, data collection, monitoring, and verification
requirements become more substantial under a downstream program because
it could affect a larger population of regulated entities, potentially
including industrial facilities, agricultural operations, mobile and
other fuel combustion sources, and users of refrigerants. Again, each
regulated entity would need to have accurate and reliable data on
historical and current emissions, and in some cases, gathering such
information would be relatively straightforward. For example,
electricity generating units regulated under Title IV of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 are required to monitor and report their carbon
dioxide emissions. However, other regulated entities may face greater
challenges in determining their emissions due to limited monitoring
data or a lack of reliable emissions factors.
Furthermore, the data requirements for a mitigation program become
more complex and challenging as the number and types of covered
activities increases.\6\ This challenge may be of particular concern in
a downstream program that covers emissions from diffuse sources. Of the
six primary greenhouse gases, emissions of some are better
characterized than others.\7\ For example, carbon dioxide emissions
from energy-related activities and cement processing are relatively
easy to estimate with a high degree of accuracy, whereas measuring the
emissions of other greenhouse gases stemming from other types of
activities is more challenging. Specifically, there may be insufficient
scientific understanding to develop a data collection methodology, data
may be incomplete or missing, or emissions factors may not be
sufficiently developed. For instance, nitrous oxide emissions occur
from the production of caprolactam--a chemical used to produce a
polymer--but there are currently not enough data on the production of
caprolactam to estimate these emissions in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See GAO-09-151.
\7\ See U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2006 (April 2008), http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/usinventoryreport.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases, existing emissions inventories and registries that
have been developed for a variety of purposes could help regulated
entities in meeting potential requirements to establish baseline
emissions levels and monitor, verify, and report their ongoing
emissions. For example, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency prepares an official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory each year to
comply with its commitments under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This inventory provides national
information on the activities that cause emissions and removals, as
well as background on the methods used to make the calculations. In
addition to the U.S. inventory, multi-state emissions reduction
programs, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a regulatory
program targeting reductions in carbon dioxide from electricity
generators, have developed emissions inventories to guide their
programs. Many individual states also prepare greenhouse gas
inventories using guidance provided by EPA. These existing inventories
and registries could assist in the development of a mandatory emissions
reduction program.
Other emissions inventories and registries developed by government
and private entities also provide a useful starting point for
understanding data requirements for establishing emissions baselines
and monitoring, verifying, and reporting greenhouse gas emissions.\8\
For example, the Department of Energy's Voluntary Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases Program encourages corporations, government agencies,
non-profit organizations, households, and other private and public
entities to annually report their greenhouse gas emissions, emission
reductions, and sequestration activities to a registry using consistent
standards.\9\ In addition, EPA's Climate Leaders Program, an EPA
industry-government partnership that works with companies to develop
comprehensive climate change strategies, has developed standards to
measure and monitor emissions reductions from certain types of
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pub. L. No. 110-161, tit. II, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2007)
directs EPA to develop a rule requiring mandatory reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy.
\9\ Sequestration activities refer to biological projects that pull
carbon dioxide out of the air by, for example, planting trees or
enhancing the management of agricultural soils, and geological projects
that capture and store carbon dioxide in underground formations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several private and nonprofit efforts also provide data collection
services. For example, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a widely-used
international accounting system for quantifying and managing greenhouse
gas emissions, has developed accounting and reporting standards that
are compatible with most greenhouse gas inventory programs.\10\ Another
effort, the Climate Registry, is a nonprofit collaboration involving
U.S. states and Canadian provinces that has developed standards to
calculate, verify, and report greenhouse gas emissions. Both voluntary
and mandatory programs can use the Climate Registry's standards and
publicly report their emissions through its website. Other private
initiatives, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a voluntary
emission reduction and trading system, requires participants to
establish emissions baselines and track their progress towards
emissions reduction goals. Emissions reductions through CCX must be
confirmed by an independent, third-party verifier. Finally, an entire
industry of companies exists to help companies track and monitor their
greenhouse gas emissions and many have developed protocols and best
practices for measuring baseline emissions levels and tracking
reductions. Many of these companies also provide external third-party
verification services to help industrial and other facilities ensure
the accuracy of their emissions accounting practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Greenhouse Gas Protocol was developed by the World
Resources Institute, a U.S. non-governmental organization, and the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a Geneva-based
coalition of 170 international companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have at this time.
Biography for John B. Stephenson
Mr. Stephenson is currently the Director of Natural Resource and
Environment issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office--the
independent investigative arm of the Congress. In that capacity, he has
for the past nine years directed numerous studies and research
projects, issued hundreds of reports, and testified on many occasions
before several Senate and House Committees. His work has provided
invaluable assistance to the Congress in its oversight and legislative
role on diverse environmental protection issues such as clean air,
clean water, safe drinking water, chemical controls, toxic substances,
climate change, superfund, and hazardous materials spill prevention and
cleanup, as well as critical infrastructure protection.
Prior to his current position, he led numerous GAO studies and
investigation in the information technology and federal acquisition and
federal grant areas. He has extensive experience in dealing with
Congressional Committees and Members, federal agencies, trade
associations, special interest groups, and State and local governments.
From April 1998-February 2000, he was Deputy Staff Director for the
Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem for the
Chairman (Senator Robert Bennett, R-UT), and Vice Chairman (Senator
Christopher Dodd, D-CT). In that capacity, he ran the day-to-day
operations of the Committee including orchestrating over 35 hearings,
preparing legislation, organizing briefings and floor activities for
the full Senate, working with the White House's Year 2000 Director and
staff, and organizing numerous press and public events. He returned to
GAO in March 2000 where he was executive assistant to the U.S.
Comptroller General (the head of GAO) until entering the Senior
Executive Service in October 2000.
Mr. Stephenson holds a BS degree in Industrial Management from
Purdue University, an MBA from Xavier University, and is a graduate of
the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Senior Executive Fellows
program. He lives in Fairfax Station, Virginia with his wife, 11-year-
old daughter, and 9-year-old son. He also has two grown sons who reside
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Chair Baird. Thank you. Ms. Gravender.
STATEMENT OF MS. JILL E. GRAVENDER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY,
THE CLIMATE REGISTRY
Ms. Gravender. Good morning Chair Baird and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today. As an organization committed to the
accurate and transparent reporting and verification of
greenhouse gas emissions, The Climate Registry is pleased to
brief the Subcommittee on these important topics.
First, I would like to provide a bit of background on The
Climate Registry. The Registry is a non-profit organization
created in a collaborative effort by North American states,
provinces, territories and Native Sovereign Nations. The
Registry is governed by a unique Board of Directors which today
consists of representatives from 41 U.S. states and the
District of Columbia, 12 Canadian provinces and territories,
six Mexican states, and four Native Sovereign Nations.
In the map that is projected before you, the participating
jurisdictions are highlighted in green.
The concept of The Registry took shape as states became
increasingly interested in taking progressive action on climate
change. They realized the opportunity to collaborate with one
another to create a unified North American Greenhouse Gas
Registry. As a result, The Registry's mission is to set
consistent and transparent standards to calculate, verify and
publicly report greenhouse gas emissions into a single North
American registry. The Registry supports both voluntary and
mandatory greenhouse gas programs and provides comprehensive
data to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. To
date, The Registry has more than 320 members representing large
Fortune 500 companies, electric utilities, municipalities,
colleges and universities, government agencies, and small
businesses. The Registry's voluntary greenhouse gas reporting
program is a rigorous initiative that requires its members to
report their corporate-wide emissions of all six Kyoto gases
from their operations throughout North America annually at the
facility level. This program is based on two important
international greenhouse gas accounting standards, namely, the
World Resource Institute/World Council for Sustainable
Development's Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the International
Standard for Greenhouse Gas Accounting, ISO 14064-1. These
standards are compatible and complementary and have become the
foundation for greenhouse gas accounting globally.
The Registry's General Reporting Protocol, or GRP, builds
upon these standards and provides specific direction on how to
assemble greenhouse gas inventories and answers common
questions such as, how do I report leased vehicles. Who reports
if there are multiple owners of a facility? And how do I treat
acquisitions? It is important to note that greenhouse gas
reporting is substantially different from reporting criteria
pollutants, which typically can be measured from smokestacks,
since greenhouse gas emissions are ubiquitous and come from
both large and small sources.
One of the most important aspects of The Registry's
voluntary program is its requirement of annual third-party
verification. Verification is a systematic, independent, and
documented process for evaluating the emissions report against
agreed-upon criteria. Verification is similar to an audit of
financial statements. It is an external attestation to the
quality and accuracy of reported information, and it creates
confidence that the data is accurate. The Registry's
verification and accreditation programs are also based on
international standards and are explained in more detail in my
written testimony.
Thus far, my testimony has focused on The Registry's
voluntary program. The Registry supports both voluntary and
mandatory greenhouse gas reporting programs. Many of the states
and provinces comprising The Registry's Board of Directors have
adopted or are in the process of adopting mandatory greenhouse
gas initiatives either individually or as part of regional
initiatives. The Registry is currently working with over 20
jurisdictions, including the states and provinces participating
in the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwestern Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Accord, to develop a common greenhouse gas data
collection platform to serve mandatory programs across North
America.
At the federal level, The Registry's Board of Directors
recently adopted a policy statement to articulate the role it
seeks for The Registry within a federal greenhouse gas
reporting program. This statement is also included in my
written testimony. In their statement, the Board of Directors
expressed their desire for The Registry to be viewed as a model
and a resource to support federal greenhouse gas registries.
The Subcommittee asked me to speak on the challenges and
opportunities associated with tracking greenhouse gas emissions
accurately. Before I do, I want to stress the fact that it is
indeed possible for most organizations to accurately account
for, report, and verify their emissions today. That said, there
are challenges to reporting, and they tend to fall into two
categories: organizational challenges and scientific
uncertainty. Organizational challenges generally occur due to a
lack of management systems specifically designed for greenhouse
gas data collection. Since greenhouse gases have not been
regulated before, many organizations do not have systems in
place to monitor and track these emissions. Scientific
uncertainty presents additional challenges to obtaining high-
quality data. Quantification methods for certain sources of
emissions either do not exist or contain high degrees of
uncertainty. My written testimony describes specific areas of
scientific uncertainty, the most notable of which is the
quantification of fugitive emissions of methane. In terms of
opportunities to improve the accuracy of greenhouse gas
reporting, our recommendations include updating emission
factors and quantification methods in a timely fashion,
developing industry-specific protocols, and improving
measurement technologies.
To conclude, The Registry was created to help organizations
answer the very question posed by this hearing today, how do we
know what we are emitting? Given the recent leadership of
individual states and regions, the U.S. is well-positioned to
think about emissions beyond the traditional smokestack
approach and to work across State and federal jurisdictional
lines to begin to tackle climate change in a new and
collaborative way, and The Registry is uniquely positioned to
help. We look forward to partnering with the Federal Government
to serve a larger role in supporting national and North
American greenhouse gas initiatives.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gravender follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jill E. Gravender
Good morning Chairman Baird and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today.
As an organization that is committed to consistent, accurate and
transparent reporting and verification of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, The Climate Registry (The Registry) is pleased to brief the
Subcommittee on these important topics today.
In my testimony, I will:
Provide an overview of The Registry and its voluntary
GHG reporting program,
Explain how The Registry is working to support
mandatory GHG reporting programs at the State/provincial,
regional, and federal levels,
Discuss challenges to obtaining quality emissions
data, and
Provide recommendations for research that could make
tracking and reporting of GHG emissions easier.
1. Overview
The Climate Registry is a non-profit organization, created in a
collaborative effort by North American states, provinces, territories
and Native Sovereign Nations. The Registry is governed by a Board of
Directors which today consists of representatives from 41 U.S. states
and the District of Columbia, 12 Canadian provinces and territories,
six Mexican states, and four Native Sovereign Nations. (See Appendix
A--Map of The Climate Registry's Board of Directors.)
The Registry's mission is to set consistent and transparent
standards to calculate, verify, and publicly report GHG emissions into
a single North American registry. The Registry supports both voluntary
and mandatory reporting programs and provides comprehensive, accurate
data to promote the reduction of GHG emissions.
To date, the Registry has more than 320 members--representing large
Fortune 500 companies, electric utilities, municipalities, colleges and
universities, government agencies and small businesses. The Registry
provides its members with a series of tools to help them successfully
prepare their GHG inventories This includes: trainings, informational
webinars, reporting and verification tips, a support hotline, and
access to our web-based user-friendly on-line reporting tool, the
Climate Registry Information System (CRIS).
1.1. Evolution of The Registry:
The evolution of The Registry is an interesting, important, and
unique one. Individual states began to take progressive action
themselves to help mitigate the negative impacts of climate change
several years ago. As states became increasingly interested in
developing voluntary GHG reporting programs to track GHG emissions at
the corporate level, they realized the opportunity to collaborate with
one another to create a single unified GHG registry to serve all of
North America. By working together they could create a centralized
repository of high quality, accurate, transparent, and consistently
verified GHG emissions inventories for the public.
2. The Registry's Voluntary GHG Reporting Program:
The Registry's voluntary GHG reporting program is a rigorous
initiative that provides companies, governments, and organizations with
the tools and technical guidance necessary to establish an accurate
entity-wide inventory of their GHG emissions.
The Registry's voluntary GHG reporting program is based on two
important and related international standards:
World Resources Institute/World Business Council for
Sustainable Development Corporate Greenhouse Gas Protocol,\1\
which was the first to document key principles and concepts for
corporate GHG accounting, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)/
World Resources Institute (WRI). Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate
Accounting and Reporting Standard, April 2004.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
standard for GHG accounting (ISO 14064-1)\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 14064-1:2006, Greenhouse gases--Part 1: Specification with
guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions and removals.
These ``standards'' are compatible and complementary, and have
become the foundation for GHG accounting globally. Both standards are
written at a conceptual level and do not provide all of the necessary
prescription for multiple organizations to compile comparable emissions
inventories.
As a result, a number of organizations developed ``GHG accounting
protocols'' based on these international standards to document specific
reporting rules and requirements to ensure that the resulting GHG data
would be consistent and comparable across organizations. The California
Climate Action Registry (the California Registry) was one of the first
organizations in the U.S. to translate the international standards into
specific program protocols.
The California Registry's rigorous reporting and verification
protocols became the basis for The Registry's protocols. Through a
public stakeholder process, The Registry expanded and improved the
California Registry's protocols to be applicable throughout North
America.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The California Registry requires organizations to report their
GHG emissions within the State of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Registry is now transitioning to become the Climate
Action Reserve, and will soon change its focus from entity level
inventory reporting to emission reduction projects. The Climate
Registry's voluntary GHG program will continue to serve as the premier
voluntary registry in North America.
2.1 Key Components to the Voluntary Reporting Program
The goal of The Registry's voluntary reporting program is to
provide high quality, consistent GHG emissions data to its members and
the public. This ``corporate-wide'' or ``entity-wide'' approach to
emissions reporting provides organizations with a comprehensive
understanding of their GHG emissions sources and the total impact their
operations have on the climate.
Corporations, organizations, and government agencies all
voluntarily choose to join the Registry's program. By doing so, these
organizations become Registry ``Members'' and commit to annually report
and verify their emissions footprint for North America.
Members join The Registry for multiple reasons, but primarily
because they are interested in:
A cost effective means to track/manage GHG emissions;
Access to software and technical support;
Documenting their early actions;
Preparing for mandatory State/federal reporting;
Educating employees on GHG emissions;
Gaining recognition as a global environmental leader;
Having a voice in the development of GHG policies.
By joining The Registry members agree to report the following:
``Entity-wide'' or ``corporate-wide'' emissions
across North America at the facility level;
Emissions of all six internationally-recognized GHGs
(carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride)--the six ``Kyoto
Gases'';
All direct emissions--stationary combustion, mobile
combustion, process and fugitive emissions (Scope 1);
All indirect emissions from purchased electricity,
steam, heating or cooling (Scope 2); and
Emission on a calendar year basis.
Additionally, members are able to attach optional information
(Scope 3 emissions, management plans, emission reduction goals) to
their annual emission report in CRIS.
The Registry requires all emission reports to be third-party
verified annually. Once The Registry reviews and accepts verified
emission reports, The Registry makes the reports available to the
public via CRIS.
2.2 The General Reporting Protocol
The basis of The Registry's voluntary reporting program is its
General Reporting Protocol (GRP), which assembles international GHG
accounting best practices into a user friendly document. Please refer
to: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf to view a copy
of the protocol.
The Registry's GRP was developed through an open public process
with input from businesses, environmental organizations, academics and
GHG protocol experts and interested members of the public. The Registry
intends to continue to refine the GRP over time in order to add clarity
and specificity and incorporate new developments in GHG science and
accounting methodologies.
The GRP contains policy guidance and GHG calculation methodologies
for major emission sources for most operations (stationary combustion,
mobile combustion, basic fugitive emissions, indirect emissions). Given
the wide spectrum of process emissions that result from different
industries, The Registry plans to develop industry specific protocols
to provide further guidance to various industries.\4\ Calculation
methodologies for process emission from several key industries are
included in Appendix E of the GRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Registry released two new draft protocols for a 30-day
public comment period on February 23, 2009: the Electric Sector
Protocol and the Local Government Operations Protocol. Copies of the
draft protocols and additional information can be found on:
www.theclimateregistry.org. The Registry is also currently working with
the Western Regional Air Partnership to develop a protocol for the oil
and gas exploration and production sector. This protocol will likely be
released for public comment later in 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The guidance in the GRP is rooted in the following GHG accounting
principles:
Relevance
Completeness
Consistency
Transparency
Accuracy
As a result, Registry members' annual emission reports contain
meaningful information to help organizations better understand their
GHG emissions. Since you cannot manage what you do not measure, this is
a critical first step in reducing GHG emissions.
The following program design elements help The Registry ensure the
accuracy and consistency of its GHG emission reports:
Defined reporting scope (boundaries)
Defined quantification methodologies
Transparent data quality ``Tiers''
Automated calculation and reporting tools
Rigorous third-party verification program
Defined Reporting Boundaries
In order to ensure consistent GHG data, the Registry requires
members to define the following boundaries:
Geographic Boundaries: Members must report their
North American emissions, and are encouraged to report their
worldwide emissions.
Organizational Boundaries: Members must identify the
legal entity that is responsible for reporting, and must also
determine an emissions consolidation method (control and equity
share or control only).
Operational Boundaries: Members must report their
Direct (Scope 1) and Indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Additional
indirect emissions (Scope 3) are optional.
Defining these boundaries transparently helps to ensure that end-
users understand the scope and content of the emission reports.
Defined Quantification Methodologies
Once sufficient boundaries are defined, members can quantify their
GHG emissions. In many instances the Registry provides multiple
quantification methodologies for a single source of emissions. In this
case, members may choose which quantification methodology makes the
most sense for their operations. The Registry approves the use of all
of the listed quantification methodologies contained in the GRP for its
voluntary program. The Registry allows for both calculation-based
quantification and measurement-based quantification of emissions.
Transparent Data Quality Tiers
The Registry uses a tiered quantification system to rank emission
quantification methodologies according to their level of accuracy. In
this system, ``Tier A'' designates the preferred, or most accurate,
approach for a given emissions source; ``Tier B'' represents an
alternative second-best approach; and ``Tier C'' represents the least
accurate, but still acceptable approach. In some instances, The
Registry defines multiple approaches to the same tier (A1, A2, etc.).
The Registry encourages members to use the highest tier possible for
all emission sources.
Automatic Calculation and Reporting
To ensure members consistently and accurately quantify their
emissions, The Registry developed sophisticated emission calculation
tools in its CRIS application. Members enter their raw activity data
(gallons of fuel use, kWh of electricity consumed, etc.), select the
appropriate built in calculation methodology in the system, and the
tool automatically calculates the relevant GHG emissions. This tool
eliminates calculation errors in the reporting process, and facilitates
reporting for members. In addition, CRIS contains built in quality
assurance checks that flag potential or existing problems with a
member's emission report.
2.3 The General Verification Protocol
The most important aspect of ensuring the consistency and accuracy
of data in The Registry's voluntary reporting program is its rigorous
verification program. Verification is the systematic, independent, and
documented process for the evaluation of a member's emission report
against agreed upon verification criteria. This process is similar to
an audit of financial statements--it is an external attestation to the
quality and accuracy of the reported emissions.
Third-party verification is necessary to provide confidence to
users (State regulatory agencies, native sovereign nation authorities,
investors, suppliers, customers, local governments, the public, etc.)
that the emissions data submitted to the Registry represents a
faithful, true and fair account of emissions--free of material
misstatements and conforming to the Registry's accounting and reporting
rules.
Third-party verification is becoming widely accepted for ensuring
accurate emissions data, and has been relied upon by several GHG
regulatory programs, including the European Union's Emissions Trading
System (EU ETS) and the United Kingdom's GHG Emissions Trading System.
The Registry's General Verification Protocol (GVP) contains the
verification criteria, policies and procedures that Verification Bodies
must comply with when conducting verification activities for Registry
members. (Please visit our website to view the GVP: http://
www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GVP.pdf)
The Registry's verification program is based on the international
standard for GHG verification (ISO 14064-3\5\ ), which outlines the
following key principles of verification:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ISO 14064-3:2006, Greenhouse gases--Part 3: Specification with
guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas
assertions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independence
Ethical Conduct
Fair Presentation
Due Professional Care
Verification Bodies must demonstrate and embody the above criteria
to successfully review and assess GHG emission reports. A Verification
Body is a firm that consists of technically competent and independent
personnel (Verifiers) who are knowledgeable about GHG emissions
inventories, management systems, and data and information auditing.
Since the credibility of a member's emission report is attested to
by a Verification Body, it is crucial that the Verification Body
provide an objective review of the emissions report. To ensure that no
organizational, personal, or case-specific conflicts exist between a
Verification Body and a member, The Registry developed a rigorous
Conflict of Interest (COI) process.
Verification Bodies must complete a case-specific COI assessment
prior to conducting any verification activities for a member. In some
instances, where potential or real conflicts do exist, Verification
Bodies must take steps to mitigate high COIs before the Registry will
allow verification activities to proceed. Any Verification Body that
determines that its risk for COI is anything other than low may not
provide verification services to that member. The Registry prohibits
Verification Bodies from providing GHG verification services for any
member for which the Verification Body has provided GHG consultancy
services, regardless of the point in time that these services occurred.
Four additional concepts play a key role in shaping The Registry's
verification program:
1. Risk-Based Approach to Verification: Given the
impossibility of assessing and confirming the accuracy of every
piece of GHG information in an emissions report, The Registry
adopted ISO 14064-3's risk-based approach to verification. This
approach directs Verification Bodies to focus their attention
on those data systems, processes, emissions sources and
calculations that pose the greatest risk of generating a
material misstatement.
2. Materiality: Verification Bodies use the concept of
materiality to determine if omitted or misstated GHG emissions
will lead to significant misrepresentation of a member's
emissions, thereby influencing conclusions or decisions made on
the basis of those emissions. Therefore, a material
misstatement is one where the error could affect the decisions
of intended users of the emissions report.
The Registry defines the materiality threshold for its
voluntary program at five percent (for both understatements and
overstatements) of a member's direct (Scope 1) and indirect
(Scope 2) emissions. The Registry requires Verification Bodies
to assess the accuracy of a member's direct and indirect
emissions separately. Therefore, a member's direct and indirect
emissions must both be deemed as accurate (within five percent)
for a Verification Body to issue a positive Verification
Statement.
3. Level of Assurance: The level of assurance a Verification
Body attaches to its verification findings dictates the
relative degree of confidence the Verification Body has in its
assessment of the reported data. The Registry requires its
Verification Bodies to provide a reasonable level of assurance
that an emission report is materially correct. A reasonable
level of assurance is considered to be the highest possible
level of confidence; absolute assurance is not attainable
because of factors such as the use of judgment and inherent
limitations of control.
4. Inherent Uncertainty: For purposes of its voluntary
reporting program, The Registry defines inherent uncertainty as
the uncertainty associated with 1) the inexact nature of
calculating GHG emissions (metering equipment, emission
factors, etc.).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Inherent uncertainty also applies to the inexact nature of the
calculations associated with the Registry's permitted use of simplified
estimation methods (for up to five percent of a member's emissions).
The Registry does not include inherent uncertainty in a
Verification Body's assessment of materiality. Therefore, for The
Registry's voluntary program, when determining the accuracy of an
emissions report, a Verification Body must focus their attention on the
completeness of the emissions inventory, the use of appropriate
calculation methods, the mathematical accuracy of the calculations, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a member's adherence to The Registry's programmatic requirements.
Core Verification Activities
In order to attest to the accuracy of an emissions report, a
Verification Body must complete the following five core verification
activities:
1. Assess conformance with The Registry's reporting and
verification requirements;
2. Assess the completeness of the emission report;
3. Perform a risk assessment based on a review of information
systems and controls;
4. Develop a sampling plan (identify records to be reviewed
and facilities to be visited);
5. Evaluate the GHG emissions, information systems and
controls against The Registry's criteria (five percent
materiality threshold).
Verification Documentation
At the end of the verification process, a Verification Body must
produce two documents: 1) a Verification Report that summarizes their
verification activities and findings, and 2) a Verification Statement
that attests to the member's compliance with the Registry's reporting
and verification requirements.
2.4 Accreditation Program
To ensure the competence of the Verification Bodies in The
Registry's program, The Registry adopted the international standard for
accrediting GHG Verification Bodies (ISO 14065\7\ ) and further defined
specific Registry requirements in additional to this standard. Through
this process, Verification Bodies must demonstrate that they are
independent, impartial, and competent to conduct GHG verifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ISO 14065-2007, Greenhouse gas--Requirements for greenhouse gas
validation and verification bodies for use in accreditation or other
forms of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Registry's Guidance on Accreditation (GoA) describes the
details of The Registry's accreditation requirements. It is located on
The Registry's website: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/
GoA.pdf.
Since ISO standards are implemented by national Accreditation
Bodies, The Registry plans to partner with each of the three national
Accreditation Bodies in North America\8\ to carry out its accreditation
program. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the national
Accreditation Body in the U.S., is the first Accreditation Body to
partner with The Registry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The North American Accreditation Bodies consist of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) in the U.S., the Standards Council
of Canada (SCC) in Canada, and Entidad Mexicana de Accreditacion (EMA)
in Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through this partnership, ANSI manages a rigorous review of all
interested Verification Bodies in an effort to assess each firm's
independence, impartiality and competence. This process includes a
review of a Verification Body's internal management systems, an
assessment of the competency of their staff, and an on-site assessment
of a Verification Body's ability to successfully complete the
verification activities required by the Registry.
ISO 14065 details a series of requirements that Verification Bodies
must meet to become accredited to the standard. The standard includes
requirements for demonstrating:
Impartiality
Competency
Deployment and Management of Personnel
Communications and Records Retention
Verification processes
Appeals and complaint processes, and
Management system requirements.
In addition to the requirements above, Verification Bodies
interested in conducting verifications for members of The Registry must
also demonstrate their ability to meet twelve additional accreditation
criteria set forth by The Registry. The Registry participates in ANSI's
review process and additionally ``recognizes'' the ANSI-accredited
Verification Bodies deemed competent to conduct verification activities
for The Registry.
Only ANSI-accredited, Registry-recognized Verification Bodies are
permitted to provide verification services to Registry members.
3. The Registry's Support of Mandatory GHG Reporting Programs
Thus far, my testimony has focused on The Registry's voluntary
reporting program, however, The Registry's mission indicates that it
supports both voluntary and mandatory GHG reporting programs. While The
Registry does not have the authority to develop or implement mandatory
reporting programs, it is uniquely positioned to leverage its GHG
accounting expertise to assist states (and provinces) to best implement
and manage their own mandatory GHG programs.
The Registry aims to accomplish the following through its support
of mandatory GHG reporting programs:
Streamline and centralize the reporting process for
regulated parties;
Assist jurisdictions to standardize approaches to
calculate, report, and verify emissions;
Provide jurisdictions with a turn-key, low cost
solution for implementing data collection and management of GHG
programs;
Facilitate the transfer of data from mandatory
programs to the Registry's voluntary program; and
Leverage the investment that The Registry has made in
the Climate Registry Information System (CRIS).
Many of the jurisdictions comprising The Registry's Board of
Directors have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, mandatory
GHG reporting requirements, either individually or as part of regional
GHG initiatives.
The Registry assists these jurisdictions in implementing their
mandatory GHG programs by:
Providing assistance to promote consistency (where
applicable) with The Registry's protocols;
Developing tools for jurisdictions to understand the
options available to develop accreditation & verification
programs;
Offering two technical support options via CRIS
The Common Framework for Mandatory GHG Reporting
Data Transfer
Utilizing The Registry's web-based reporting platform, CRIS, as a
foundation, The Registry is developing a ``Common Framework'' for
mandatory GHG reporting. The Common Framework consists of the CRIS
application plus additional GHG reporting infrastructure components
necessary to support most mandatory reporting programs. While the
Common Framework ensures that multiple jurisdictions will share many of
the same reporting requirements, it also allows jurisdictions to
customize the application to meet their specific jurisdiction's needs.
The beauty of this concept is that multiple jurisdictions will have
similar mandatory GHG data collection systems located on one server,
but each jurisdiction will maintain confidential access to their own
data (agency staff can only view the data submitted to their state).
Therefore, regulated parties may enter emissions data for multiple
mandatory GHG reporting programs through a common IT interface, thereby
significantly reducing their reporting burden.
Through the Common Framework, The Registry offers jurisdictions
with mandatory GHG reporting programs the benefits of a cost-sharing
opportunity with other jurisdictions and economies of scale resulting
from shared system approach, while also minimizing the reporting burden
for organizations with operations in multiple jurisdictions and
encouraging voluntary reporting.
The Registry's second technical support option, Data Transfer, will
permit states to transfer mandatory GHG data from their own GHG
database systems to the Registry's voluntary program and other regional
GHG programs.
Currently, The Registry is working on a pilot project with the
State of Nevada to support its mandatory reporting program and is
working with over twenty jurisdictions to develop the Common Framework
for potential use across North America.
3.1 Regional GHG Initiatives
Two significant regional GHG initiatives are currently in
development in the U.S.: The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) and the
Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA), both of which include
multiple U.S. states and Canadian provinces working together to achieve
regional GHG reduction goals through mandatory GHG reporting and cap
and trade programs. The Registry is working with both initiatives to
ensure as much consistency of GHG emissions as possible. In addition,
both initiatives have indicated that they intend to use The Registry's
IT infrastructure to serve as their common data repository.
3.2 Relationship to Federal GHG Reporting Programs
The FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act included language
requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to
promulgate a rule to ``require mandatory reporting of GHG emissions
above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy.'' The draft
rule was due in September 2008 and the final rule is due by June 2009.
We understand that U.S. EPA has developed a draft rule which has not
yet been publicly released.
The Registry's Board of Directors recently adopted a federal policy
position statement (Appendix B) to articulate the role it is seeking
for The Registry in the context of a federal GHG reporting program. In
their statement, the Board of Directors expressed their desire that
future federal climate programs recognize the states, provinces and
Native Sovereign Nations for taking early policy actions, including
creating The Registry.
The Board stated that The Registry should be viewed as a model and
a resource to support a federal GHG registry. It further asserted that
federal mandatory GHG reporting rules should utilize the systems and
infrastructure already put in place through the states and The
Registry. By securing a role for The Registry in a federal GHG
reporting regime, the Board seeks to ensure GHG data consistency across
North America, reduce the reporting burden on the regulated community,
reduce administrative costs, avoid duplication and recognize the
efforts of companies who have chosen to rigorously report and reduce
their emissions early.
The Board strongly endorsed that federal GHG reporting and
regulatory programs should partner with The Registry as a cost-
effective central repository or clearinghouse for reporting and/or
tracking emissions and should preserve states' abilities to continue to
be innovators and leaders on climate policy.
4. Challenges to Obtaining Emissions Data
The Subcommittee specifically asked me to speak to the challenges
that members face when reporting their emissions to The Registry.
Members primarily face two types of challenges: 1) organizational
challenges, and 2) scientific uncertainty.
Organizational challenges generally result from a lack of data
collection systems specifically designed for GHG data collection. Since
GHGs have not been regulated before, many organizations do not have
management systems in place to monitor and track these emissions. It
can take time to develop such systems, which has delayed some members'
ability to report.
Additionally, compiling a corporate emissions footprint requires an
organization to collect GHG emissions information from all of its
sources. Some of an organization's sources may constitute a small
percentage of their emissions inventory, but they are still important
to identify and include in an entity-wide inventory. This challenge may
not be as great for mandatory reporting programs that use a traditional
regulatory approach to collect data from sources with emissions above a
certain threshold, as the reporting of smaller sources is not required.
Scientific uncertainty presents additional challenges to obtaining
high quality data. Measurement and/or calculation methodologies for
certain sources of emissions either do not exist, or contain a high
degree of uncertainty. Several major areas of scientific uncertainty
are:
Fugitive emissions of methane (from landfills
wastewater treatment plants, flaring, and other sources);
Fugitive emissions of refrigerants;
Out-of-date emission factors;
Unknown carbon content of materials.
Appendix C contains a list of calculation methodologies with high
uncertainty that could be improved with additional scientific research
and technological developments.
It is important to note that this scientific and inherent
uncertainty is a critical consideration for mandatory GHG programs that
seek to implement a cap and trade component to their program. Under
such a program, since GHG emission reductions equate to a financial
commodity, it is critical to the integrity of the carbon market that
the emissions are quantified with acceptable accuracy. While this may
vary from program to program, both the WCI and the EU-ETS have
generally found that uncertainty of plus or minus five percent is
acceptable for their cap-and-trade programs.
As a result, cap-and-trade programs will likely be constrained to
only include emission sources with calculation methods that contain an
acceptable level of uncertainty. The more research and development that
can be directed to eliminate or reduce the uncertainty of large
emission sources, the more robust a cap-and-trade program will be.
5. Recommendations to promote more accurate GHG reporting
The Subcommittee specifically asked me to provide recommendations
that will promote more accurate GHG accounting verification and
reporting, but before I do, I want to stress the fact that it is
possible for organizations to accurately account for, report, and
verify GHG emissions today.
While scientific certainty does need to be improved in specialized
sectors, most organizations are capable of accounting for their major
GHG emission sources (stationary combustion, mobile combustion,
indirect emissions, etc.). Significant progress has been made to
develop best practices for reporting, and organizations no longer feel
daunted by the process--as is evidenced by the over 300 members who
have joined The Registry's voluntary program in less than a year.
Given that reduced scientific uncertainty would help increase
organizations' ability to accurately report GHG emissions,
opportunities exist to improve accuracy in GHG reporting by:
Updating emission factors in a timely fashion (EPA,
EIA, DOE, etc.);
Conducting comprehensive surveys GHG emission
information to produce better emission factors and
quantification methods;
Developing more industry-specific protocols;
Funding the development of improving measurement
technology
Remote sensing
Laser methane gas detector monitoring of emissions
from landfills
Incentivizing the use of existing measurement
technology.
6. Conclusion
To conclude, The Climate Registry was created to help organizations
answer the very question posed by this hearing, ``How do we know what
we're emitting?'' The Registry took great care in designing its
reporting, accreditation, and verification programs to ensure that GHG
emission reports are comprehensive, accurate, consistent, and
transparent, such that they are meaningful not only to the
organizations themselves, but to the public and policy-makers as well.
The Registry was created by states, provinces and Native Sovereign
Nations to be a model for a federal registry and to establish a single
unified registry across North America. To date, The Registry has
developed robust reporting and verification protocols, established
clear and specific calculation methodologies, and has created a
comprehensive GHG database application that is capable of supporting
both voluntary and mandatory GHG reporting initiatives.
Time is of the essence when it comes to mitigating the negative
impacts of climate change. Currently, given the leadership of
individual jurisdictions, the U.S. is well positioned to work across
State and federal jurisdictional lines to begin to tackle climate
change in a new and collaborative way, and The Registry is uniquely
positioned to help. We look forward to partnering with the Federal
Government to serve a larger role in supporting national and
international programs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony. I
would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Biography for Jill E. Gravender
As Vice President of Policy for The Climate Registry, Ms. Gravender
oversees the development of The Registry's voluntary greenhouse gas
(GHG) reporting program, designs tools to assist jurisdictions with the
implementation of mandatory GHG reporting programs, and provides
overall policy direction to the organization.
Ms. Gravender has over ten years of experience in environmental
policy and management. She has specifically focused much of her work on
climate change policy and greenhouse gas emissions management. In her
current role with The Climate Registry, Ms. Gravender is responsible
for promoting consistent reporting, accreditation, verification, and
data collection standards for GHG emissions between The Registry's
voluntary reporting program and emerging mandatory GHG reporting
programs. In this capacity, she regularly interfaces with state/
provincial; regional, and federal policy-makers.
Prior to joining The Climate Registry, Ms. Gravender served in
multiple key roles at the California Climate Action Registry including,
National & Operations Officer, Vice President of Programs, and
Technical Director. In addition to her expertise in GHG accounting and
verification issues, she previously served as the Director of Water
Programs for the Environment Now Foundation, the Director of Operations
for the New America Foundation, and as an independent consultant
working on a variety of environmental and climate change issues.
Ms. Gravender has a Bachelor's degree in Economics from Arizona
State University and a Master's degree in Environmental Science and
Management from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Chair Baird. Thank you. Ms. Wong.
STATEMENT OF MS. LESLIE C. WONG, DIRECTOR, GREENHOUSE GAS
PROGRAMS, WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
Ms. Wong. Chair Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today about Waste Management's greenhouse gas programs
and our efforts to measure and understand our company-wide
greenhouse gas emissions.
Waste Management (WM) is the leading provider of waste
management, recycling and environmental services in North
America. We also produce renewable, waste-based energy, enough
now to power over one million homes a year. Waste Management
has chosen to voluntarily participate in greenhouse gas
inventory and reduction efforts since 2004, both to achieve our
own sustainability goals and to help our customers achieve
their goals.
It is important to note, however, that the waste sector is
a very small contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; it
is less than three percent. And through advancing technology,
environmental regulation and recycling, we have decreased
greenhouse gas emissions by more than 75 percent in the past
decade, despite a twofold increase in waste generation during
that time period. In addition, EPA's 2008 greenhouse gas
inventory found that landfill methane emissions have decreased
by more than 16 percent since 1990.
We are a big organization to inventory. We have about 2,500
sites in 48 U.S. states and Canada. We have recycling
facilities, transfer stations, clean energy power plants,
hauling companies with over 22,000 vehicles, and about 300
active and closed landfills. Our primary greenhouse gas
emissions include direct carbon dioxide from using fossil fuel
in vehicles and facilities, direct carbon dioxide emissions
from the non-biogenic portion of the waste combusted in our
waste-to-energy plants, indirect greenhouse gas emissions from
the use of electricity, direct emissions of HFC's, PFC's and
sulfur hexafluoride in de minimus amounts, and finally direct
methane and carbon dioxide emissions from landfills--this
includes fugitive and combustion emissions from landfill gas
which is itself approximately half carbon dioxide and half
methane. We are already working to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions by tripling our recycling volume by 2020, by
investing in innovative technology for landfill fleet
management and doubling our renewable power production by 2020.
To complement our greenhouse gas reduction efforts, we have
participated in two voluntary greenhouse gas management
programs, and we are now undertaking a voluntary greenhouse gas
footprint of our own development.
Waste Management is a founding member of the Chicago
Climate Exchange and was the first solid waste company to join.
Since 2004, we are on track to meet our membership commitment
of a six percent reduction from our CCX baseline by 2010. As a
CCX member, we prepare a third-party verified annual inventory
of carbon dioxide from fuel combustion and from waste
combustion at our wholly owned waste-to-energy facilities.
Then in 2006, Waste Management was the first solid waste
company to join the California Climate Action Registry, known
as CCAR. We report direct carbon dioxide emissions from fuel
consumption, indirect carbon dioxide emissions from electricity
use, and these are also third-party verified reports. We also
opted to report greenhouse gas emissions from landfills to
pilot a landfill greenhouse gas inventory tool called the Solid
Waste Industry for Climate Solutions, or SWICS, protocol. The
protocol greatly enhances currently available gas generation
models that rely on default values by replacing that with
measured data. This protocol also recognizes carbon
sequestration where the anaerobic conditions of a modern
landfill allow significant amounts of biogenic material to not
degrade.
Once CCX and CCAR got us started, we launched a two-year
project to inventory our company-wide emissions using 2009 data
to report in 2010. The Waste Management carbon footprint team
has so far identified all of our sources, identified or
developed emission calculation protocols and developed a
software tool for collecting verifiable data from the field.
The next step is data collection and then comes actual
reporting.
Our data will be auditable to support third-party
verification, but we have recommended to EPA that third-party
verification is unnecessary in a mandatory federal reporting
program. There is no precedent for third-party verification in
any federal environmental statute under which we operate.
The protocols we are using at other landfills were
developed by The Climate Registry in conjunction with CCAR, but
to calculate landfill emissions we will use our SWICS protocol
because it reflects the most sophisticated means of landfill
assessment currently available through peer-reviewed science.
However, estimation of fugitive landfill emissions is still a
work in progress. A broadly accepted protocol does not exist.
However, Waste Management, with other industry and academic
leaders and EPA, is now conducting tests to measure landfill
gas emissions under a variety of conditions, and this is
detailed in our written testimony. We have urged the agency to
consider waiting until the result of this research can be used
to further refine greenhouse gas emission estimation before
requiring landfills to report site-specific greenhouse gas
emissions.
In our greenhouse gas inventory efforts, Waste Management
has learned that developing a proper program takes significant
time. We believe a phased approach that allows reporting for a
limited range of greenhouse gases or limited set of sources for
the first two to three years is essential. We recommend that a
federal reporting program provide a transition period and
exclude sources for which there is not an approved emission
calculation protocol until such time that one is adopted.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this information,
and I will be ready to answer questions when you are. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wong follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leslie C. Wong
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today
about Waste Management's greenhouse gas programs and our efforts to
measure and understand our company-wide greenhouse gas emissions.
Waste Management (WM) is the leading provider of comprehensive
waste management, recycling and environmental services in North
America. We are also a leading producer of renewable, waste-based
energy--enough to power over one million homes each year. Waste
Management is committed as an industry leader and environmental steward
to identify our company carbon footprint, voluntarily reduce our
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and help our customers do the same.
Waste Management's greenhouse gas emissions include:
CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil
fuel in our vehicles and in stationary sources at our
facilities;
CO2 emissions from non-biogenic\1\ waste
combusted at our waste-to-energy plants (about 34 percent of an
average waste-to-energy plant's total CO2
emissions). These emissions are more than offset by production
of renewable electricity;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-biogenic describes waste that is not produced from a
biological process, and includes materials such as plastics and
synthetic textiles.
Indirect GHG emissions from our use of electricity;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
Methane emissions from MSW landfills. These emissions
are controlled by operation of gas collection and control
systems, some of which generate renewable energy, combined with
landfill cover management.
WM employs a number of innovative technologies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, including:
Saving virgin resources and energy through the
Nation's largest recycling program. We announced in October
2007 that we plan to triple the amount of recyclable materials
we manage by 2020;
Advancing technology for alternative transportation
fuels (e.g., landfill gas to liquefied natural gas) and engine
design to lower GHG emissions from our vehicles. We are
developing a landfill gas to liquefied natural gas plant in
Altamont, California, and we plan to direct capital spending of
up to $500 million per year over a ten-year period to increase
fuel efficiency of our fleet by 15 percent and reduce our
emissions by 15 percent by 2020;
The operation of landfill-gas-to-energy, waste-to-
energy and biomass plants that produce electricity and fuels to
replace fossil fuel use. We plan to double our 2008 output of
renewable energy by 2020;
The recovery and destruction of methane gas from
landfills in accordance with and beyond that required by
regulation; and
Development of ``Next Generation'' landfill
technology that offers enhanced collection and beneficial use
of landfill gas.
The Solid Waste Sector has Substantially Reduced GHG Emissions
Overall, the waste sector is a very small contributor to total U.S.
GHG emissions--less than three percent. Through technological
advancements, environmental regulations and emphasis on resource
conservation and recovery, the solid waste management sector decreased
GHG emissions from municipal solid waste (MSW) management by more than
75 percent from 1974 to 1997--despite an almost two-fold increase in
waste generation during that time period.\2\ The EPA's 2008 U.S. GHG
Inventory notes that just since 1990, landfill methane emissions have
decreased by more than 16 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ K. Weitz et al., The Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management
on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States, Journal of Air &
Waste Management Association, Volume 52, September 2002.
WM is a Founding Member of the Chicago Climate Exchange
Waste Management was the first company in the solid waste industry
to join with others to methodically reduce GHG emissions. As a founding
member of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), we meet CCX's membership
commitment to decrease greenhouse gas emissions for both Phase I and
Phase II of the program, which is a six percent reduction in emissions
from our 1998-2001 baseline, in year 2010.
To demonstrate compliance, WM prepares an annual inventory of fuel
consumption-related CO2 emissions per the CCX Rules. Since
2004 WM has annually reported to the CCX our U.S. CO2
emissions from fuel consumption, as well as waste combustion at our
wholly-owned waste-to-energy facilities. This includes CO2
from combustion of fuel in our U.S. operated collection vehicles and
stationary facilities, small quantities of supplemental fossil fuel
consumed by our waste-to-energy plants, and combustion of non-biogenic
materials (primarily plastics) contained in the waste burned in our
waste-to-energy plants. CCX members' annual inventories are third-party
audited by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) at the
direction of CCX, and then certified.
Initial inventorying in California. WM joined the California Climate
Action Registry (CCAR) in 2006 to pilot greenhouse gas inventorying by
voluntarily measuring and reporting emissions from all of our
California operations. Waste Management was the first solid waste
company to join CCAR and was recently designated a ``Climate Action
Leader'' by CCAR. As a member of CCAR, we reported our 2006 direct
CO2 emissions from mobile and stationary source fuel
consumption, and indirect CO2 emissions from electricity use
that occurred in the State of California in accordance with CCAR
quantification and reporting practices. The 2006 emissions report was
third-party verified and accepted by CCAR in May 2008. Our 2007
emissions inventory is undergoing verification.
WM is voluntarily reporting to CCAR GHG emissions from our
California landfills, using the Solid Waste Industry for Climate
Solutions (SWICS) protocol developed by SCS Engineers,\3\ which we have
shared with State regulators, the U.S. EPA, The Climate Registry, CCAR
and the Subcommittee. The protocol presents an in depth literature
review and makes recommendations on refining current landfill emissions
models. It replaces default values for landfill gas collection
efficiency and methane oxidation in existing EPA models with ranges,
and thus better accounts for effects of climate, landfill design and
landfill cover types. The protocol represents a first step in refining
existing EPA models and protocols to improve landfill GHG emission
estimation. The protocol has been accepted by TCR for inclusion in
guidance to be provided, when finalized, to local governments to use in
reporting emissions from landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ SCS Engineers, Current MSW Industry Position and State-of-the-
Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency, methane Oxidation and Carbon
Sequestration in Landfills, Prepared for Solid Waste Industry for
Climate Solutions (SWICS), Version 2.2, Revised January 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WM also voluntarily reported to CCAR:
Estimated avoided emissions associated with renewable
power production at our California landfill gas to energy
projects and our biomass plant;
GHG reductions associated with the recycling of
municipal solid waste materials processed by WM operations in
California; and
Estimated annual carbon sequestration in our
California landfills.
These results are publicly available at http://
www.climateregistry.org/CARROT/public/reports.aspx under ``Waste
Management.''
Company-Wide WM Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Our participation in CCX and CCAR has been a useful prelude to
developing a company-wide greenhouse gas inventory, or as we are
calling it, our company carbon footprint. In anticipation of State and
federal regulation and in order to understand and disclose our carbon
footprint, in December 2007 WM launched a two-year project using a
multi-disciplinary team to inventory our 2009 emissions to be ready for
voluntary or mandatory reporting in 2010. Once WM has completed its
carbon footprint, we will be able to use the information to further
develop GHG management and reduction strategies.
Inventorying GHG emissions is a big task for a large and complex
company like Waste Management, which has a total of approximately 2,500
facilities and about 22,000 collection and transfer vehicles. The
project team is applying the experience gained through membership in
the CCX and voluntary GHG reporting in California. The team is
identifying WM sources of GHG, calculating GHG emissions, and--where no
methods exist--developing new protocols reflecting the state-of-the-art
thinking on the most accurate, available GHG estimation methods.
The WM team is well on the way to meeting our goal of collecting
and calculating our 2009 GHG emissions throughout this year and
reporting them in 2010. The team organized itself around four major
tasks, which have been largely accomplished:
1. Identifying all WM sources of GHG, and identifying existing
or developing new protocols for measuring their emissions;
2. Developing the organizational structure for reporting
emissions from individual facilities, up to the company as a
whole, and identifying internal means to collect emissions
data;
3. Benchmarking, selecting and configuring a software tool for
managing and reporting WM emissions data, which we have named
Climate Care; and
4. Communicating to internal and external stakeholders about
what we are doing, and developing training for WM staff who
will be involved in data collection.
This year the team's focus will be to provide training and to work
with WM field personnel to collect, document and quality assure our
2009 emissions information, upload the data into our Climate Care
software and calculate our carbon footprint in early 2010.
For each source category in our inventory we have identified
auditable data resources, for example fuel and utility invoices that
have been subject to accounting audits. While we are preparing an
inventory that can support third-party verification, we believe that
third-party verification is unnecessary in a mandatory federal
reporting program. There is no precedent for third-party verification
in any federal environmental statute under which we operate. We do,
however, support third-party verification of greenhouse gas offsets,
which are tradable commodities with direct financial value.
The protocols and emission calculation methodologies we will employ
for most of our GHG sources are those developed by The Climate Registry
in conjunction with CCAR. For indirect emissions from electricity use,
we will use monthly invoices to identify usage in kilowatts and
calculate emissions using emission factors from U.S. EPA's eGrid table
that provides information on the fuel mix used by electric utilities on
a state-by-state basis.
To calculate CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels in
our vehicles and in stationary sources at our facilities, we will use
centralized company-wide fuel purchase data and monthly invoices to
calculate the amount used of each fuel type, along with the TCR
protocol and U.S. and Canadian tables for calculating the carbon
content of each type of fuel used.
On an annual basis we will use stack-testing information along with
waste characterization data to calculate CO2 emissions from
our waste-to energy facilities. Further, testing of stack gas from
waste-to-energy plants using ASTM Standards D-6866 can determine
precisely the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions attributable to
biogenic and non-biogenic sources, so that we can differentiate the two
for inventory accounting purposes under the TCR protocol.
WM emissions from use of refrigerants and high voltage equipment
will be estimated at the end of 2009 and a more detailed inventory
process developed for use in 2010.
On an annual basis, WM will be calculating the biogenic CO2
emissions from landfill flares and landfill gas fired engines and
turbines, as well as calculating fugitive emissions of biogenic
CO2 and methane using the SWICS protocol. TCR has recognized
the SWICS protocol as additional guidance that may be used by TCR
members to report landfill emissions in a protocol due to be published
for public comment in the near future. In addition, WM will calculate
the carbon sequestration attributable to the portion of annual receipts
of biogenic waste that will not decompose in the landfill to produce
methane. Inclusion of landfill carbon sequestration as an anthropogenic
sink is consistent with both the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and U.S. EPA national inventory practices, which account
for carbon sequestration of undecomposed wood products, food scraps and
yard trimmings disposed of in landfills. Both entities consider carbon
sequestration to be an integral component of the landfill carbon mass
balance calculations. We have recommended that EPA incorporate carbon
sequestration into the landfill GHG emissions calculation methodology
it eventually adopts for site-specific federal GHG reporting.
Lessons Learned:
Estimating fugitive landfill emissions is still a work in progress
While modeling aggregated landfill emissions across the U.S. using
national default assumptions is possible, estimating individual
landfill emissions is still a ``work in progress'' and not yet ready
for site-specific or entity-based mandatory inventorying. A broadly
accepted protocol for estimating the carbon mass balance of landfills
does not yet exist. However, Waste Management and other landfill
operators, along with the State of California and the EPA Office of
Research and Development are investing significant resources to refine
and improve existing models based on site-specific data.
WM along with other public and private owner/operators of landfills
funded development of the SWICS protocol by SCS Engineers. The protocol
represents a first step in refining existing EPA models and protocols
to improve landfill GHG emission estimation.
As a second step, WM is conducting field emissions testing using
tunable diode lasers and flux boxes, to measure landfill gas (LFG)
emissions under a variety of conditions including: slopes and flat
surfaces; daily cover and active working face; intermediate cover;
final cover (with and without a geomembrane); and to measure seasonal
variations in methane oxidation and capture efficiency. Ultimately, WM
hopes to develop a database that describes methane emissions over the
range of conditions one finds at both operating and closed landfills
using field-validated numbers instead of uncertain models. The multi-
year testing program will evaluate a minimum of ten cover types over a
minimum of two seasons. Concurrently, WM and other waste sector members
have also volunteered sites and are cooperating with research being
conducted by Dr. Jean Bogner for the California Energy Commission.
Additionally, WM and Veolia conducted field research for a comparative
analysis of several landfill methane estimation techniques (flux box,
tracer gas, micrometeorological, plume mapping, DIAL measurements).
Results from this research initiative will be reported in 2009. The
EPA's Office of Research and Development participated in the research
with us and we are discussing further work with them under a
cooperative agreement.
Finally, researchers at Florida State University working with WM
are developing a model to evaluate methane oxidation in landfill cover.
The FSU model will represent the physical and chemical processes in
cover that control emissions and oxidation. This will provide a tool
that will allow the design and operation of landfill cover systems, in
concert with gas collection systems, to minimize emissions. It may also
prove acceptable for use as an emissions inventory tool in a year or
two once field validation is accomplished.
A great deal of research is underway or planned for the next two
years that will be enormously valuable to EPA and the waste sector in
better understanding the estimation and control of landfill methane and
CO2 emissions. We have urged the Agency to consider waiting
until after the results of this research can be used to develop more
refined emissions estimation methods before requiring landfills to
inventory site-specific GHG emissions as part of a federal mandatory
reporting program.
A Phased Approach to Inventory Development is More Workable
In our GHG inventory efforts from 2006 to date, WM has learned that
developing a complete and accurate GHG inventory requires building an
efficient, accurate and verifiable data collection system and
identifying or devising reliable, scientifically accurate emission
calculation protocols. Both efforts take time, particularly for
organizations with a large number of diverse GHG emission sources. We
believe a phased approach to inventorying that allows an organization
to focus on reporting one GHG, or emissions from a selected set of
sources in the first two to three years will allow an organization to
develop the tools necessary to transition to full GHG reporting
thereafter. Both TCR and CCAR recognize the need for a transitional
period and make it available to their members to allow reporters to
gain the knowledge and develop the tools necessary to comply with the
full complement of the registries' requirements. We recommend that a
federal mandatory reporting program, when implemented, incorporate a
similar transition period.
Thank you for this opportunity to share with you this summary of
our programs and efforts relating to GHG emissions. I will be pleased
to try to answer any questions that you may have.
Biography for Leslie C. Wong
Ms. Wong serves as Waste Management's Director of Greenhouse Gas
Programs and, in that role, is overseeing the development of a company-
wide greenhouse gas footprint and a corresponding greenhouse gas
inventory and reporting program. Ms. Wong also assists Waste Management
in the areas of air permitting, compliance, training and regulatory
analysis. Prior to joining Waste Management in 2008, Ms. Wong was an
environmental consultant and a landfill gas-to-energy project
developer. Her professional experience includes greenhouse gas
inventory development and review; renewable energy project development
and environmental management; air permitting, compliance and offset
management in ozone non-attainment areas, environmental regulatory
analysis and interpretation and environmental agency negotiations
support. She is a member of the State Bar of Texas, earned her Juris
Doctor from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law,
and earned her B.A. from Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas.
Chair Baird. Thank you. Mr. Ellis.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROB ELLIS, GREENHOUSE GAS PROGRAM MANAGER,
ADVANCED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. (AWMS)
Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Chair Baird and Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this
topic.
With greenhouse gas offset programs trading in markets such
as the Chicago Climate Exchange and with companies publicly
reporting their greenhouse gas emissions inventories in
programs such as The Climate Registry, the consequences of
error and opportunity for fraud are high. The protection
against this is the requirement that disinterested third
parties, such as Advanced Waste Management Systems, or AWMS,
provide a verification that the reported values are accurate
and complete. The ISO 14064-3 and ISO 14065 International
Organization for Standardization Standards are the acceptable
rules for conducting greenhouse gas verifications in the U.S.
and the world. These are the standards utilized for obtaining
accreditation to perform verifications for entities such as The
Climate Registry and the Chicago Climate Exchange. Both of
these organizations have tasked the American National Standards
Institute, ANSI, with accreditation of these verifiers. Using
these ISO standards and the protocols of the specific program,
ANSI conducts a thorough audit of the verifier to ensure
appropriate technical knowledge, auditing skills, knowledge of
the appropriate protocols, and implementation of a management
system capable of providing a consistent work product. This
accreditation process entails both witnessing of actual
verification work and of the verifier's management structure.
AWMS successfully completed the accreditation process and
is now one of six companies accredited to perform verification
for The Climate Registry. We are also accredited to perform
verifications for the Chicago Climate Exchange. The process for
performing greenhouse gas verification varies slightly
depending on the program, but the need for certainty for the
reported data is so great that any greenhouse gas verification
is conducted in a very consistent and rigorous fashion. The
verification process essentially is a complete deconstruction
of a company's inventory data. The initial data analysis is
performed remotely using supplied information such as internal
tracking, spreadsheets, monitoring reports, fuel usage,
receipts, et cetera. The verifier uses this hard data to ensure
appropriate application of emissions factors and usage of
correct equations when generating the inventory or offset
amount.
Along with this more technical analysis comes simple
analysis such as looking for transcription errors, data entry
errors, things like that. The completed data analysis serves as
the basis for risk assessment approach for on-site activities.
Those areas of the company's inventory judged to be at greatest
risk of error, material impact of the inventory, they are
scheduled for detailed analysis by an on-site verification
team. On-site activities focus on where the data originated.
Examples include verification of monitoring equipment,
maintenance and calibration, verification that all emission
points are included in the inventory, and interviews with those
responsible for collecting that data.
The final step in the verification process is a technical
review by another verifier from within the verification body.
This is an additional, complete verification with the exception
being that the observations of the on-site verification team
are used rather than adding additional on-site burden.
To conclude, I would like to emphasize the importance of
the conflict of interest component to any verification program.
The inherent risk of performing verification of consulting work
that one's own company has conducted presents a conflict of
interest that jeopardizes any greenhouse gas inventory or
offset program. Such programs must protect against verification
bodies hiding consulting work behind false or weak corporate
separations. Additionally, relationships in which one verifies
another's consulting work, if the favor is returned, must be
watched for. Advanced Waste Management Systems, for example,
performs no consulting activity of any kind.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rob Ellis
Over the past decade the world has developed sophisticated
approaches to control and monitor greenhouse gas emissions, including
creating an economic model by which greenhouse gas caps are mandated
allowing industry to emit a set level of carbon dioxide equivalent tons
(there are six greenhouse gases, each a multiple of CO2
which is the base greenhouse gas).
An industry exceeding the cap is permitted to continue operation if
it exceeds these limits, but it must buy offsets from industries that
are emitting less greenhouse gas than the limit. This is the ``Cap &
Trade'' mechanism well tested in many international markets.
The commerce in these carbon markets now involves tens of billions
of dollars of trade in carbon credits. Carbon credits are essentially
traded as a commodity in much the same way as corn or wheat. Successful
markets include the European Union Emission Trading Scheme and here in
the U.S., the Chicago Climate Exchange.
In addition, both voluntary and mandatory emissions reporting
programs have been established. Examples include The Climate Registry,
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). These programs are
fundamentally based upon companies accurately reporting their
greenhouse gas inventories.
Given the value of greenhouse gas reductions claims, or credits,
and the need for accurate emissions inventories, the opportunity for
fraud is huge. Plus, a greenhouse gas credit is not obvious as is a
bushel of corn. To ensure the validity of greenhouse gas claims a
third-party, disinterested verifier is required. These verifiers must
pass rigorous examination, field observation, and in-house auditing to
become accredited to the international greenhouse gas verification
standards, ISO 14064-3 and ISO 14065. The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) oversees this accreditation process. Advanced Waste
Management Systems, Inc. (AWMS) was one of six North American firms to
successfully pass these requirements for verifying greenhouse gas
inventories for The Climate Registry. In addition, AWMS holds
accreditation from The Chicago Climate Exchange to perform greenhouse
gas offset project verification. We arrived at this point by operating
an office in Europe since 2002 to pursue greenhouse gas verification
under international UNFCCC protocols. Additionally, AWMS retained the
top British trainer in greenhouse gas verification to come to our
headquarters office in Tennessee to train all 10 of our degreed
professional staff.
The Chicago Climate Exchange accreditation process entailed
submitting detailed financial, operational, and personnel information
in one complete package. This package was judged by the Chicago Climate
Exchange to warrant accreditation of AWMS as a verifier within the
project types of Landfill Methane and Renewable Energy. The Chicago
Climate Exchange has determined, however, that ANSI accreditation will
now be required of all verifiers.
The ANSI accreditation process began with an application phase that
required AWMS to submit its complete management system. This management
system was based upon AWMS international experience as well as the
requirements of The Climate Registry. ANSI, based upon an initial
review, judged the AWMS management system to be robust enough to
warrant entry into the pilot accreditation program. This program was
divided into two phases: a witness assessment and a program/office
assessment.
For the witness assessment, AWMS was required to make available a
member of The Climate Registry pursuing verification to ANSI staff for
the purpose of witnessing AWMS staff perform the verification. The ANSI
auditor shadowed the AWMS verification team to judge whether the AWMS
verifiers possessed the technical capabilities and knowledge of the
protocols required. AWMS passed this phase of the accreditation process
with no non-conformities or findings.
The program/office assessment entailed ANSI auditors auditing the
AWMS management system at AWMS headquarters. The audit team reviewed
our complete system and confirmed whether our program met the
requirements of ISO 14065 and The Climate Registry. This audit included
checks such as conflict-of-interest and impartiality assurances,
methods for ensuring qualified personnel are assigned to each
verification, on-going training tools, records keeping, AWMS' ability
to adjust to revisions to relevant protocols, and AWMS' internal
corrective and preventive action system. Again, AWMS successfully
completed this phase of the verification.
Upon completion of the ANSI audits AWMS was granted accreditation
as one of only six companies to pass the pilot application process.
Advanced Waste Management Systems, Inc. utilizes ISO 14065 as the
foundation for its greenhouse gas verification procedures. This
Standard dictates four phases to the verification process: Pre-
Engagement, Approach, Verification, and Verification Statement. This
ISO Standard is a general set of rules designed to allow their
adaptation to more specific protocols such as those of The Climate
Registry and the Chicago Climate Exchange. AWMS has created a specific
set of procedures for our verification activities. Program specific
protocols also provide specific guidance on performing verifications.
As an example, AWMS has created a procedure defining the process
for verification of an inventory of a member of The Climate Registry.
The Pre-Engagement phase of this procedure centers on formally
establishing the relationship between the member and AWMS, the
verifier. This process is initiated by an application filed by the
member. This application includes information such as the number of
sites comprising the member, the number of employees at each site, and
the primary greenhouse gases emission sources at each of those sites.
This information allows AWMS to determine the appropriate amount of
resources required to perform the verification. The application also
provides the required information to initiate a conflict-of-interest
assessment. The Climate Registry, as with all greenhouse gas accounting
programs in which AWMS has participated, has a very strict conflict-of-
interest policy. For example, AWMS must demonstrate that no employee
who will be involved in a verification owns greater than $5,000
interest in that member. This information is submitted to The Climate
Registry for formal approval of the relationship. Upon approval of the
conflict-of-interest AWMS submits to the member a Verification
Agreement that formalizes AWMS' roles as that member's verifier. This
document also outlines the member's rights and duties. AWMS assigns a
Lead Verifier at this point, as well.
The Approach phase of this procedure centers on communication
between the member and AWMS. Central to this communication is the
Verification Plan. The Verification Plan includes sections defining
topics such as the level of assurance, verification objectives,
verification criteria, verification scope, and the materiality. This
Verification Plan also defines the schedule of activities. A kick-off
meeting is held during this phase that covers the topics of the
Verification Plan in order to achieve consensus with the member. Once
the Verification Plan is finalized a notification of activities is
formally presented to The Climate Registry for approval. During this
phase, AWMS also presents to the member a list of information that will
need to be provided in order to perform the verification. Examples may
include the spreadsheet or database used to track emissions, meter
readings, electric and/or gas bills, emissions monitoring reports,
maintenance and calibration records, etc.
The Verification phase of this procedure entails the detailed
verification activities. The verification process is initiated with a
desk audit. A desk audit is performed remotely using the electronic or
hard copy data that has been submitted to AWMS by the member. The
primary focus of the desk audit is to determine whether appropriate
emissions factors and equations have been utilized to calculate the
metric tons of CO2 equivalent and to assess conformance to
appropriate reporting protocols. In the case of The Climate Registry
the desk audit also includes an assessment of the on-line based CRIS
reporting tool. This tool allows the member to enter source data (e.g.,
electricity usage, fuel usage) into a web-based database that will then
calculate the member's inventory using the appropriate emissions
factors and equations. By utilizing CRIS the member can be assured that
the appropriate calculations are being made, and AWMS as the verifier
does not need to check each individual calculation. The option is
available to the member, however, to perform their own internal
calculations of their greenhouse gas inventory and to then input these
final numbers into CRIS. In this case the desk audit is the stage where
AWMS performs a detailed evaluation of these internal tools to confirm
the calculations are correct. Typically this involves large
spreadsheets with many internal links and source data. The desk audit
specifically involves deconstructing these spreadsheets to understand
how the data was utilized. AWMS utilizes the member provided
information such as electric and gas bills to perform a check on data
entry as well. Errors often include transcription errors, missing
entries, and copy and paste errors. Any such errors are tracked on an
issues log maintained by each member of the verification team.
The results of the desk audit are the basis of a risk assessment
performed by the AWMS verification team to determine the schedule on-
site activities. In the case of The Climate Registry an on-site
assessment is always required for a member reporting an inventory of
greater than 1,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. The risk
assessment is conducted to determine those areas of the member's
reported inventory that have either the highest impact on the total
inventory or those areas that have the highest likelihood of error.
Examples might include a member with 90 percent of their inventory
resulting from a single electric meter or a member with refrigerant
usage that is tracked by a single maintenance technician. Upon
completion of the risk assessment AWMS generates a formal Sampling Plan
that is distributed to the member for planning.
The on-site portion of the verification is focused on the actual
data utilized to generate the member's inventory. The fundamental
principle of the on-site verification is that an inventory calculation
is only as good as the data that it is based upon. The verification
team is focused on determining whether this raw data is being
appropriately tracked and gathered. This includes detailed checks on
metrology such as flow meters, electricity meters, and continuous
emissions monitors. These checks include verification that routine
maintenance has been performed, and whether routine calibrations are
performed as required. The on-site portion of the verification also
entails detailed personnel interviews. These interviews are conducted
to determine whether the data collection methodologies are appropriate
and complete. Information such as whether the data is collected via
electronic data logger versus hand written readings supports the
accuracy of the raw data. For example, if the data is logged via
handwritten forms, the verification team determines whether the
individuals recording the data are trained on that instrumentation and
whether there are trained backups available on-site should that
technician be unavailable. In many cases the data is not collected as
simply as one meter or instrument, but rather as an extrapolation. This
is most common to vehicle emissions where fuel consumption may vary
from on-site tanks that are routinely monitored to fleet vehicles which
fuel at public gas stations. In these cases it is necessary for the
verification team to confirm the validity of the techniques used to
arrive at the final value. The Climate Registry protocols allow for
varying levels of data quality, however the verifier must ensure that
members accurately state their data quality. As with the desk audit
phase, each member of the verification team maintains an issues log
used to track any noted errors.
Upon completion of the on-site verification the AWMS verification
team performs a debrief at which time the errors noted on each
verification team member's issues log are reconciled. Noted errors are
communicated to the member giving them an opportunity to perform
possible corrective actions. AWMS at all times maintains third-party
status and is obligated as a verifier to simply communicate error; at
no time does AWMS engage in consulting as to how to fix the errors. The
sum of the errors (in percentage of the direct emissions value and
indirect emissions value) drives the necessity for corrective action.
In the case of The Climate Registry any error of greater than five
percent (regardless of whether it is under reporting or over reporting)
results in a negative verification. In these cases the member must make
corrective action in order to remain conformant with The Climate
Registry. Corrective action must substitute good data for bad or
missing data or result in a sound enough estimation technique to bridge
the bad or missing data. Substitute data can be found, for example, by
using electric bills in place of direct meter readings, or fuel
purchase records in place of flow meter readings. Estimation techniques
may include using sound data points from either side of the gap to
create a trend. Members have the option to use simplified estimation
techniques for up to five percent of their total inventory.
The Verification Statement phase of the procedure begins upon
completion of the on-site verification activities that conclude with
the verification team issuing the verification report. This report is
handed off to an AWMS technical reviewer who may be any qualified
verifier that has not participated in the verification in any way up
until this point. It is the responsibility of this technical reviewer
to conduct an additional complete review of the member's inventory. The
technical reviewer utilizes the observations of the verification team
in place of a repeat on-site assessment. The technical reviewer is
responsible for issuing the final verification statement. This
statement may reflect either a positive verification or a statement
that the inventory was not verifiable.
The Climate Registry members must complete the verification process
annually. Initial baseline verifications require a higher level of
effort, but the process flow remains the same every time. AWMS
maintains routine communication with those members that have
verification statements issued by AWMS in order to determine if
protocol driven triggers require a new baseline inventory. In cases
where these triggers are not met, the verification process may take
less time given the level of familiarity with the member's internal
monitoring methodologies.
As programs continue to be developed and honed, AWMS sees one key
issue that bears close attention: conflict-of-interest management. The
situation of a company performing a verification of a body of work
which that same company's consulting wing has generated must be
protected against. As the various greenhouse gas inventory and offset
programs continue to expand their membership the opportunity for this
conflict expands as well. To maintain validity such programs must have
thorough mechanisms to prevent verifiers from hiding consulting work
behind false corporate separations. Similarly greenhouse gas programs
must be aware that opportunity exists for several verifiers to pass
work between themselves with a tacit agreement that Company A will
verify Company B's consulting work if Company B returns the favor. The
independence of the verification body is critical to the viability of
any greenhouse gas trading scheme or inventory program.
Biography for Rob Ellis
EDUCATION
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN--M.S.,
Environmental Science
University of Rochester Rochester, NY--B.S., Geology
Lead EMS Auditor course and exam
Lead OHSAS 18001 Auditor course
Lead GHG Verifier course and exam
WORK EXPERIENCE
August 2003-Present, GHG Program Manager, AWMS, Chattanooga, TN
Management of greenhouse gas verification business
activities.
Development and maintenance of AWMS' internal
greenhouse gas verification procedures and policies and
management of successful ANSI accreditation.
Perform greenhouse gas verifications to The Climate
Registry protocols and Chicago Climate Exchange protocols.
Perform environmental management system audits to the
ISO 14001 Standard and health and safety management system
audits to the OHSAS 18001 Standard.
Provide support in the development and maintenance of
AWMS' ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 registrar services.
August 2002-August 2003, Env., Health and Safety, ALSTOM Power,
Chattanooga, TN
Responsible for the design, implementation, and
maintenance of OHSAS 18001 conforming health and safety
management system.
Maintenance of the ISO 14001 environmental management
system.
Maintenance of compliance with environmental, health
and safety regulations and permits.
Monitor environmental, health and safety statistics.
September 1999-August 2002, Geologist, Harding ESE, Knoxville, TN
Field lead for installation of injection, extraction,
and monitoring wells and associated conveyance and remediation
systems.
NDPES and DMR report filing for active remediation
sites.
Quarterly and Annual reporting to clients and
regulatory agencies.
Database management including analytical results,
maintenance and construction logs, and field activities.
Groundwater and soil sampling.
CERTIFICATIONS
Professional Geologist
AWMS GHG Lead Verifier
RABQSA EMS Lead Auditor
AWMS OHSMS Lead Auditor
Discussion
Upstream vs Downstream Analysis and Monitoring
Chair Baird. I thank all the witnesses for very informative
testimony. One of the things that strikes me about this process
is it is extraordinarily complex, and my own perspective is I
think similar to what Mr. Inglis has alluded to earlier. It
seems to be on the carbon front in terms of the mass
production. It might just be easier to go upstream and say,
well, let us just tax a ton of coal or a barrel of oil and
figure, well, somewhere downstream we are taking care of the
CO2 output from that. But at the same time, I think
the testimony we have heard from Waste Management, from Ms.
Gravender, suggest there is a need, particularly if you look at
methane sources from agriculture and other things that are not
so easily captured up front.
I wonder if you could share with us the sort of pros and
cons of the upstream versus downstream analysis and monitoring
and also carbon versus other non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions.
Mr. Stephenson. Are you directing that at me?
Chair Baird. Yeah, well, the whole panel.
Mr. Stephenson. I would say you are right. Much more is
known about carbon emissions right now than probably any of the
other greenhouse gases, and because of the Acid Rain Program,
you do have in-stack monitoring for about 50 percent of the
emitting sources of carbon dioxide.
That is not true for methane and other gases. For example,
for methane from landfills there is probably not as much known.
But there is a lot of progress as we have heard on working on
factors to estimate those emissions. Nitrous oxide is even more
difficult to estimate because it comes from farming and tilling
soil, and how are you going to assign an emissions baseline to
farms and how are you going to monitor that? So in general, I
think upstream is easier just because there would be a fewer
number of entities. The further upstream you go, the easier it
is because of fewer entities, and the easier it would be to
regulate. And it is a math problem, as Congressman Baird said,
to estimate how much a ton of anthracite coal upstream, for
example, would result in a ton of emissions of carbon
downstream from the regulated entity. So a lot of the emissions
baselines can be estimated at that high level.
Chair Baird. Let us hear from some of our other witnesses
about this issue.
Ms. Gravender. I think it is a very interesting
observation. While the goal for greenhouse gas emissions is for
reductions, there are different perspectives if you are talking
about a downstream corporate-wide inventory versus an upstream
inventory, and I think from The Climate Registry, we have
really understood the benefit of having that corporate-wide
footprint. It gives companies an opportunity to manage their
emissions because as we like to say, you can't manage what you
don't measure. So if you don't have a clear understanding of
your own corporate footprint, it is difficult to make those
reductions. While it may be easier to regulate upstream, there
is still value in having a corporate inventory, and many of our
companies have benefited from that, not only for reducing their
own emissions but also for understanding policies that the
Federal Government might take on in the future.
Chair Baird. Ms. Wong.
Ms. Wong. You could say that my business is the ultimate
end of the stream for many products. But what I would like to
add to this statement is that life cycle assessment is
extremely important. What we need to do is determine the life
cycle carbon emissions of a whole host of products and services
and then start thinking about who needs to do the inventory,
who needs to do the reductions. You have to have a place to
start, and that is the life cycle inventory.
Chair Baird. Good point. Mr. Ellis, any comment on this?
Mr. Ellis. Sure. I would just like to add that I think the
downstream program encourages forward thinking. For example,
the founding reporters to The Climate Registry are very forward
thinking. They are taking ownership of their inventory, and
oftentimes by the time they have called upon us as a verifier
and we get there, they have already acted to reduce their
footprint and reduce that inventory. And I think that that is
something that is important to keep in mind when you talk about
downstream reporting at the entity level.
International Agreement on Monitoring
Chair Baird. As we look toward Copenhagen, one of my
problems with this approach is I see the urgency as much
greater than the bureaucracy's pace, and my fear is as I listen
to all the good work that has been done, that is encouraging,
my own believe is we ought to set a 350 part per million
standard at Copenhagen. And we are already above that, and that
means dramatic reductions worldwide, particularly in our own
country. And my fear, to be honest, is that we will spend a lot
of time because of the complexities of this issue not agreeing
on monitoring and thereby not reducing carbon. If you had to
estimate, what do you think the likelihood is that something
coming out of Copenhagen could say, well, okay, we re going to
agree on this mechanism and this is how we will monitor it.
What do you think the likelihood is we get to that agreement?
Maybe that is not going to be the goal of Copenhagen, but at
some point, if you are going to reduce, you are going to have
to have some kind of monitoring.
Mr. Stephenson. What are you asking, whether we will reach
an agreement on that or whether it is----
Chair Baird. No, let me say it this way. If you were to get
some of the top experts, yourselves and some other folks in the
room and say, look, we have to come up with a monitoring
system, whether or not we establish cap-and-trade, but just set
aside the cap-and-trade side, set aside a carbon tax, just an
agreed-upon monitoring system and set aside Copenhagen, just
you all get together with some other experts from around the
world, what do you think it would take us to get to an agreed-
upon system?
Mr. Stephenson. For carbon or for all----
Chair Baird. For all.
Mr. Stephenson.--greenhouse gas?
Chair Baird. Or parse it out if you want.
Mr. Stephenson. It is probably possible--the estimating
techniques for carbon are better than the other greenhouse
gases, so it is probably possible to get an emissions baseline
that is pretty reliable, but the framework for estimating and
therefore monitoring or establishing baselines get more complex
for the other gases. And yeah, 85 percent of the greenhouse
gases are carbon but in terms of potential warming potential,
you know, methane and nitrous oxide are much more potent than
carbon. So you can't exclude those other gases. So I think
there is a lot of work to be done on just the estimating
techniques, the metrics you use and everything else to be able
to reliably estimate a baseline nationwide. It is going to be
very difficult and time consuming.
Ms. Gravender. My sense is that we will come out of
Copenhagen with at least a rigorous agreement, and I think if
we take the opportunity to look at something like The Climate
Registry wherein companies are actually reporting their
greenhouse gas emissions, and the majority of those emissions,
say from stationary combustion or mobile combustion, are in
fact easily quantifiable and verifiable. There are certainly
some accuracy issues associated with some of the other Kyoto
gases, but I think the first step is saying, ``let us do this''
and try to do it and perhaps give some flexibility on some of
those gases where there isn't as much accuracy out there, but
at least learn from that process and evaluate that over time to
see where really the scientific accuracy is needed and how we
can focus in on those areas to have a greater confidence in
those additional gases. But I do think that we should and we
need to take that step forward, and many of the emissions are
able to be quantified and measured at this point.
Chair Baird. That is encouraging. My time is expired.
Carbon Taxes
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask an
open-ended question, but I think my question is coming far
enough out of left field that I need to describe it a little
bit again. What I am looking for is your expertise on
monitoring systems and figuring out what body of knowledge out
there that might be applied to answering this question, and it
is really just sort of a Ways and Means question, but if you
want to be in compliance with WTO, you got to figure out a way
to not discriminate against imported goods. But at the same
time, we don't want them to get a freebie in the air. So what
we want to potentially do, if you do this carbon tax, revenue-
neutral carbon tax, you can apply it within the domestic market
and that can be removed as a value-added tax can be removed
when it hits international commerce. So you apply it
domestically, and then you can remove it at the border when you
are shipping out. Of course, when it gets to another country,
they can apply it there. And so what we would like to do is say
goods coming in be subjected to the exact same regime that we
have got. But figuring out how to somehow take a shot at the
measurement of--if we go with an upstream application of the
revenue-neutral carbon tax, it seems the most reasonable
administratively in this country. The question is how could you
compare that to what China's carbon footprint might be in the
materials that are being imported? One possibility is to say
that here is the average carbon content in American steel, and
that would be determined by figuring out all the inputs into
that steel and then apply the same tax to imported steel. Now,
in France, they want an adjustment because they would say,
listen, we got a lot of nuclear. We would like to appeal for a
lower assessment. In China, it is basically giving them a
freebie because they are using dirtier technology and dirtier
coal, right?
But do you have any ideas about how to help me out with
measuring so that you can have an efficient, streamlined
process of applying a domestic standard to internationally
produced goods? Anybody want to take a shot at that? Thank you,
Ms. Wong.
Ms. Wong. If I may, I don't know that what you really need
is a way to calculate emissions from activities in other
countries, but to have a base data collection effort in what
different types of manufacturing activities emit, have them
agreed upon at the international level, and be able to apply
them to products. For example, if you use a nuclear-based
energy to produce a product, it is going to have a lower carbon
footprint than a high-sulfur coal with no scrubbers. Now, it
would be huge undertaking and it would have to be agreed upon
at an international basis in order to be applied
internationally. But if the different countries could come
together and agree to certain footprints for certain
activities, they could be applied to a manufacturing process to
come up with a life cycle.
Mr. Inglis. Anyone else want to take a shot at that?
Mr. Stephenson. I would just say that let us take imports
from China. Determining their carbon footprint and what kinds
of inventory estimating techniques they use and having to
verify and monitor that is going to be very problematic. I
don't know whether you could estimate----
Mr. Inglis. Yes, in fact----
Mr. Stephenson.--estimate the carbon footprint for a like-
U.S. product maybe and apply that to the import.
Mr. Inglis. That is exactly what we are thinking about
doing.
Mr. Stephenson. And it would be much easier at the
commodity level like the example you gave on steel than it
would at the end product level, I would think.
Mr. Inglis. Right. What we are looking for really is some
mathematical system----
Mr. Stephenson. Yes.
Mr. Inglis.--you can sort of take a----
Mr. Stephenson. For all kinds of products.
Mr. Inglis. It wouldn't be exact, but it would be somewhere
in the ballpark. And it is important that it not be
discriminatory. It can't hurt imports more than it is applied
to domestic-produced goods.
Mr. Stephenson. GAO does have some ongoing work right now
for Senate Finance looking at revenue generation from climate
change, and we are getting into this issue a little bit.
More on Monitoring Standards
Mr. Inglis. That is another question I have. I have got a
little bit of time left. Who is best to develop monitoring
standards? What is the agency that is best to do that if we go
into either cap-and-trade or revenue-neutral carbon tax? Is it
NIST or is it EPA or is it somebody else?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, right now EPA is the one that
estimates emissions inventories for Kyoto, for the framework
convention, I should say. So they have probably a jump start on
other agencies, but the Department of Energy also has a lot of
information on estimating techniques.
Mr. Inglis. And what I have been asking about here, do you
think that is still within the EPA? That is where it is logical
or is that somewhere else?
Mr. Stephenson. I don't know, I would have to think about
that. It doesn't seem like EPA is a fit for that.
Mr. Inglis. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. And first and
foremost, thank you for holding this hearing. This is a very
important issue. As we look not just at what is happening
around the country, but around the world, especially as we move
forward to continue to create the jobs we need, to be able to
get the country moving in the right direction, to be able to be
smarter about the way we are developing technologies and moving
industry forward, but also in the way that we are going to be
generating electricity, power, looking to power our vehicles in
this country, and the amount of waste. Mr. Chair, you know we
recently had a hearing on the importance of recycling waste
when it comes to technologies with computers, cell phones and
what we need to be looking at and how we are going to evaluate,
how we can move forward into the future. Not only are we going
to be able to monitor the amount of greenhouse gases, Mr.
Chair, that are moving forward but we are also going to
possibly create some job opportunities as a result of moving
forward and monitoring.
Coordinating Agencies and States
And so Mr. Chair, my questions stem mainly from the
coordination of carrying on the line of question we just had
but from a coordination perspective. How will The Climate
Registry be able to coordinate with the EPA and the states,
those states that have moved forward? I am proud to say, Mr.
Chair, that New Mexico was one of the first states to adopt a
mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program. And so how do you
envision that coordination? Anyone that may want to take that.
Ms. Gravender.
Ms. Gravender. Thank you very much for the question. It is
an important one. The Climate Registry has been interacting
with U.S. EPA, has been in conversations with them. They are
certainly aware of our protocols, the work that we have done.
While we haven't seen the mandatory rule yet that they are
about to release on greenhouse gas emissions, we hope that it
will be derived from much of the information that we have
worked on so far. In our written testimony we do have a
statement from our Board of Directors that stipulates that at a
minimum, every federal greenhouse gas reporting program should
utilize the greenhouse gas calculation and accounting methods
that are consistent with The Climate Registry, allow states and
provinces to collect data for federal programs, and maintain
the states' abilities to collect additional information if they
would like. So we feel that there is a lot of opportunity for
collaboration, both on the policy side and also from a data
collection standpoint. The Registry has a number of
sophisticated programs that we feel would be useful to
implementing some type of a federal greenhouse gas registry.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chair, anyone else?
Mr. Ellis. I would just chime in on the verification side
of things and point to the work that ANSI has done to
coordinate that side of the house and ensure that there is
consistency in verification activities, and an easy example to
point to is the ISO 14065 and 14064-3. They are internationally
recognized standards for performing verification. So as a
verifier, having gone through the ANSI accreditation process,
we are confident that we can operate on an international scale,
and programs such as The Climate Registry and the Chicago
Climate Exchange both point to that ANSI accreditation process
as being a requirement. So on the verification side, I can say
there is definitely a very good level of harmonization and
consistency, which is critical to any program I think.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, a follow-up, Mr.
Ellis. You state The Climate Registry permits the use of
estimation techniques of up to five percent of their total
inventory. Is it possible that some entity could calculate big
greenhouse gas reductions under the five percent rule without
actually achieving the greenhouse gas reductions?
Mr. Ellis. They are simplified techniques. I suppose it is
possible that they could wedge something into that five
percent, but I think it is unlikely. These tend to fall out to
things like, you know, the Chair's vehicle that he didn't keep
good fuel receipts on or something like that that they can't
really wrap their hands around but they need to acknowledge it
is there. And I think you are unlikely to see some large-scale
program revolving around the sales department's company vehicle
or something along those lines. So it is very unlikely.
Mr. Lujan. And Mr. Chair, lastly, what I would like to
encourage is that we do reach out to public utility
commissioners around the country. I can tell you as a former
public utility commissioner, the work that is being done,
especially my familiarity with this with the western states is
somewhere where I know that we could probably lean on getting
some additional expertise or help in coordinating those efforts
at that level, Mr. Chair. And again, thank you for holding this
hearing. I yield back my time.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Lujan, and you bring great
expertise in that area, and thank you for that. Mr. Bartlett?
Dr. Bartlett.
Methane and Water Vapor
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Isn't it true that water
vapor is far and away the largest greenhouse gas? I think that
is true. And if that is true, then if the emission of other
greenhouse gases increases the temperature of the Earth, should
we not have more water vapor which would then start a self-
reinforcing cycle, more water vapor, warmer Earth, more water
vapor, warmer Earth? If this is true, then shouldn't we be in a
position to measure global water vapor so that we could see if
this vicious cycle is starting? Is there any focus on that at
all? It would seem a priority that water vapor is the largest
greenhouse gas, and I think it is, so if the other greenhouse
gases increase global temperature, that would mean there would
be more water vapor which would mean more global warming so
this should start a--obviously we are in balance now and have
been for a long time. But if we tip that balance, might not
some pretty evil things happen?
Methane is what, 20 times more effective than CO2
as a greenhouse gas? Do we know the total contribution of those
two presently as greenhouse gases? Less methane but 20 times
more effective.
Mr. Stephenson. Well----
Mr. Bartlett. Which is the largest contributor now?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, right now methane is about six
percent of the total greenhouse gas, but if you apply the
factor that you are talking about, we haven't done the math but
you could do that. In other words, you know, one ton of methane
is probably worth 21 tons of carbon, and it gets even higher
for nitrous oxide which is 300 times more potent than carbon
dioxide.
Mr. Bartlett. Yes, but a whole lot less of it. Now, we are
focusing on landfills for methane, but my understanding is that
the cattle on the Earth may produce more methane, may produce
more effective global warming, than all the cars in all the
world. Now, if that is true, why shouldn't we have a focus on
having less animals? We would be healthier, by the way. The
meat people bribed the nutritionists to lie about food groups,
and we now have a meat food group and a dairy food group and
they are not different. As a matter of fact, the best proteins
in all the world come from the dairy group. Milk protein is the
best protein in the world. Eggs are the second best. If you
assign a value of 100 to milk, eggs are about 96, and meat
starts at the low 90's and goes on down. If we are really
worried about global warming, why shouldn't we have a focus on
having less animals? That would mean more vegetarians and
longer life for all of us?
Mr. Stephenson. I guess it has to be implementable. The
public hasn't shown its desire to give up meat.
Mr. Bartlett. I think that education is a big part of this.
The American people need to know that the proteins they get
from dairy products are far superior to the proteins they get
from meat, and they need to know that the proteins produced by
dairy products require what, about one-tenth to one-twentieth
of the amount of feed that it requires to produce meat? Pork
and chicken people brag that they get three pounds of pig for
one pound of food. That is three pounds of wet pig, 70 percent
water, you can't eat the bones, to one pound of grain which is
about 90 percent dry matter. So on a dry-matter basis, it is at
least ten to one for the pig and the chicken and maybe twenty
to one for the steer. If you have a milk cow who will produce
20,000 pounds of milk in a year, a ton of dry matter in a year
with little more feed than the steer would eat by the way, and
at the end of the year you still got the cow to eat if you
want.
So if we are really concerned about global warming, why
shouldn't we be focusing on methane? You know, if most of our
people became vegetarians, it would a far greater contribution
to reducing greenhouse gases and every one of us driving a
Prius. Isn't that true?
Mr. Stephenson. I suppose we should strive to reduce all
forms of greenhouse gas.
Mr. Bartlett. Now, this one is particularly important
because not only are you reducing greenhouse gases, you are
improving your health. So why shouldn't there be a focus on
that?
Mr. Stephenson. I can't answer that. You are the policy-
making body.
Mr. Bartlett. Why couldn't we have an education program
which you all could contribute to and inform the American
people. You don't have to eat meat to get good protein. When
you eat meat, you are really contributing to greenhouse warming
because methane is 20 times more potent than CO2.
And again, back to one of the original statements I made, my
understanding is that cows in the world produce more potential
global warming than all the cars in all the world.
Chair Baird. Dr. Bartlett----
Mr. Bartlett. If that is true, don't you think it would be
advantageous if more of our people knew that?
Chair Baird. Dr. Bartlett, could we ask perhaps Ms.
Gravender? I am very intrigued by the line of questioning. I
wonder if Ms. Gravender in her work with greenhouse gas
registry has evaluated methane output from feed lots for
example or from animals. Maybe you can give us some data on
that, maybe not?
Ms. Gravender. At this point we have not looked at methane
emissions from animals. That said, I do know that the
California Climate Action Registry does have a methane--they
are working on methane digesters which in part is capturing
some of the emission from animals as an emission reduction
project. So there has been some work that has been done on
this. Otherwise I would say that I do think over all the public
opinion is beginning to become interested in eating locally, if
you will, to reduce the transportation associated and emissions
associated with transporting food and emissions that result
from that. So I do think that there is an increase in awareness
of greenhouse gas emissions over all and our own personal
impact on those emissions.
Mr. Bartlett. Local variance I think you call them, don't
they? People that eat----
Ms. Gravender. That is correct.
Mr. Bartlett.--no more than 300 miles from home.
Ms. Gravender. That is correct.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett, for always an
interesting approach and I think an important line of
questioning. Dr. Lipinski.
Carbon Monitoring and trade Registry
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly Dr. Bartlett
has my mind thinking along different lines now, but the
question that I really wanted to put forward, and I am here,
and I thank the Chair and also the Ranking Member for having
this hearing, just trying to understand and get a better handle
on, we hear so much talk about cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. I
am an engineer and I always want to know how do I measure that.
So I just wanted to ask, starting with Ms. Wong and anyone
else who wants to also chime in here, what are the differences
between the Chicago Climate Exchange and The Climate Registry
protocols? I am just trying to get a handle on that for myself,
the differences in those protocols.
Ms. Wong. That is a good question. To begin with, the
Chicago Climate Exchange is an actual trading system. It is a
cap-and-trade system that enforces reductions on its members.
Of course, membership is voluntary. And the credits that are
generated within the system can be traded among members. But
the other one you asked about was not The Climate Registry but
the California Climate----
Mr. Lipinski. No, The Climate Registry.
Ms. Wong. The Climate Registry is a set of protocols. It is
not--they do not have their own carbon credits or trading
process. It is a means of developing an inventory. It is a
collection of protocols, calculations, scientific information,
guidelines. They publish some guidelines for data collection
also. They are very different. One is an organization in and of
itself. The other is an aid to developing an inventory.
Mr. Lipinski. How does the CSX \1\--how is that measured?
When you are trading, you have to have some sort of measurement
of what you are trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Climate Spot Exchange
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Wong. Yes, sir. They do have their own protocols as
well, and sometimes they borrow from other established
protocols.
Mr. Stephenson. I think the Chicago Climate Exchange uses
the World Resource Institute protocol to baseline, but we have
The Climate Registry expert right next to me.
Ms. Gravender. One of the main differences is that the
Chicago Climate Exchange is focused on emission reduction
products, so you are taking a baseline and then you are
measuring the activity in addition to that baseline in order to
quantify an emission reduction. The Climate Registry conversely
is talking about putting together corporate-wide inventory. So
that is the primary difference between the two activities. One
is emission reductions that are then traded on the market, and
the other is a corporate-wide inventory.
Mr. Ellis. I would point out to you from the verification
side the Chicago Climate Exchange is a bit more prescriptive in
the things that we need to look for, for example, quarterly
monitoring as opposed to just routine monitoring, that sort of
thing, for methane content in the landfill sector for example.
So there is a bit of a difference in the verification side of
things which is natural since you are talking about dollars on
the Chicago Climate Exchange, the need for absolute
verification is a little bit more important when you insert
money.
Mr. Lipinski. If you compare the measurements, and I know
you were starting with a different--you have the baseline there
and then you are talking about reduction with the CSX is what
the interest is, but if you compared The Climate Registry and
the measurements there and the measurements of the CSX, are
they close? Is there a real comparison there? Has there been a
comparison of that?
Ms. Gravender. Well, again, they are measuring different
things, so it is difficult to do a parallel comparison in some
regard. Also, the Chicago Climate Exchange is a private
operation whereas The Climate Registry is a public endeavor. So
all of our protocols are vetted publicly with public comment
periods. The Chicago Climate Exchange developed the protocols
without that public feedback. So there is still a private and
public difference between the two as well.
Mr. Lipinski. Do we not know what exactly what the Chicago
Climate Exchange, what their other measurements are?
Ms. Gravender. I will say that the Chicago Climate
Exchange, the protocols are only available to those who
participate. So they are not available for public consumption
for us to do that assessment.
Mr. Stephenson. But right now, the baseline estimating
techniques are not the same, and that is the point that you are
making. I think that they need to be standardized for a
nationwide system before it can work. There are lots of
slightly different estimating techniques or protocols that you
can use for various greenhouse gases.
Mr. Lipinski. I thank all of you for your testimony. Ms.
Wong.
Ms. Wong. Just one small correction. Chicago Climate
Exchange has posted their protocols on their website now. They
were not available some time ago, but they have added them to
their website. And if I may say, if you are looking to the
underlying science, how do you calculate emissions from a
typical process, they are going to be very, very similar. They
just use the data in different ways.
Mr. Lipinski. Okay. Thank you.
Lief Cycle Pricing
Chair Baird. We will do another round of questions. This is
a fascinating discussion. I am intrigued. Someone, maybe Ms.
Wong or others acknowledge the importance of life cycle
estimation. We had some folks from the forestry groups in
yesterday, and they explained that they had some frustration,
and I am not sure this is correct, but they felt that LEED
certification on environmentally friendly businesses was so
focused on sort of the R value if you will, of the insulating
value, that it didn't look at lifestyles so that wood-framed
buildings could be rated lower according to them than steel or
concrete which strikes me in terms of my understanding of life
cycle reanalyzing the acidification gas profile, a wood
building is a carbon sink, whereas it burns a lot of fuel to
make steel or concrete. The reason I ask that is are we at a
point, and what would it take to get to a point, where I as a
consumer who cares about the environment, whether it is through
my dietary habits or decisions about cars or drinking water out
of a bottle, to where I can make an informed decision, you
know, I can look on this, you know, it is just water. But you
can look at a bottle and say, okay, you have got X amount of
vitamin B, X amount of high fructose corn syrup, whatever. But
I can't do anything like that easily to inform myself about the
life cycle carbon footprint. Are we at where we could do that,
where you could have a label that tells you the life cycle
carbon footprint, and not just on a product you buy but on a
behavior you engage in?
Ms. Wong. If I could speak to that briefly, a lot of our
activities that we have engaged in for sustainability purposes
and greenhouse gas management purposes have been driven by our
customers. Our customers have asked for it, and we have done
the necessary research to supply them with the information they
needed, either to conduct an activity or to measure the
services we were providing for them. So yes, if there were a
system available where life cycle analyses were available, it
would be very helpful and it is occurring now. There is more
information out there than you might think. Unfortunately, it
is hidden in each individual company's website. It has not been
compiled.
Ms. Gravender. I believe The Carbon Trust in the U.K. has
begun a program where they actually have an icon of a black
footprint that is small or large as an indication of the
emissions associated with producing that product. So I believe
that we are starting to get to the point where consumer
knowledge and consumer awareness is growing and is interested.
In terms of the lifestyle, I am not sure how that is going to
transpire. The Climate Registry is considering taking on some
of these issue of life cycle assessment within our voluntary
registry and will take all of your remarks into consideration.
Chair Baird. One of the things that strikes me, and I am
sure you all know this better than I, but if you were to make a
presumption that a sort of a morality or philosophical basis,
there is no reason that one person on planet Earth should be
able to produce more greenhouse gas and ocean acidification
gases than another, and get I believe we are 20-some folds
greater than where we need to be in order to get lethal
overheating of our planet and acidification where it needs to
be. We need to dramatically reduce, and you know, back to Dr.
Bartlett's observation, I think there is a general sense that
people feel, well, we are entitled to a certain lifestyle, and
I think the gentleman, Mr. Stephenson, said people don't want
to give up eating meat. You know, part of acting as a
responsible person in a shared environment is you don't say
what do I want to do, you say what is the right thing to do,
what are the consequences of my action. And the reason I ask
these questions is how do we get to that.
Preventing Carbon Market Manipulation
I want to ask Mr. Ellis, you made an interesting
observation. We have seen a financial melt-down because, you
know, credit default swap, nobody was paying attention and
because there were conflicts of interest with people reporting
one thing, even though they knew something else to be true
because it was in their incentive to do so. As we look at a
grand scheme of things, and as Mr. Inglis pointed out, we look
at these fluctuations in the markets already in Europe, how do
you get around that? If you come up with a complex cap-and-
trade kind of system, how do we prevent it from market
manipulation, dishonest numbers, et cetera?
Mr. Ellis. Well, I think the simple answer is third-party
verification. And along with that obviously needs to come a
very strong management of that. And I think we can look to The
Climate Registry as setting a good example in that regard. The
amount of information that I as a verifier provide to them in
order to be vetted, in order to even embark on a verification
with one of their members, it is very detailed, and just simply
asking the question I think helps start that. For instance, no
member of our staff that has more than $5,000 personal interest
in a company can perform any sort of verification work for that
company. The greatest risk I see, however, is like I mentioned
in my written testimony and here today, is thinly veiled
consulting and verification sides of the same company. I think
it is fairly easy to engineer something like that on paper to
say, oh, that is our consulting branch. They don't do any
verification work. It is pretty easy to make it look that way
on paper. But I think when you really get out there in the
field, you can pierce a hole through that veil pretty easily.
So that would be our biggest word of warning, and it is
also why we, as a business, have made the absolute decision
that we will not consult. It just introduces risk. I mean, even
if I don't personally know the person that did the consulting
work and I am the verifier, if I see my company logo on that
report that I am verifying, I am going to feel some amount of
pressure to reflect positively on that work product. So I think
the simple answer is a strong verification will smooth those
market fluctuations because there is faith that the product
actually exists, especially when you are talking greenhouse gas
that you can't see and hold.
Chair Baird. Ms. Wong.
Ms. Wong. If I could add to that, I think the key to the
question was beginning with an extremely complex system. An
extremely complex system with added complexity because third-
party validation is added is not going to get us very far. What
is going to get us to real reductions is a simple system that
is predictable, that can be implemented quickly. You may not
get all of the reductions you want immediately, but you will
get some demonstrable reductions. And then you can take
additional time to develop your program.
Chair Baird. What about a hybrid where you encourage the
voluntary self-monitored thing, and then there are adverse or
positive consequences if the third-party validates what you
have done? In other words, if you get it right, you say, we
have lowered it by 30 percent, these guys come along, low and
behold you have lowered it by 30 percent, you get a fabulous
prize. If you don't, you get a fabulous penalty.
Mr. Ellis. There is a bit of that built into The Climate
Registry right now, and the baseline verification is much
stronger. You are building a relationship between the verifier
and the reporter and saying, okay, you have the internal
management structure to understand your inventory and manage
this program well, and then every annual subsequent
verification can be ratcheted down a bit because you have faith
in the system and you are just verifying the system still in
place, not necessarily every single work product of the system.
So that has been acknowledged I think well by The Climate
Registry.
Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, following up on that, could you
lead me through an example, Mr. Ellis, of how verification
might work in a particular business? Let us say Waste
Management has a site. How would you go about verifying their
compliance with a voluntary cap-and-trade? How does that work?
Mr. Ellis. For instance, in The Climate Registry where it
is a voluntary inventory program, it is a pretty simple flow
chart if you want to call it that, where initially we gather
remotely all their data, as much as they can send us, and we
take a representative sample, for example, electricity usage,
say. We would look at their spreadsheet by which they tracked
that electricity usage, and then we would ask them to send us
January's bills. And we look and learn how that interface
happens. How did it get from the bill or the meter, whatever,
to the spreadsheet? And we deconstruct every bit of that data
and then rebuild it and see if we come up with the same
numbers. And then that serves as a risk analysis to say there
is the most inherent risk? Where did they most likely miss a
meter or, you know, misdocument some information, something
along those lines. And that is when we go on site and
specifically target those high-risk areas and those areas that
could most materially impact the verification. And that process
holds true, just as an example, of the range that we deal with
at AWMS. Our first verification was a small-scale ski resort,
and we embark next week on verification of one of the largest
electricity generation transmission and distribution utilities
in the United States. So that mechanism holds true across
almost literally as wide of a range of spectrum as you could
possibly imagine.
Mr. Inglis. In order to do the ski slope, do you have to
have already the electric utility?
Mr. Ellis. No. No, the protocols apply the same to each.
Mr. Inglis. I guess what I am asking is the electric--how
certain are you that the ski slope, the bill reflects the
actual generation of the power? In other words, they know how
much was nuclear, how much was--I mean, is that easily
discerned?
Mr. Ellis. It is, absolutely. You know, first we assess
off-site, whether the bills are accurately transcribed. I mean,
you can have simple data transcription errors that lead to a
material impact. But then the on-site, in their case,
electricity was a huge component. It was the overwhelming
component of their inventory. So we literally said, okay, we
are in this building, show me the meter, you know, and make
sure that that meter marries up to what we physically see on
site. So it can be physically verified. Absolutely.
Mr. Inglis. And Ms. Wong, you made a very important point
earlier about this being simple to do because we don't want to
add a burden. If we can avoid the burden, we want to not add a
burden. So you found it fairly easy to ferret out that
information?
Ms. Wong. It depends on the source. In the case of
electrical utility usage, there are eGRID standards published
putting a value on the typical carbon impact of electrical
generation in a particular state. It averages in all the
different sources. And you can use that as a default value. Or
if you are buying exclusively from a utility that uses green
energy, you can do your own formula from that utility, but
using the eGRID numbers provides a pretty robust result.
Mr. Inglis. Electricity being really somewhat fungible, how
certain are you that you can really track that? I mean, you
feel comfortable with that, that if you are buying green energy
you really are buying green energy?
Ms. Wong. Well, we produce green energy, and the green
energy we produce we certainly validate as green energy. I
don't think I can really speak to the subject of how to
determine whether energy is green or not, but when you ask if I
am comfortable with the end result, yes, because an invoice is
ultimately audited as part of your financial data. Chances are
if a company is paying an invoice, it is accurate. They are
going to do something about it if they are overpaying, and the
seller is going to do something about it if they are
underpaying. So when you use an invoice as your core data
source, it is inherently verifiable.
Mr. Inglis. Did you want to add something to that, anything
else?
Mr. Stephenson. Let me just add, you mentioned electricity
grid is homogeneous. I mean, you can't tell whether your watt
of electricity came from a nuclear plant or a wind farm or
whatever. If 20 percent of our energy comes from nuclear, you
can allocate the carbon emissions based on a watt of
electricity. So you couldn't say this guy was nuclear and he
has a smaller carbon footprint than this guy who got it all
from those high-sulfur content coal or something.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Baird. Ms. Edwards.
Voluntary and Mandatory Standards and Reporting
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize I wasn't
here earlier for your testimony, but I looked at it and I just
have one question or a set of questions for Ms. Gravender. Is
that how you pronounce your name? Thank you. And it has to do
with voluntary versus mandatory, you know, reporting and
standards because I have had experience in dealing with
companies reporting labor practices internationally. And there
are many mixed messages about how and whether these kind of
voluntary reporting systems can work when it is essentially
sort of self-policing. And so I wonder if you could explore
with me just for a bit about what kinds of incentives or not
really enforcement mechanisms because it is a voluntary
program, but what kind of incentives can be in place that
encourage companies to straightforwardly and accurately report?
And then what is in it for them? I mean, I looked in your
testimony, and you indicated some of the reasons why folks
would want to participate in a reporting program, but what is
in it for them in the end? And then lastly, if you could talk
to us about how one might make a transition from a voluntary
system to a mandatory system and then what are the sets of
things that need to be in place in order to encourage
compliance even in a mandatory system?
Ms. Gravender. Thank you for your questions. I think the
first thing to understand is that while The Registry's
voluntary program is voluntary and you elect to participate, it
is not in fact self-policing. We have third-party verifiers
such as Advanced Waste Management who must review and attest to
the quality of the data that is reported. So you can't
voluntarily choose which emissions you are going to report,
rather you voluntarily choose to participate in the program and
then the data that you report is reviewed by a third-party
verification body annually. So that is a bit different.
What is in it for companies, as we said earlier, companies
cannot manage what they don't measure. So it is very valuable
for organizations to understand their corporate-wide footprint
so that they can identify where there are opportunities for
reductions. That may lead to emission reduction projects that
create financial value to them, it may also just be an
inefficiency approach for them where they an identify
pollution, if you will, that they can reduce and act more
effectively.
In terms of a transition from voluntary to mandatory, I
think we are thinking of this from the mindset of most
organizations will likely report mandatory emissions first. So
I think it is sort of flipping the question in how can
mandatory data be then used in a voluntary world. Assuming a
company is required to report to a mandatory program, that is
likely going to be facilities that trigger a certain threshold
of emissions to their largest sources of emissions. And then to
supplement that for the full corporate footprint if you will,
can that mandatory data be transferred into a more robust
voluntary database if you will where the organization could
round out the rest of their emissions footprint. That is how we
are seeing the intersection between mandatory reporting which
will likely be at a certain threshold to voluntary reporting
that will get more comprehensive in scope.
Ms. Edwards. And then are there incentives in terms of a
company's relationship to a consumer or client that would
encourage greater participation?
Ms. Gravender. I think some companies are more aware, more
concerned about the public perception and want to be seen as an
environmentally progressive organization or particularly
concerned about their emissions footprint. So I think there is
just a different risk assessment and interest in that from a
corporate perspective.
Ms. Edwards. I mean, if you look now for example at like
LEED's standards and LEED's certification, you know, I mean
there are developers out there who say they want that LEED's
certification. And we haven't really had to do very much to
necessarily require it, but it has become kind of an industry
mantra. And I wonder if there is a similar application in the
area of emissions.
Ms. Gravender. Well, I think there is certainly the
possibility. We have seen from the California Climate Action
Registry which is a voluntary registry, when the State of
California implemented mandatory reporting, we thought this
will get an interesting observation. Will those companies that
signed up for a voluntary program drop off and just participate
in the mandatory program or will they maintain both? And what
we have seen thus far, even though it is very early in the
process, is that companies are staying in the voluntary
registry because they derive value associated with that. So we
expect to see, and hope to see, a similar experience. It will
be very interesting to see how mandatory greenhouse gas
emissions are required to be reported at the federal level to
see how organizations react to that.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. Dr. Bartlett.
Informing the Public
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. I enjoy the Waste
Management ads on television. They have such beautiful nature
scenes, but every time I see that ad, I am reminded that
although burning that stuff is kind of green, that waste stream
represents profligate use of fossil fuels, doesn't it? And so
in an increasingly energy-deficient world, there is going to be
less and less of that waste stream. And wouldn't it be greener
to not have used that stuff initially so that it doesn't end up
in the landfill? That is just an observation. How close are we
to being able to have truth in advertising? I am not a big fan
of government and government regulation, but I am a huge fan of
truth in advertising and labeling. How close are we so that we
can tell the consumer, and probably have to use something like
CO2 equivalence because that is what people are
understanding about contribution to climate change and global
warming. How close are we to telling the guy what this action
will entail in terms of CO2 equivalent footprint?
Like when you sit down to eat that big beefsteak, if in big red
letters on the menu it told him that that had a bigger carbon
footprint than driving his Explorer there to eat it, don't you
think we might have some change in behavior? Because I think
most people are really concerned about this but they are
ignorant, they don't know what they are doing. How close are we
that we can put down the global warming contribution of all of
our actions and things we buy and so forth?
Ms. Wong. Well, sir, we have the technology now to obtain
the carbon footprint of just about any activity you would like
to footprint.
Mr. Bartlett. So why aren't we putting that down on the
menu and on the gas pump and on your thermostat in your house
if you turn it up two degrees, what is the CO2
footprint? Why aren't we doing that? I think people would like
to know the contributions they are making so they can use less
destructive pursuits and products and so forth? Is that
something we need to do or is that something the industry can
voluntarily--I am not a big fan of Big Brother, by the way. I
like industry to lead. Why doesn't industry lead in doing this?
Ms. Wong. Well, as an example, we have been engaged in
greenhouse gas inventorying and reduction efforts since 2004,
and it is still voluntary. We are still doing it, still
advancing it, and we plan to disclose our company carbon
footprint for 2009 in 2010.
Mr. Bartlett. But that is on a website somewhere. It is not
on your electric bill, it is not on your menu, it is not listed
on the products you buy in the grocery store. Everything we
buy, everything we do, you just can't live and use energy
without having a CO2 equivalent footprint, can you?
Why aren't we being told what that is so that we can make wise
choices? We have the capability to do it, don't we? Can we at
least make a reasonable guesstimate as to the CO2
equivalent contribution of everything we buy and everything we
do? Why wouldn't that be desirable to have that there so that
people can see?
Mr. Stephenson. It would, but the quickest way to do it is
to mandate it, unless there is public pressure to have such
information. That is usually the way it happens the quickest,
if there is a great demand from the public to have better
information on the carbon footprint of everything they do.
There are many websites that individuals can go on and estimate
their own carbon footprint, for example, but how many people do
you think actually do it? They just don't for whatever reason.
Mr. Bartlett. It is so easy to see it if it is on the gas
pump, if it is on your menu, if it is on the box of Cheerios
you buy. It is so easy to see it there. I would just like to
see it there. I encourage industry to do this before government
tells them to do it. You know, that just encourages government
to get bigger, when industry doesn't do something and they are
forced to do it because we ask them to do it. I would hope that
you would encourage the industry you are all associated with to
start putting the CO2 equivalent of carbon footprint
on everything that you sell, on all of our activities so that
Americans know the contribution that they are making to
potential global warming. I think most of us want to be
responsible, but you know, there is enormous ignorance out
there about the consequences of our activities. Well, thank you
very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a good hearing.
International Carbon Control
Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. I want to talk a
little bit briefly about how can we scale this up
internationally if we go to Copenhagen, if we go to
international cap-and-trade or something like that? How capable
are other countries of learning our way of exporting this? We
don't have it yet in our own country, so it is presumptuous I
suppose. We export it, but Ms. Wong asserts and others seem to
verify we can get a pretty good estimate of carbon footprint.
We seem to think that either with the combination of upstream
or downstream albeit with some imperfections we might be able
to get a pretty good sense. How do we scale this up globally?
Ms. Wong. Well, I think you have kind of answered your
question in asking. We do need to do a little more here before
we can scale it up, and a good start is to provide a uniform
base to do a small amount of reporting, a limited reporting
scope, and then allow the states to enhance that to perhaps
require more data or more intense data and compile that to come
up with our own carbon footprint, and then we can lead through
example.
Mr. Stephenson. I would just say I think you need to start
where the information is the best right now in carbon and then
work on the other greenhouse gases in increasing complexity as
better information becomes available on the other gases.
Mr. Ellis. These are programs that have been operating at
an international level a lot longer than we have been in the
conversation, so as opposed to looking at it maybe as an export
situation, we can pay attention to the import situation. There
is a lot of good science and a lot of good, real-life market
experience out there. They have gone through a number of course
corrections in the European emissions trading scheme, and there
are a number of other international trading schemes out there.
So I think the question should also include what can we import?
It is a critical element.
Chair Baird. Excellent point, and there are certain other
manufacturers that are working on making the electronics,
automobiles, et cetera, far more recyclable than ours are. So
it is a very, very good point.
Closing
Mr. Inglis, did you have any additional questions? With
that, I want to thank our witnesses for an outstanding and
informative hearing today. The record will remain open for two
weeks for additional statements for the Members and for answers
to any follow-up questions the Committee may ask of witnesses.
With that the witnesses are excused and the hearing is now
adjourned. I thank the witnesses and all those in attendance
today. I thank our panelists.
[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
We provide specific answers to your questions in the enclosure and
also provide some general observations below that address a number of
the items in your questions. It is worth noting that, in some cases, we
do not have a basis to respond to some of the questions because we do
not have ongoing or completed work in those areas. To the extent that
the Subcommittee has a continuing interest in areas where we axe not
able to provide complete responses, we are available to meet with you
or your staff to discuss your interests and assist in developing a
request for GAO to do additional work that would enable us to respond
to these and other questions about greenhouse gas emissions data.
General Observations
The data requirements to develop reliable emissions
baselines depend largely on (1) the types of entities and gases
covered in a regulatory program and (2) the point of
regulation.
First, the data requirements depend on the breadth of
entities covered across economic sectors and the number of
greenhouse gases covered. With respect to breadth, if a program
were to only include electricity generating units, we already
have adequate emissions data to establish an emissions
baseline. If a program were to address emitting entities across
all economic sectors--as many policy experts recommend--data
gaps may exist. We have not evaluated the quality of baseline
emissions data for sectors beyond electricity generating units.
Any facility that has historical data on its combustion of
different fossil fuels would be able to develop a reasonable
estimate of its carbon dioxide emissions. However, including
other greenhouse gases beyond carbon dioxide in a program could
present challenges in establishing an emissions baseline. While
carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion can be
calculated with a reasonable degree of certainty based on the
use of different fuels, emissions of other greenhouse gas
emissions can be more difficult to quantify. This is
particularly true for nitrous oxide and methane, which are
generally emitted by diffuse sources such as agricultural
operations, fossil fuel extraction, and landfills. We have not
evaluated the quality of methods for calculating emissions of
the other three primary greenhouse gases (hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride), although these
substances are produced by a relatively limited number of
manufacturers and these manufacturers may be able to provide
information on historical production and emissions that could
help in establishing a baseline.
Second, the point of regulation would play a major role in
the need for additional data on baseline emissions levels.
Specifically, an ``upstream'' program that focuses on a
relatively limited number of fossil fuel and synthetic gas
manufacturers, importers, and producers would greatly reduce
the data requirements for establishing baseline emissions
levels. For example, an ``upstream'' program might involve
thousands of entities whereas a ``downstream'' program focused
on individual industrial facilities and consumers could involve
tens of thousands of regulated entities. Thus, developing a
reliable emissions baseline for an ``upstream'' program would
be much easier than doing so for a ``downstream'' program.
Direct monitoring of emissions is not necessary to
establish baseline emissions levels for carbon dioxide. Carbon
dioxide emissions can be calculated with a reasonable degree of
certainty using information on the type and quantity of fossil
fuel combusted. The key data need here is reliable historical
data on fossil fuel use rather than direct monitoring data.
Direct monitoring may be useful or necessary for establishing
baselines for other greenhouse gases, but we have not evaluated
data needs for these gases. We are available to work with you
to obtain more information on this issue if this is an area of
further interest.
Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1. Mr. Stephenson, in your testimony you describe the method in which
EPA determined a baseline of emissions for implementation of the Acid
Rain program.
Q1a. How long will it take EPA to create a similar baseline for GHG?
A1a. EPA has baseline data on carbon dioxide emissions from power
plants that are sufficient for that sector of the economy. We have not
evaluated the extent to which EPA has reliable data for other economic
sectors or greenhouse gases. Officials within EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation may be better positioned to respond to this question.
Q1b. Could a GHG emissions baseline be generated in a similar manner
to the acid rain program such that it is based on an average of a
three-year time period that occurs well before implementation of the
regulatory program to prevent gaming of the numbers?
A1b. This approach would help prevent gaming and could be used for
regulating carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector but
we have not evaluated the availability or quality of data for other
gases or economic sectors. As we reported in our prior work on lessons
learned from the international climate change programs, several experts
stated that existing data on fossil fuel consumption axe sufficient to
establish an emissions trading program, although we reported this
information as expert opinion rather than independently verified fact.
Q2. What happened to those facilities in the EU during the first phase
that did not have an accurate baseline to start with?
A2. Our review did not focus on the baselines of specific facilities.
In the first trading phase, the EU generally lacked the facility-
specific emissions data essential to the effective implementation of a
downstream program that distributes allowances for free. Instead, most
EU member states based the cap and allowance allocations largely on
business-as-usual projections, which are inherently uncertain. During
the first trading phase, verified emissions data reported by regulated
entities revealed over-allocation--the cap, or supply of allowances,
was greater than actual emissions. The number of allowances that each
facility received, however, did not exceed its actual emissions. Some
facilities, such as those in the power industry, were not given enough
allowances to cover emissions and they purchased or reduced emissions.
Other facilities, such as those in the energy-intensive manufacturing
sectors, were given a surplus of allowances that they could trade on
the market or hold. It is worth noting that EU member states have since
taken verified emissions data from the first phase into account to set
emissions caps in the second phase.
Q3. As you state in your testimony, EPA generates an emission
inventory as part of the U.S. commitment to UNFCCC. You also claim that
emission factors for some industries such as electricity and cement are
very advanced, while others have yet to be generated.
a. How does EPA account for emissions for the industries where
the agency lacks robust emission factors?
b. How much uncertainty is built into the EPA GHG inventory?
A3a,b. As stated in its most recent inventory, EPA adheres to UNFCCC
reporting guidelines and IPCC protocols when compiling its annual
greenhouse gas inventory. In 2006, the IPCC revised these guidelines in
order to increase the comprehensiveness and detail of emissions
estimates.
The specific methodologies used by EPA to calculate and account for
uncertainty vary by the gas and the source, i.e., activity generating
the emissions. Each annual inventory report contains descriptions of
the uncertainty analyses performed for some of the sources, including
the models and methods used to calculate the emission estimates and the
potential sources of uncertainty surrounding them.
Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion can be
estimated with a high degree of accuracy using emissions factors.
According to EPA, combustion-related emissions represented
approximately 94 percent of carbon dioxide emissions and 81 percent of
total emissions in 2007.\1\ Emission estimates for other gases, such as
methane and nitrous oxide, are considered less certain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Measured in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent. Carbon dioxide
equivalents provide a common standard for measuring the warming
efficiency of different greenhouse gases and are calculated by
multiplying the emissions of the non-carbon-dioxide gas by its global
warming potential, a factor that measures its heat trapping ability
relative to that of carbon dioxide.
Q3c. Is the EPA inventory an accurate enough accounting to base a
regulatory program on? Wouldn't some industries be better positioned
than others due to the greater amount of confidence on the accuracy of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the emission factor for that industry?
A3c. We have not specifically answered these questions in our prior or
ongoing work. In general, the data needs for a U.S. regulatory program
would depend on its design--specifically, the point of regulation and
the method of allowance allocation. For example, a ``downstream''
program, which regulates emissions at the facility level, would involve
a large number of regulated entities and would require extensive data.
Reliable data are especially important for a program that gives away
allowances in order to determine how many each facility should receive.
The ETS demonstrated that giving away allowances can create and
transfer substantial assets of considerable value. Specifically, some
power producers in the EU's deregulated energy markets passed on the
market value of allowances, which they received for free, to consumers
by adding the value of allowances to energy rates, resulting in
windfall profits.
Conversely, an ``upstream'' program would regulate emissions at the
producer/importer level, which would significantly reduce the number of
reporting entities and the administrative burden of collecting the
data.
Q3d. Should NIST play a role in setting these emission factors?
A3d. We have not assessed the appropriate role of NIST with respect to
setting emission factors.
Q4. How would the data required for a mandatory program to limit
emissions differ from a voluntary program? Many of the voluntary
programs have similar reporting requirements. Why would a mandatory
program be so different?
A4. High quality data are important for ensuring the integrity of
voluntary and regulatory programs. Data quality takes on increasing
importance in the context of regulatory programs such as a tax or a
cap-and-trade system that place a price on greenhouse gas emissions.
Q5. How well would a mandatory program actually function if it was
based on registries that are generated from emission factors and
estimates versus direct monitoring? Would the level of emission
reductions be compromised if the registries were based on estimates
versus direct monitoring?
A5. We have not specifically addressed this question in our issued or
ongoing work. In general, carbon dioxide emissions can be calculated
with reasonable accuracy using emissions factors and data on fuel
quantities and types. Thus, direct monitoring of carbon dioxide
emissions may not be necessary to establish reasonable registries and
baselines for carbon dioxide emissions, especially in an upstream
system. Our work has not focused on the availability or quality of
emissions factors or direct monitoring methods for other greenhouse
gases.
Q6. At the federal level, the mechanism to create high quality
emissions data will enable us to track progress and economic impacts;
at the individual facility level, managers will be able to make better
investment decisions with robust emissions data.
a. Do voluntary emission registry firms supply the protocols
and standards to properly capture all emissive activities with
the same amount of reliability?
b. Is ANSI doing a sufficient job in pushing these standards
to a consensus?
A6a,b. We have neither assessed the standards or protocols of voluntary
emission registry firms, nor have we focused on ANSI's role in pushing
the standards to a consensus.
Q7. Are there any significant obstacles to the monitoring or verifying
of emissions that Congress should consider?
A7. Our work has not identified the presence or absence of significant
obstacles to monitoring or verifying emissions.
Q8. Other than those industries that are currently required to report
their carbon dioxide emissions to the EPA, what other industries have
developed technologies to directly monitor GHG emissions?
a. What industries do not have appropriate monitoring
technology, but will likely need it under any mandatory program
to limit emissions?
b. Are you aware of any government programs that are currently
dedicated to developing direct monitoring technologies for GHG
emissions?
A8a,b. GAO has not assessed the extent to which specific industries
have developed direct monitoring technologies for greenhouse gas
emissions, or whether any government programs contribute to these
efforts. The need for such technologies would also depend on a
regulatory program's scope and design.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jill E. Gravender, Vice President for Policy, The Climate
Registry
Questions submitted by Chair Brian Baird
Q1. The Climate Registry requires its participating members to report
emissions from all sources in North America. However, members may
choose to report a global inventory. Are there different requirements
for the emissions reporting for facilities outside of North America?
How does the Climate Registry define a reputable verifier for the
purposes of verifying emissions data for facilities outside North
America?
A1. The reporting requirements for worldwide emissions (or non-North
American emissions) are the same as The Registry requires for North
American emissions. However, while The Registry has made a concerted
effort to define emission factors for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, The
Registry has not currently done so for the rest of the world. While The
Registry plans to include some basic emission factors from other
countries in the near future, a member is responsible for determining
proper emission factors and calculations, if necessary, to accurately
calculate their emissions from sources outside of North America.
It is important to note that The Registry requires third-party
verification of worldwide emissions, if a member chooses to report
them. As a result, all reported worldwide emissions must obtain a
verification finding of ``reasonable assurance'' that the reported
emissions are within The Registry's five percent materiality threshold.
Members may choose to report their worldwide emissions two ways: 1)
Members could use an ANSI-accredited, Registry-recognized Verification
Body to verify their entire worldwide emissions, and 2) Members could
use an ANSI-accredited, Registry-recognized Verification Body to verify
their North American emissions inventory, and then use an ISO 14065-
accredited Verification Body to verify their non-North American
emission inventory.
The Registry depends on the national accreditation bodies in
various countries to assess the general competency of Verification
Bodies interested in verifying GHG emission inventories outside of
North America. As The Registry's program grows, we will continue to
monitor and evaluate the appropriateness of this policy to ensure that
Verification Bodies are qualified to verify emission inventories
worldwide.
Q2. As was noted during the hearing, power plants and large industrial
facilities have continuous emission monitoring (CEM) equipment that
record emissions of several gases. What other facilities emitting
greenhouse gas emissions might it be possible to apply similar CEM
technologies to?
A2. EPA's Acid Rain Program requires regulated facilities to use CEMs
to report NOX and SO2 data to EPA. CEMs may also be used to
measure CO2, however, additional adjustments may need to be
made to the device (inclusion of a CO2 or oxygen monitor
plus a flow monitor would be necessary to compute emissions in tons per
hour). The Climate Registry suggests that you speak directly to EPA's
Acid Rain program for answers to technical questions pertaining to
CEMs.
It is possible to apply CEMs to any facility that has a stack,
however, depending on the size of the emissions output of that stack,
it may or may not be efficient to deploy CEMs to every stack. It may be
just as effective to use calculation methodologies based on fuel use,
efficiency; time operated, etc.
Most single large sources of GHG emissions already have CEMs
installed. Since GHGs are ubiquitous and can be produced from a large
number of small sources, they are very different in nature from
criteria pollutants, and therefore, must be measured and controlled
differently. Since GHGs are produced from small sources, it is not
feasible, nor cost effective to require CEMs to be installed on all GHG
sources. Instead, alternative methods, such as calculations based on a
number of relevant parameters must be used instead to quantify GHGs in
a meaningful, cost effective way.
Q3. In your written testimony you indicate it would be helpful to
develop more industry-specific protocols. Which industries would be the
best candidates for these improved protocols?
A3. Since the Subcommittee hearing in February, the US EPA released its
Draft Mandatory Reporting Rule for GHG Emissions. This Draft requires a
number of specific industries to report their GHG emissions. The
following sectors will be required to report to EPA under the Mandatory
Reporting Rule:
Adipic Acid Production
Aluminum Production
Ammonia Manufacturing
Cement Production
Electric Power Systems
Electricity Generating Facilities
Electronic Manufacturing Facilities
HCFC--22 Production
HFC 23 Destruction Processes
Lime Manufacturing
Manure Management
Landfills
Nitric Acid Production
Petrochemical Production
Petroleum Refineries
Phosphoric Acid Production
Silicon Carbide Production
Soda Ash Production
Titanium Dioxide Production
Underground Coal Mines
Based on EPA's reporting threshold of 25,000 tonnes of
CO2e per year, emissions from these sectors will produce
approximately 85-90 percent of total U.S. national emissions. These
industries should be the focus of industry specific reporting
protocols.
Q4. Your written testimony provides a list of GHG calculation
methodologies that require refinement to reduce uncertainty in GHG
emission reporting. It appears that some of the items listed might be
considered proprietary information by the specific entity involved.
Would this concern be a barrier to design of a structured sampling or
survey program to develop improved calculation methodologies?
A4. The results of some of the required measurements (amount of coke
produced, etc.) may be considered proprietary information, however, it
is important that consistent calculation or measurement methodologies
exist to determine these results. Therefore, companies should not have
a problem using a standardized calculation/measurement method to
determine the information necessary to calculate their emissions, but
they may not wish to share the resulting raw information publicly in
order to protect confidential business information.
It is important to note that all emissions information may not be
considered confidential under the Clean Air Act, however, raw
information used to calculate emissions could be considered
confidential.
Q5. During the hearing, it was pointed out that it can take some time
for a new member of The Registry to obtain all the necessary
information to meet The Registry's requirements for reporting their
emissions. About how much time does it require for new members to be
able to fully report their emissions in accordance with The Registry's
standards from the time an entity indicates their desire to be a member
of The Registry?
A5. The time necessary to successfully complete a GHG emissions
inventory depends entirely on how much work an organization has done to
assemble their inventory prior to joining The Registry. The biggest
factors in successfully completing an emissions inventory are: 1) how
well the emissions information is organized (management systems, data
archiving, measurement practices, documentation, skilled personnel,
etc.) and 2) how well the organization's staff understands The
Registry's reporting requirements.
Some organizations join The Registry without ever assembling an
emissions inventory before. In general, these organizations can collect
the basic information necessary to report their annual emissions within
a year. Other organizations only join The Registry once they are
convinced that their current emission inventory will meet The
Registry's reporting requirements. As a result, they could join The
Registry and report their emissions immediately.
In general, The Registry believes that most organizations can
assemble a reasonable inventory in a year or so. However, to provide
organizations with the ability to scale up their inventorying
activities over time, The Registry allows organizations up to three
years to report their complete North American inventory of all six
internationally recognized GHGs.
Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1. How different are the reporting protocols for The Climate Registry
compared to other organizations? Has there been an effort made between
different organizations (The Climate Registry, the California Registry,
and the Chicago Climate Exchange) to standardize these protocols to
make it easier on those companies that want to participate in more than
one?
A1. The Climate Registry is the only voluntary GHG registry that
requires public reporting of all North American emissions. Therefore,
it is different and distinct from other voluntary and mandatory GHG
programs. The Climate Registry used a series of international GHG
standards (World Resources Institute/World Business Council for
Sustainable Development's GHG Protocol and the ISO 14064 standard) and
existing best practice protocols (i.e., the California Registry and
other industry publications) as the foundation for its Protocols. The
Registry's protocols are therefore consistent with international GHG
reporting and verification standards and industry best practices. In
addition, The Registry produced its protocols through a public
development process that included technical experts, industry
representatives, environmental groups, and government agencies.
The California Climate Action Registry was created in 2001, and
quickly became known as the model for a rigorous voluntary GHG
reporting program. The Climate Registry was incorporated in 2007. The
Climate Registry drew from the California Registry's existing protocols
to develop its own protocols.
In April, 2009, the California Climate Action Registry officially
changed its name to be the Climate Action Reserve (The Reserve). Moving
forward, The Reserve will focus its efforts on developing emission
reduction protocols and tracking the resulting emission reductions,
i.e., ``offset projects.'' The California Registry will continue to
collect emissions data for 2009 (reported in 2010), but will then cease
collecting emissions data. The California Registry is working with The
Climate Registry to transition its members to report to The Climate
Registry to continue their entity-wide emission inventory reporting
efforts.
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a private exchange that works
with its members to reduce GHG emissions. CCX develops protocols for
emission reduction projects and serves as an exchange for its members
to transfer the emission reductions to and from interested parties
within the exchange. The Climate Registry focuses on public reporting
of a company's GHG emissions inventory and does not require members to
reduce GHG emissions. The Registry also does not develop emission
reduction protocols. Thus, the Chicago Climate Exchange's work is
complementary to The Climate Registry's. In fact, several companies are
members of both The Registry and CCX.
The Climate Registry's primary mission is to ensure consistency of
GHG calculation, reporting, and verification standards. The Registry is
working closely with mandatory GHG programs at the State, regional, and
federal level to ensure that at a minimum the calculation methodologies
are the same across programs. The Registry's goal is to serve as a
central data repository for members to report their emissions (once) to
multiple programs, thereby reducing the reporting burden for members,
while meeting the various policy needs of different GHG programs.
Q2. How many small businesses are part of The Climate Registry? Do you
provide additional assistance to companies who wish to participate and
report their greenhouse gas emissions but may not be, able to afford
the cost of gathering all the data and go through a third-party
verification process?
A2. Approximately one third of The Climate Registry's 330-plus members
could be considered small businesses. The Climate Registry provides the
same excellent customer service and technical support to all of our
members, including the small ones. The Registry offers regular webinars
and trainings to help all members assemble their GHG inventory. In
addition, The Registry has a ``help line'' where members can call staff
experts to discuss particularly difficult reporting issues.
Small businesses must meet the same reporting requirements as
larger organizations. There are not different standards of reporting
based on size.
Third-party verification is required for all members, regardless of
size. However, The Registry offers a service called ``batch
verification'' for organizations with relatively small and simple
inventories (less than 1,000 tonnes of CO2e per year, no
process emissions, etc.).
The purpose of Batch Verification is to help reduce the cost of
verification by ``batching'' together a number of small inventories for
one Verification Body to review and verify. The Batch Verification Body
is selected by The Registry each year (not the member) and The Registry
negotiates one standard rate for verification for each eligible
member--which is generally lower than a member seeking verification
services directly.
Q3. How long does it take for a third-party verifier to become
accredited by your organization? How many are actually accredited?
A3. The Registry does not accredit Verification Bodies itself, but
rather uses the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as its
third-party accreditation body.
The amount of time it takes for a Verification Body to become
accredited depends on how well organized and prepared the Verification
Body is. If a Verification Body has a well defined and documented
management system in place the accreditation process should not take
more than approximately three months. If a Verification Body's
management system is not in place, it could take some time for them to
become accredited.
Currently there are seven ANSI-accredited, Registry-recognized
Verification Bodies. We anticipate there will be three more accredited
Verification Bodies shortly. To see the list of ANSI-accredited,
Registry-recognized Verification Bodies, please visit The Registry's
website: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/verification/list-
of-verifiers.php
Q4. If Congress were to enact a mandatory emission reduction program,
should the official database/registry be managed directly by the
Federal Government? Or would the data be better managed by some outside
organization such as The Climate Registry?
A4. Without knowing the specifics of a federal emission reduction
program, it is difficult to advise the Subcommittee on how best to
manage it. Regardless of the program design, however, it will be
important that reporters do not have to enter emissions data in more
than one place for more than one use. For example, if a reporter is
subject to mandatory reporting at the State, regional, and federal
level, reporting the same data three or more times will not be
efficient.
There are several ways to address the need for multiple GHG
programs that limit the reporting burden for reporters. 1) Congress
should ensure that data reported to one program can be exchanged and
used by other programs--perhaps through the Exchange Network; or 2)
Congress should ensure that there is one central data repository
through which reporters may enter their emissions data once to meet all
of the necessary reporting requirements for multiple programs. This
concept could be achieved by either the Federal Government or through
an organization like The Climate Registry.
The Climate Registry is currently developing its ``Common Framework
for Mandatory Reporting'' to serve as the central repository for GHG
data to various mandatory reporting programs as well as its voluntary
registry.
The Registry will be submitting formal comments to U.S. EPA to
further elaborate how data collection between multiple GHG programs
could happen. The Registry's comments to the EPA regarding its
Mandatory Rule are available on The Registry's website: http://
www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/Public%20Hearing%20
comments%20on%20EPA%20rule.pdf
Q5. What is currently being done to update obsolete emission factors?
Are these calculation methodologies generated by the government alone?
Or, do they arise from a collaborative effort from industry which then
becomes the de facto standard?
A5. Several government agencies are responsible for updating key
emission factors (EIA, DOE, EPA, etc.) necessary for calculating GHG
emission inventories. Most default emission factors are developed by
government agencies, however, detailed calculation methodologies for
specific industries are often developed by industry associations, such
as the American Petroleum Institute and others.
Q6. It has been estimated that nearly 20 percent of global greenhouse
gas emissions are generated from livestock. Does the agricultural
industry participate in The Climate Registry? Does The Climate Registry
have a suitable protocol for inventorying emissions from livestock and
land use changes, with account for approximately one third of global
greenhouse gas emissions?
A6. The Climate Registry's members currently include nine members
associated with the food and beverage industry. This ranges from an
onion farm, to a dairy operation, to a cheese producer.
The Climate Registry has not yet developed a protocol for livestock
management or forestry management. As a result, members with these
types of emissions will need to follow industry best practices to
calculate their emission inventories.
Please note that livestock management and land use management are
both areas where emission reduction activity can occur. The California
Climate Action Registry, recently re-named the Climate Action Reserve,
has developed emission reduction protocols for both sectors. (http://
www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/project-protocols.html)
Q7. Based on the sentiments expressed by the Senate in the Byrd-Hagel
resolution in 9997, any mandatory emission reduction program will
surely have an international piece to maintain American competitiveness
in international markets. How does The Climate Registry plan on
including this type of information? This will be particularly important
in the cases of China, India, Brazil, and Mexico because these
countries may not develop verifiable climate registries for some time.
A7. The Climate Registry is working with mandatory GHG reporting
programs that are being developed by states, regions, and Federal
governments to ensure that the calculation, reporting, and verification
standards are as consistent as possible. In this capacity, The Climate
Registry is not setting climate policy, but rather, informing policy-
makers of the need for consistency, and offering its technical tools
for use in mandatory programs. It will ultimately be the responsibility
of the U.S. Government to define how the Byrd-Hagel resolution will be
addressed in any federal program needing Senate approval.
Q8. As Congress considers ways to associate a cost with carbon dioxide
emissions, a mechanism to create high quality emissions data is of
increased importance. At the federal level, this mechanism will enable
us to track progress and economic impacts; at the individual facility
level, managers will be able to make better investment decisions with
robust emissions data.
Q8a. Should industries be responsible for composing their own
reporting standards?
A8a. Industries should not be able to set their own reporting
standards. Any federal reporting standards should be based on
international standards such as the World Resource Institute/World
Business Council for Sustainable Development's GHG Protocol and the ISO
14064 standard, in addition to industry best practices. The Federal
Government must define a clear set of reporting standards for all
regulated parties that take into account the internationally accepted
GHG standards as well as industry best practices.
Q8b. Should NIST play a role in setting reporting standards?
A8b. As indicated above, international GHG reporting standards have
already been defined; they just need to be implemented. That said, NIST
could play a useful role in helping to develop technologies that
increase the ease and accuracy in reporting GHG emissions.
Q8c. Do voluntary emission registry firms like yours supply the
protocols and standards to properly capture all emission activities
with the same amount of reliability?
A8c. The Climate Registry supplies its members with reporting and
verification protocols that explain how GHG emissions must be
calculated and verified. Two protocols, the General Reporting Protocol
and the General Verification Protocol, address the most commonly
occurring emission sources. In addition, The Registry is working to
finalize two new industry specific protocols (Electric Power Sector and
Local Government Operations), and will continue to develop new industry
specific protocols that provide further guidance to reporters in speck
sectors.
The level of reliability is determined through The Registry's
annual third-party verification process, wherein all reported emissions
must meet a materiality threshold of five percent.
Q8d. Is ANSI doing a sufficient job in pushing these standards to a
consensus?
A8d. ANSI has designed and implemented a program to meet the needs of
ISO 14065. This program accredits Verification Bodies interested in
verifying GHG emissions to the international standard and ensures that
competent Verification Bodies are conducting verification activities.
The Climate Registry currently uses ANSI as its accreditation body.
It is critically important that the Federal Government and other State
and regional GHG programs also utilize ANSI in this capacity to ensure
one common standard for the accreditation of Verification Bodies in the
U.S. As a result, the important push to consensus will be driven by the
policy-makers in their decision to use ANSI as a third-party
accreditation body rather than by ANSI itself.
Q9. Are there any significant obstacles to the monitoring or verifying
of emissions that Congress should consider?
A9. While there are many details to consider, it is important to
recognize that we currently have the capacity to accurately calculate,
report, monitor, and verify GHG emissions from most sectors. While some
additional refinements may be needed, we should not delay the start of
a robust program until all of the minor details are resolved.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Leslie C. Wong, Director, Greenhouse Gas Programs, Waste
Management, Inc.
Questions submitted by Chair Brian Baird
Q1. In your written testimony you describe a process now underway to
characterize fugitive methane emissions over the range of conditions
characteristic of different landfills, both operating and closed. How
does the variability in fugitive methane emissions associated with
these factors compare with the variability in estimates for methane
emissions using current estimation methods? Do the variations in
season, management, and site specific conditions for landfills make
these sources candidates for continuous monitoring that would allow for
reporting of a range of emissions or a more realistic summation of the
actual annual emissions from these facilities?
A1. The U.S. EPA in its proposed mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, reviewed
methods for estimating landfill emissions and concluded that direct
measurement techniques were not yet available for accurately or
reliably measuring landfill emissions. According to EPA in its proposed
rule preamble, ``the direct measurement methods available (flux
chambers and optical remote sensing) are currently being used for
research purposes, but are complex and costly, their application to
landfills is still under investigation, and they may not produce
accurate results if the measuring system has incomplete coverage.''
Waste Management agrees with EPA's determination that reliable and
accurate, direct measurement methods are not now available for
continuous greenhouse gas (GHG) emission monitoring at landfills. As
the leading researcher employing these methods, WM can confirm that
research is continuing, but data sufficient to support their use as
tools to generate accurate measurements to serve as the basis for
regulatory compliance have not been generated to date.
Instead, EPA proposes that landfill owner/operators use a
combination of two approaches: 1) all landfills would use the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Order Decay
model to estimate landfill emissions that reflect degradation of wastes
in a landfill; and 2) for landfills that operate landfill gas
collection and control systems, EPA proposes that these landfills also
measure collected landfill gas flow and the methane concentration of
the gas flow, with an estimated gas collection efficiency to calculate
methane generation. Where landfills have active landfill gas collection
and control systems, we are able to directly and continuously monitor
total collected landfill gas flow; and, although it is not standard
operating practice nor required by the New Source Performance Standards
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, we can continuously monitor the
methane concentration of collected landfill gas.
Coupled with these two measurement approaches, EPA also requires
owner/operators to estimate the amount of uncollected methane that is
oxidized in the landfill cover material. EPA provides a default factor
for methane oxidation or allows reporters to calculate an oxidation
factor using site-specific data. A significant number of field studies
conducted in the U.S. and Europe have provided good estimates of
methane oxidation, in the form of ranges, under differing circumstances
of cover type, soil type and climate.
EPA's proposed GHG reporting requirements recognizes that landfills
are large non-point sources of GHG emissions and far more similar to a
large agricultural operation than to a point source such as a stack on
an industrial manufacturing plant. Landfill fugitive GHG emissions, in
the form of the uncollected and unoxidized methane component of
landfill gas, are neither continuous nor uniform. The volume of
fugitive landfill gas emissions, and the methane concentration in the
fugitive emissions, varies spatially across the landfill footprint, and
varies temporally across the course of a day, across seasons, and by
region of the country due to climate, soils, topography and waste
types. Based on these conclusions, EPA has proposed a workable approach
that we support.
Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1. Ms. Wong, in your testimony you state that in 2007 Waste
Management launched a two-year project to inventory emissions in order
to account for your carbon footprint. How much has this effort cost
your company so far? What will the total cost of this effort be?
A1. In December of 2007, WM formed a multi-disciplinary Carbon
Footprint Project Team to better understand our greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by measuring our company-wide carbon footprint, including
direct and indirect emissions from all WM controlled entities. The Team
is well on the way to meeting our goal of collecting data for and
calculating our 2009 GHG emissions so we can report them in 2010. The
Team organized itself around four major tasks:
1. Identifying all WM sources of GHG, and identifying existing
or developing new protocols for measuring their emissions;
2. Developing the organizational structure for reporting
emissions from individual facilities, up to the company as a
whole, and identifying internal means to collect emissions
data;
3. Selecting and configuring a software tool for managing GHG
emissions data, calculating GHG emissions of various types and
reporting WM's GHG emissions, which we have named ``Climate
Care''; and
4. Communicating to internal and external stakeholders about
what we are doing, and developing training for WM staff who
will be involved in data collection.
The Team's focus this year will be on collecting and internally
validating our 2009 emissions information, uploading it to Climate
Care, calculating GHG emissions by pollutant and compiling the WM
carbon footprint in early 2010.
Set forth below are some estimates of our internal staff resources,
our investment in electronic infrastructure and our consultant costs
associated with developing our ``Climate Care'' GHG data management
tool, identifying our sources, gathering information required to
calculate emissions and calculating our emissions for calendar year
2009. These cost estimates do not include internal resources or
external consulting costs associated with landfill monitoring research,
emissions testing, development of the SWICS landfill GHG estimation
protocol, or upgrades to existing landfill gas collection monitoring
equipment, as we consider these to be long-term investments with
benefits reaching beyond facilitation of GHG reporting. Also, these
cost estimates do not include the cost of third-party verification, as
WM is hopeful that third-party verification will not be required on a
federal basis.
However, WM has investigated what the cost of third-party
verification would be to the company if The Climate Registry's
protocols were adopted on a federal level. Using a cost estimate from a
reputable third-party verifier for labor and internal cost estimates
for travel expenses to provide cross-country access to that verifier,
the total estimated cost for annual third-party verification of WM's
GHG reports would be approximately $500,000.
To provide some background on the costs provided below, WM is
including in its carbon footprint all six commonly recognized GHGs as
emitted by approximately 2,500 sites including open and closed
landfills of various types, waste-to-energy facilities, alternative
fuel power plants, recycling facilities, transfer stations, hauling
companies and office-based operations. This wide variety of operations,
however, generates GHGs from only four major sources: direct emissions
from landfills; direct emissions from fuel combustion in on-road and
off-road mobile sources as well as stationary sources; indirect
emissions from use of electricity; and direct emissions of refrigerants
from maintenance of our own equipment and processing of discarded
refrigeration units at some facilities.
Landfill emissions are calculated using the SWICS protocol (shared
with Committee staff). Waste-to-energy facility and power plant
emissions are calculated using existing emissions test data and waste/
fuel receipt data. On-road and off-road mobile source and stationary
fuel-burning source emissions are calculated using TCR/CCAR fuel
default emission factors and fuel invoice data. Indirect emissions from
use of electricity are calculated using E-Grid default emission factors
and electricity invoice data. Refrigerant emissions, which are expected
to be well under five percent of WM's GHG emissions, are estimated
using company average refrigeration unit usage and management
assumptions for each type of site.
The effort associated with our carbon footprint effort is reflected
in internal WM staff costs, in external consulting costs of IHS, our
equipment vendor, and ERM, who customized the IHS software for use by
WM, and in the cost of purchasing software and related operating
licenses. Internal staff costs include two full-time managers, one
environmental and one IT, technical support from professionals in all
WM operations departments, WM legal and financial control support, and
data entry personnel.
The internal WM staff hourly rate used above represents an average
salary plus a standard benefits multiplier for the key staff that
worked on this project. It is not a fully loaded rate, and it does not
include travel associated with working on the project. The estimates of
hours of efforts were obtained from interviewing the staff involved.
The ERM and IHS staff hourly rates represent an average of each
company's billable rates for the personnel assigned to WM's project.
Hours and cost are from the contract between ERM and WM. Hardware and
software costs are from invoice data.
Q2. Waste Management is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and
the California Climate Action Registry. How similar are the reporting
requirements of these two organizations? What are the differences
between them?
A2. Waste Management, as a founding member of the Chicago Climate
Exchange (CCX) and as a member of the California Climate Action
Registry (CCAR), has voluntarily reported GHG emissions for a subset of
our operations in accordance with the two entities' membership rules
and protocols. The protocols for calculating emissions are very similar
across the two programs, and the protocols used are consistent with the
widely accepted GHG reporting protocol developed jointly by the World
Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development. The primary difference between the two programs is that
CCX focuses solely on the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of
its members, while CCAR requires its reporting members to report all
six Kyoto GHGs (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs,
SF6) after a three-year transition period.
CCX specifically requires its members to measure baseline and
yearly CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion
in stationary and mobile sources. Additionally, WM is required to
report CO2 emissions from its nine wholly owned waste-to-
energy plants and five power plants. Because the majority of these
plants produce renewable energy, WM reports only the CO2
emissions resulting from combustion of non-biogenic materials
(primarily plastics) contained in the municipal solid waste and from
combustion of supplemental and base load fossil fuel. The annual
inventory is reported to CCX and is third-party audited by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA formally NASD) at the
direction of CCX.
Waste Management, as a transitional reporting member of the CCAR,
reports only its CO2 emissions for the first three years of
membership, which concluded with the 2008-reporting year. WM has
reported CO2 direct emissions from fuel combustion in
stationary facilities and vehicles, and indirect CO2
emissions from electricity use in the State of California in accordance
with CCAR quantification and reporting rules. The emission reports are
third-party verified by CCAR-approved verifiers. With the end of our
transition period, WM will for the 2009-reporting year be required to
report GHG emissions for all six Kyoto gases from its California
facilities and vehicles.
Neither CCX nor CCAR requires reporting of landfill GHG emissions.
However, WM has supplied landfill GHG emissions data to CCAR on a
voluntary basis, using the Solid Waste Industry for Carbon Solutions
(SWICS) protocol.
Q3. Waste Management emits greenhouse gases from many different
sources.
a. What percentage of your emissions is tracked by direct
monitoring technologies? Can this number be increased?
b. What types of technologies would be needed in order to
increase the amount of greenhouse gas emission that are
directly monitored? Are any of these technologies currently
being developed?
A3a,b. WM, for its company-wide carbon footprint, plans to use The
Climate Registry (TCR) or CCAR-approved GHG emission calculation
protocols for estimating all of its GHG emissions. The U.S. EPA has
proposed the same or very similar protocols for its mandatory GHG
Reporting Rule. These calculation methodologies employ scientifically
demonstrated mathematical formulas, which are used to estimate GHG
emissions associated with landfill emissions, fossil fuel combustion in
stationary, off-road mobile and on-road mobile sources, electricity
use, and municipal solid waste combustion at our waste-to-energy
plants.
For landfill emissions, U.S. EPA in its proposed mandatory GHG
Reporting Rule, reviewed methods for estimating landfill emissions and
concluded that direct measurement techniques were not yet available for
accurately or reliably measuring landfill emissions. Instead, EPA
proposes that landfill owner/operators use a combination of two
approaches: 1) all landfills would use the UN Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) First Order Decay model to estimate landfill
emissions that reflect degradation of wastes in a landfill; and 2) for
landfills that operate landfill gas collection and control systems, EPA
proposes that these landfills also measure collected landfill gas flow,
the methane concentration of the gas flow, and estimated gas collection
efficiency with site-specific data to calculate methane generation.
Where landfills have active landfill gas collection and control
systems, we are able to directly and continuously monitor total
collected landfill gas flow; and, although it is not standard operating
practice nor required by the New Source Performance Standards for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, we can continuously monitor the
methane concentration of collected landfill gas.
Coupled with these two measurement approaches, EPA also requires
owner/operators to estimate the amount of uncollected methane that is
oxidized in the landfill cover material. EPA provides a default factor
for methane oxidation or allows reporters to calculate an oxidation
factor using site-specific data. A significant number of field studies
conducted in the U.S. and Europe have provided good estimates of
methane oxidation, in the form of ranges, under differing circumstances
of cover type, soil type and climate.
For waste-to-energy plants, EPA's proposed rule asks for an annual
measurement of GHG emissions for the facility. WM plans to use an
annual stack test (using the EPA-approved methodology) to develop an
emissions factor for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane in
pounds per ton of municipal solid waste (MSW) combusted. The emissions
factors are then multiplied by the annual throughput of MSW combusted
at the facility. For an annual measurement, use of stack tests in this
manner will provide as accurate and reliable a measurement as would an
annual averaged reading from a continuous emissions monitor. The
formalized emission test provides a high degree of accuracy, as does
the precise measurement of the mass of MSW input to the system. A
continuous emission monitor does not employ the technical finesse of a
formalized emission test, and is subject to periodic maintenance and
recalibration.
The reporting of GHG emissions associated with fuel use in
stationary and mobile sources typically uses a calculation methodology
that estimates emissions based on the carbon content of the fuel and
the mass of fuel consumed. This is an accurate estimate because carbon
is not consumed in the combustion process, but is emitted. Inventorying
indirect emissions from electricity use requires the use of estimation
techniques based on actual metered use rates combined with GHG emission
factors based on the type and proportion of fossil or renewable fuels
used to generate electricity in a particular state. The utilities
themselves are able to directly measure their stack emissions of
CO2, but users of electricity must calculate their indirect
emissions associated with electricity use because they cannot determine
the specific power plants providing electricity to the grid at the time
power is used.
Q4. You state in your testimony that the solid waste management sector
decreased greenhouse gas emissions by more than 75 percent from 1974 to
1997. How were these reductions made? What opportunities exist to
further decrease your emissions?
A4. Through improved practices, such as recycling and landfill gas
collection and combustion, GHG emissions from MSW management have
decreased by over 75 percent from 1974-1997 despite an almost two-fold
increase in waste generation.\1\ The EPA-sponsored study footnoted
below evaluated MSW management practices as they evolved throughout the
last several decades. For the baseline year of 1974, MSW management
consisted of limited recycling, combustion without energy recovery, and
landfilling without gas collection or control. This was compared with
data for 1980, 1990, and 1997, accounting for changes in MSW quantity,
composition, management practices, and technology. Over time, the
United States has moved toward increased recycling, composting,
combustion (with energy recovery) and landfilling with gas recovery,
control, and utilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ K. Weitz et al., The Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management
on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States, Journal of Air &
Waste Management Association, Volume 52, September 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WM believes that additional opportunities exist for further
reducing GHG emissions within our sector. In October of 2007, WM
announced a series of environmental initiatives to serve as a platform
for sustainable growth, building on a number of innovative technologies
WM already employs. They include:
The operation of landfill gas-to-energy, waste-to-
energy and biomass plants that produce electricity and fuels
that replace fossil fuel use. We plan to double our output of
renewable energy by 2020;
Saving resources and energy by recovering valuable
materials through the Nation's largest recycling program. We
plan to triple the amount of recyclable materials we manage by
2020;
Advancing technology for alternative transportation
fuels (e.g., landfill gas to liquefied natural gas) and engine
design to lower GHG emissions from our vehicles. We expect to
direct capital spending of up to $500 million per year over a
ten-year period to increase the fuel efficiency of our fleet by
15 percent and reduce our emissions by 15 percent by 2020;
The continued recovery and destruction of methane gas
from landfills; and
Development of ``Next Generation'' technology
landfills that offer enhanced collection and beneficial use of
landfill gas.
Q5. As Congress considers ways to associate a cost with carbon dioxide
emissions, a mechanism to create high quality emissions data is of
increased importance. At the federal level, this mechanism will enable
us to track progress and economic impacts; at the individual facility
level, managers will be able to make better investment decisions with
robust emissions data.
a. Should industries be responsible for composing their own
reporting standards?
b. Should NIST play a role in setting reporting standards?
c. Do voluntary emission registry firms supply the protocols
and standards to properly capture all emissive activities with
the same amount of reliability?
d. Is ANSI doing a sufficient job in pushing these standards
to a consensus?
A5a,b,c,d. As Waste Management has worked over the last year to develop
the tools to measure our company-wide carbon footprint, we have gained
an appreciation for the complexity of the effort and the need to ensure
our customers, our regulators and ourselves that we have done so
correctly. One of the key challenges we have faced is the lack of
broadly accepted protocols for measuring GHG emissions from our solid
waste management operations, particularly landfills.
To facilitate our voluntary reporting of methane emissions from
landfills to the California Climate Action Registry, WM and other
public and private owners and operators of landfills formed the Solid
Waste Industry for Climate Solutions (SWICS), and commissioned SCS
Engineers to conduct an in depth literature review and make
recommendations on refining current landfill emissions models. The
protocol, which has been shared with EPA, The States of California,
Massachusetts, and New Jersey, along with CCAR and the Climate
Registry, replaces default values for landfill gas collection
efficiency and methane oxidation in existing EPA models with ranges,
which better account for effects of climate, landfill design and
landfill cover types. The protocol was peer reviewed by a team of
landfill academicians and practitioners. The protocol represents a
first step in refining existing EPA models and protocols to improve
landfill methane estimation. We are pleased that EPA's proposed
mandatory reporting rule adopted aspects of the protocol to allow
reporters to either use default values supplied by EPA, or to undertake
more rigorous emissions estimation using site-specific information on
collection system and landfill cover system design and operation.
Our experience with developing a protocol for estimating landfill
emissions leads us to believe that a consensus-based standards-setting
process would be the most constructive means for developing generally
accepted protocols for sectors that now lack such protocols. GHG
emissions inventorying and accounting is an evolving art and science.
The advent of federal GHG reporting requirements offers an excellent
opportunity to develop consensus standards for emissions inventorying
for key industry sectors. The National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113) directs federal agencies to use
consensus-based standards in lieu of government-unique standards except
when inconsistent with law or otherwise impracticable.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) process for
voluntary standards development is the ``gold standard'' of such
processes. It is guided by the principles of consensus, due process and
openness, and depends heavily upon data gathering and compromises among
a diverse range of stakeholders. The process ensures that access to the
standards development process, including an appeals mechanism, is made
available to anyone directly or materially affected by a standard that
is under development. WM would welcome and support efforts by NIST and
ANSI to develop consensus-based protocols to implement both mandatory
and voluntary GHG emissions reporting programs.
Q6. Are there any significant obstacles to the monitoring or verifying
of emissions that Congress should consider?
A6. Waste Management does not support a requirement for third-party
verification of mandatory GHG emissions reporting. There is no
precedent for third-party verification in any federal environmental
statute under which we operate. The solid waste management sector is
subject to numerous reporting requirements under federal statutory
programs including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean
Air Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Spill
Containment and Countermeasures Program, the Clean Water Act, and
Superfund to name a few. None of these programs require third-party
verification of reporting, and many do not even require self-
certification. All, however, include enforcement provisions, which
create significant disincentives for faulty or false reporting. Any GHG
reduction regime promulgated at the federal or State level will
incorporate similar enforcement mechanisms designed to promote good
behavior and penalize violators.
Our experience with third-party verification under the CCX and
CCAR, suggests that any requirement for third-party verification in a
federal mandatory reporting program will add significant logistical
issues and delays to the reporting process without enhancing the
quality or reliability of reported data. EPA would have to develop
standards for the certification of third-party verifiers, approve a
sufficient number to ensure that the thousands of reporters subject to
the mandatory reporting rule would have ample access to certified
verifiers, and then oversee the verification process. Should disputes
arise between reporters and third-party verifiers, the likely venue for
negotiation is the court system, which would add profound delays to the
confirmation of reported data. The EPA has proposed instead to require
GHG emissions reporters to self-certify their emissions reports that
EPA will then verify. EPA has outlined robust data requirements to
ensure that it has the background information necessary to verify the
completeness and quality of the emissions reports. We believe that this
approach will avoid delays in program implementation, reduce the number
of disputes and the time required to rectify them, as well as reduce
costs for reporters who would have had to pay for third-party
verification, while still ensuring the completeness and quality of
emissions data, which itself in many cases will require the services of
a third-party expert.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Rob Ellis, Greenhouse Gas Program Manager, Advanced Waste
Management Systems, Inc. (AWMS)
Questions submitted by Chair Brian Baird
Q1. In your testimony, you explain that the fundamental principle of
the on-site verification is that an inventory calculation is only as
good as the raw data used to make that calculation. In your experience,
what are some of the challenges with gathering good quality raw data?
A1. For many companies the process of generating a complete GHG
inventory is new. In AWMS' experience the greatest challenge we see is
the difficulty of creating a complete inventory. In the cases where a
reporter has omitted a GHG source it is impossible for that reporter to
go back in time and begin measuring that source. This can result in an
unverifiable inventory if that omission exceeds materiality (five
percent error) thresholds. This is a key point: a GHG inventory is not
one point source, or a ``tailpipe'' measurement--there are many
emissions sources at any given site.
Q2. Can you explain any drawbacks to using the data collected from the
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS)? What are the
maintenance requirements for CEMS? Do CEMS measure methane and nitrous
oxide or only carbon dioxide? Do you verify the emissions recorded with
CEMS?
A2. The primary drawback to using the data collected from CEMS is that
it can lead to a false sense that GHG inventories are measurable with a
single point source measurement device. As stated, a GHG inventory
comprises monitoring and measurement of many GHG sources, most of which
will be outside the scope of CEMS. Should a power plant, for example,
rely on solely CEMS then data sources such as emergency generator
emissions, coal pile emissions, and fugitive emissions will be omitted.
The maintenance requirements for CEMS are very specific, and include
items such as automated calibrations and periodic stack testing to
confirm the accuracy of the CEMS. In AWMS' experience a power plant
often will assign staff the specific job of CEMS maintenance full-time.
Taken in this context, however, CEMS data provides a very reliable
source of data. As a verifier AMWS would accept CEMS data in accordance
with the applicable reporting protocol, but would still perform a
verification of the data by checking items such as calibration records
and the availability records of the CEMS. CEMS can be set to monitor
almost any gas, however methane would not likely be one of these.
Temperatures in stack gas would be so high any methane would probably
combust.
Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1. How many companies in the U.S. at this time are third-party
verifiers? How long does it take to get accreditation to be a third-
party verifier?
A1. Utilizing the global best management practice of ISO 14065
accreditation, there are eight accredited verifiers (including AWMS).
This accreditation program is overseen and managed by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI represents the U.S. in the
International Accreditation Forum (IAF) that ties this accreditation to
the international community. In AWMS' case the process to become
accredited by ANSI took about eight months (May 2008 thru December
2008). AWMS was a successful member of the pilot group of verifiers, so
some of this time can be attributed to the fact that each step was
being performed for the first time.
Q2. How long does it take for you to audit a single company's
greenhouse gas inventory? Is your entire staff involved in every audit?
What is the average number of staff assigned per audit? How many audits
can your company conduct in a single year?
A2. As can be expected, the length of time to perform a verification
varies greatly depending on the reporting entity. Having said that,
there are a number of key indicators that affect that time. For
example, the homogeneity of a reporter's operations drives the level of
effort greatly. Reporters utilizing a small number of technologies
(e.g., coal fired power plants) require a smaller number of site visits
in order to sample the emissions inventory where reporters utilizing a
large number of technologies (e.g., coal fired, gas fired, and waste-
to-energy) require a larger number of site visits in order to sample
the emissions inventory. AWMS does not involve the entire staff in any
audit; the average number of staff assigned per audit is two to three
(consisting of a Lead Verifier, an additional Verifier when necessary,
and a Peer Reviewer). AWMS has not had to turn down any verification
work due to a lack of resources.
Q3. Are the verification protocols utilized for auditing greenhouse
gas inventories the same as protocols used for determining the validity
of off-sets? How are these protocols different?
A3. The protocols for auditing greenhouse gas inventories are slightly
different from those used to verify offset projects. The primary reason
for this is there are different programs for inventories (e.g., TCR)
and offset projects (e.g., CCX). Being different entities, they have
developed their own protocols. The protocols differ primarily in the
calculation methodologies but are based on international practices.
There are key similarities, however, such as the requirement for third-
party verification. This is the globally accepted best management
practice.
Q4. What is the typical margin of error you have found during
auditing? Do you assist companies to reduce this error in reporting?
Are there any penalties incurred by the companies that have significant
errors in their reporting?
A4. TCR and international practices have set the acceptable error level
at five percent (assessed independently against direct and indirect
emissions). AMWS has been able to successfully verify reporters against
this requirement to-date. A very clear requirement of any third-party
verification body is that we will in no way assist companies. AWMS'
responsibility is to identify error and maintain our impartiality by
not participating in or recommending corrections. Along those lines any
assessment of penalty is the responsibility of the relevant program.
AWMS does have the responsibility to report our verification findings
without consideration of reward or consequence.
Q5. Do you test the monitoring technologies to ensure that the data
received from them is accurate?
A5. AMWS verifies whether the reporter assesses themselves to ensure
that their data is accurate. This includes actions such as verifying
proper maintenance, equipment calibration, placement, and, where
required, physical sampling such as stack tests. AWMS reviews the
records of these actions to ensure they are being performed.
Q6. As Congress considers ways to associate a cost with carbon dioxide
emissions, a mechanism to create high quality emissions data is of
increased importance. At the federal level, this mechanism will enable
us to track progress and economic impacts; at the individual facility
level, managers will be able to make better investment decisions with
robust emissions data.
Q6a. Should industries be responsible for composing their own
reporting standards?
A6a. In order for any emissions inventory to be accepted at an
international level, and thus gain access to the international market,
industries need to follow the global best management practices. This
necessitates a centralized set of protocols by which industries
calculate their inventories. A prime example is that of The Climate
Registry that creates a system of comparable inventories, i.e.,
comparing apples to apples. If industries are asked to compose their
own reporting standards there will be no consistency and U.S. companies
will be barred from any trading on the international market.
Q6b. Should NIST play a role in setting reporting standards?
A6b. Any role that NIST could play in GHG reporting is already being
filled, with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) being the
best example. The unique value that ANSI brings to the role is their
membership in the International Accreditation Forum (IAF). IAF is a
global unifying body that ensures that accreditation as a verifier
under ANSI's program is recognized internationally. This, in turn,
ensures that a U.S. company that has their inventory verified by an
ANSI accredited verifier will be recognized at the international level.
For this reason, ANSI is the best choice to provide oversight of any
U.S. GHG program. As far as specific reporting protocols, those have
also been developed and are in common use. These protocols, such as The
Climate Registry's General Reporting Protocol, have been developed with
linkage to international protocols in mind, thus ensuring that U.S.
verified inventories would be recognized internationally. Both ANSI and
TCR are in practice today; there is no need to recreate these functions
within NIST.
Q6c. Do voluntary emission registry firms supply the protocols and
standards to properly capture all emissive activities with the same
amount of reliability?
A6c. In AWMS' experience the voluntary emission registries in which we
participate (TCR, CCX) are producing high quality protocols that do
properly capture emissive activities. As with any protocol or standard
it is up to the end-user (reporters in this case) to appropriately
apply these protocols. That highlights the fact that third-party
verification is a critical element; it is in this phase of an inventory
program that assurances are made that a reporter appropriately
interpreted and applied the protocols and that no emissive activities
were omitted. Relative to GHG programs, ANSI utilizes ISO 14065 and ISO
14064-3 which are Standards written and ratified by ISO member nations
(159 nations). ANSI ensures that U.S. programs and verifiers operate in
a fashion consistent with the international community, thus keeping the
link to the international market open.
Q6d. Is ANSI doing a sufficient job in pushing these standards to a
consensus?
A6d. Absolutely, ANSI is doing an excellent job in pushing these
standards to a consensus. AWMS has experienced a great deal of two-way
communication with ANSI, including updates on the status of various
U.S. programs utilizing ANSI as the accreditation scheme of choice.
Examples grow on a routine basis and ANSI continues to work towards
bringing all verifier accreditation under one system. Through ANSI's
representation in the IAF this scheme ensures recognition of not only
U.S. verifiers on the international level, but also the inventories
verified by that same group.
Q7. Are there any significant obstacles to the monitoring or verifying
of emissions that Congress should consider?
A7. A very recent obstacle presented itself with the release of the
draft EPA mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule. In this draft EPA
recommends bypassing third-party verification in favor of internalizing
that function to the EPA. This immediately would place the U.S. program
in contradiction to every other GHG program in the world. In so doing,
all U.S. reported inventories would be called into question
internationally and would prevent U.S. reporters from entering the
international trading market. The argument is presented within this
draft rule that EPA has experience with this sort of work through the
acid rain program. This is not true in that the comparison between
monitoring and verifying data for the acid rain program can be linked
to CEMS, while those same CEMS comprise only a portion of a GHG
inventory. A GHG verification involves much more than checking the data
quality of a monitoring device; this is expertise that resides in the
public sector with private companies specialized in emissions inventory
verification. This relates directly to another argument presented in
the draft EPA rule that states that third-party verification is too
expensive. Again, this argument is flawed in that third-party verifiers
are already operating in the marketplace. There is no ramp-up cost
associated with these companies any longer, and third-party verifiers
already have trained staff and management systems in place. Should EPA
assume the responsibility of verifier at this stage, all that ramp-up,
learning, training, and program development will need to be repeated in
the EPA. The argument that there is no need for third-party
verification and that spot checks by EPA are sufficient is a very
shortsighted argument By ignoring the international best practice the
U.S. will take itself out of the international carbon market and
eliminate the vast potential of earnings for forward-minded companies
who build carbon credits. This draft EPA rule poses an obstacle to
international recognition and acceptance of a U.S. GHG inventory
program and any future cap and trade program, should the decision to
eliminate third-party verification stand.
Further, the draft EPA rule replaces globally vetted emissions
calculations and emissions factors with EPA's own versions that have
never been tested or internationally used. These EPA procedures further
require numerous repetitive site and fuel specific calculations, the
cost of which would be extreme.
MONITORING, MEASUREMENT, AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
II: THE ROLE OF FEDERAL AND ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2321 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monitoring, Measurement, and Verification
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions II:
The Role of Federal and Academic
Research and Monitoring Programs
tuesday, april 22, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On April 22, 2009, the House Committee on Science and Technology
will hold a hearing entitled ``Monitoring, Measurement, and
Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions II: The Role of Federal and
Academic Research and Monitoring Programs.'' The purpose of the hearing
is to examine existing and planned federal programs focused on
monitoring, measuring, and verifying sources and sinks of greenhouse
gases, their atmospheric chemistry and their impacts on Earth's
climate. The Committee will examine both top-down and bottom-up methods
for tracking greenhouse gases including: ground-based, tropospheric,
and space-based monitoring systems as well as facility-based monitoring
systems and inventory and reporting methods.
The Committee seeks to understand how the existing and planned
federal measurement and monitoring systems can be utilized to gain
greater understanding of sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and to
support research on greenhouse gases, evaluation of national and
international greenhouse gas mitigation policies, and development of
projections of regional climate impacts to inform development and
implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies. The Committee
also seeks to identify the key requirements that need to be addressed
in developing a scientifically and operationally robust system for
verifying compliance with potential climate agreements.
Witnesses
Dr. Alexander ``Sandy'' MacDonald, Director, Earth
Systems Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
Dr. Beverly Law, Professor, Global Change Forest
Science, Oregon State University, and Science Chair, AmeriFlux
Network
Dr. Richard Birdsey, Project Leader, Climate, Fire,
and Carbon Cycle Science, USDA Forest Service, and Chair,
Carbon Cycle Scientific Steering Group
Dr. Michael Freilich, Director, Earth Science
Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Ms. Dina Kruger, Director, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Deputy Director, National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Dr. Albert J. Heber, Professor of Agricultural and
Biological Engineering, Director, Purdue Agricultural Air
Quality Laboratory, Purdue University, and Science Advisor,
National Air Emission Monitoring Study
Background
The Federal Government has a number of programs that gather
observations on greenhouse gases, climate, ecosystem function, land use
change, and primary production on land and in the oceans using ground-
based, aircraft-based, and space-based measurement techniques. These
monitoring and measurement programs are integral parts of research and
observation programs designed to gain greater understanding of the
Earth's carbon cycle, global nutrient budgets, atmospheric chemistry,
the fate and transport of air pollutants, and ecosystem health and
function.
There are also several monitoring, measurement and reporting
activities that are tied to voluntary reporting, regulatory programs,
or international treaty obligations. The voluntary emissions reporting
program at the Department of Energy (DOE) tracks the emissions of
entities that volunteer to provide information about the greenhouse gas
emissions associated with their activities. Under the Clean Air Act,
the Environmental Protection Agency manages cap-and-trade programs to
control the emissions of air pollutants from the power generating
sector. The U.S. has ratified two international treaties--the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol. Both
of these treaties require monitoring and reporting of greenhouse and
ozone depleting gases, respectively to ensure compliance and
effectiveness of these treaties.
Research efforts are also underway to quantify greenhouse gas
emissions from previously unmonitored sources. For example, the
National Air Emission Monitoring Study (NAEMS) is continuously
monitoring levels of hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, ammonia,
nitrous oxide, volatile organic compounds and greenhouse gases released
from lagoons and animal barns at 20 animal feeding operations in the
United States. Led by researchers at Purdue University, the 2.5 year
study was established in 2006 by a voluntary Air Compliance Agreement
between EPA and the pork, dairy, egg, and broiler industries. The study
is currently in its second year of monitoring, and once complete will
be used to develop protocols for measuring and quantifying air
pollutants emitted by animal feeding operations.
Several proposals are under consideration to develop mandatory
programs to report and to control the emissions of greenhouse gases
associated with the burning of fossil fuels here in the U.S. At the
same time, 192 countries are preparing to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark
in December of this year to negotiate an agreement on an international
framework to control emissions of greenhouse gases.
The monitoring system now in place serves important ongoing
functions in the support of research on the Earth's climate and carbon
cycling systems. The current observation system also provides us with
information about the likely direction and magnitude of changes in
climate and other phenomena, such as ocean acidification, that we are
likely to experience as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere continue to increase.
A different configuration and level of investment may be required
if we are to adapt the current monitoring and observation systems to
address specific questions about the efficacy and level of compliance
we are achieving as a result of a control program for greenhouse gases.
This hearing will explore the following three issues:
Is our current monitoring system being maintained to
support research and general information needs to track the
Earth's climate and anticipate future impacts?
What changes need to be made to the current
monitoring systems to support the need for verification and
compliance with a greenhouse gas control program domestically?
What is the status of the international effort to
monitor greenhouse gases and will the international monitoring
effort be able to support compliance with an international
greenhouse gas control program?
The specific type of monitoring system needed is dependent upon the
nature of the reporting or control program that is ultimately selected.
The current observing and monitoring networks include both ``top-down''
and ``bottom-up'' measurements in addition to utilizing modeling,
accounting, and other estimation methods.
Top-down measures include satellite-based monitoring or ground-
based monitoring focused on measurement of aggregate emissions over
large areas or global averages such as the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. Bottom-up measures include monitoring or
reporting of emissions from specific facilities or geographic
locations. Both general categories of measurements and observations
will be needed. However, the extent and mix of top-down and bottom-up
approaches will be different depending upon the design of the control
program.
In both cases, key parameters that need to be determined are the
baselines from which changes in emissions will be measured. In some
instances, these baselines will be relatively easy to determine. For
example, the measurement of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
associated with fossil fuel based electric generation has been directly
measured using continuous emission monitors for some years. The
determination of baseline emissions for a forest or an agricultural
area is much more challenging.
While CO2 is the most prevalent greenhouse gas of
concern, there are five other greenhouse gases that are included in
reporting programs and are likely to be included in a greenhouse gas
control program. These are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). These gases, the dynamics of their
sources and sinks, and the monitoring and measurement of them is less
well-developed than the systems for CO2.
The witnesses will discuss the specific types of monitoring
programs, how these are being used, and how they may need to be altered
to provide information to verify compliance and effectiveness of a
greenhouse gas control program.
In addition to his role at the U.S. Forest Service, Dr. Richard
Birdsey serves as Chair of the Carbon Cycle Scientific Steering Group
which provides scientific advice to the North American Carbon Program
and the Carbon Cycle Science Program. Interagency coordination of the
research, observation, and monitoring efforts is done through the U.S.
Global Change Research Program and is essential to this effort.
The information in the Appendix that follows provides a brief
overview of key programs supported by the Federal Government. They
include programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National
Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). In addition, two monitoring efforts managed by
the academic community are also included. These programs are supported
with federal funds provided by multiple agencies.
APPENDIX
INTERAGENCY RESEARCH AND MONITORING COORDINATION
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
The major goal of the CCSP initiatives to study and understand key
aspects of the climate system, including the global carbon cycle.
According to Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science
Program for Fiscal Year 2009, the strategic research questions for the
global carbon cycle are:
What are the magnitudes and distributions of North
American carbon sources and sinks on seasonal to centennial
time scales, and what are the processes controlling their
dynamics?
What are the magnitudes and distributions of ocean
carbon sources and sinks on seasonal to centennial time scales,
and what are the processes controlling their dynamics?
What are the effects on carbon sources and sinks of
past, present, and future land-use change and resource
management practices at local, regional, and global scales?
How do global terrestrial, oceanic, and atmospheric
carbon sources and sinks change on seasonal to centennial time
scales, and how can this knowledge be integrated to quantify
and explain annual global carbon budgets?
What will be the future atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide, methane, and other carbon-containing greenhouse
gases, and how will terrestrial and marine carbon sources and
sinks change in the future?
How will the Earth system, and its different
components, respond to various options for managing carbon in
the environment, and what scientific information is needed for
evaluating these options?
To address these questions, federal agencies, including the
Department of Energy, NASA, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service, Forest Service, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey contribute to and
coordinate carbon cycle research.
The major elements of the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program are:
The North American Carbon Program (NACP). The NACP
addresses some of the strategic questions on the global carbon
cycle noted above. The goal is to better characterize and
understand the factors that influence changes in the
concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere
and the amount of carbon, including the fraction of fossil fuel
carbon, being taken up by North America's ecosystems and
adjacent coastal oceans.
The Ocean Carbon and Climate Change (OCCC) Program.
The OCCO addresses specific aspects of the global carbon cycle
associated with ocean processes. The OCCC and the NACP are
complementary programs with a focus on understanding the
exchanges of carbon between terrestrial and coastal ocean
systems.
There are several interagency working groups with the larger
interagency effort that are focused on the carbon cycle and on the
coordination of climate observations. These include the Carbon Cycle
Interagency Working Group and the Observations Working Group of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
U.S. observation and research efforts are linked to the broader
international scientific community through our participation in
international organizations associated with the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) including the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
MONITORING NETWORKS AND PROGRAMS
The AmeriFlux Network
The AmeriFlux network is a ground-based, terrestrial carbon
observing system that measures the exchange of carbon dioxide, water
vapor and energy between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems. The
90 sites are located in different ecosystems throughout North, Central,
and South America and consist of towers equipped with instruments at
various heights above ground level. These sites adhere to common
protocols across the network to produce continuous, long-term
measurements of temperature, wind, water, energy, and carbon dioxide.
Using these measurements, researchers estimate terrestrial carbon
sources and sinks, the responses of these sources and sinks to climate
and land use change, and test models of the carbon cycle and the
climate system. Data from ground-based sensors is also needed to
calibrate remote sensing and space-based monitoring systems.
The AmeriFlux Network is supported by a number of federal agencies.
The Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental
Research supports approximately 20 of the sites, measurement and data
quality assurance, and data archiving activities for the network. The
network's science office is funded by the National Science Foundation
and the remaining sites are funded individually by other agencies such
as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological
Service, the Forest Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the
National Science Foundation.
The AmeriFlux Network's carbon dioxide flux observations and carbon
cycle modeling are important contributions to other national and
international observation networks. The Network's information is linked
to other federal agencies' observing systems (i.e., NASA, NOAA, NSF,
USDA Forest Service) through the North American Carbon Program's (NACP)
research plan. The NACP plan for research on the carbon cycle is
focused on measuring and understanding the permanence of North American
carbon sinks, and the AmeriFlux Network is an integral component of
this effort.
The AmeriFlux Network is linked to international carbon flux
measurement networks (i.e., CarboEuroFlux, FluxNet-Canada, AsiaFlux and
OzFlux) through the National Science Foundation's global carbon flux
network known as FluxNet. FluxNet provides infrastructure for managing,
archiving and distributing data collected at FluxNet sites to the
science community. FluxNet also supports efforts to calibrate
observations collected at different sites and to ensure data from these
sites are inter-comparable. FluxNet also provides forums for exchange
of research findings and facilitates communication among scientists
working in related fields. The goal is to build an integrated global
network of information from the regional networks in place on each
continent to better understand the carbon, energy and water balance of
ecosystems and how they fluctuate seasonally and in response to changes
in climate.
Monitoring Networks Managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
NOAA's climate observations are extensive and support a number of
atmospheric measurement platforms. The majority of atmospheric
measurements are conduced by NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory
(ESRL), located in Boulder, Colorado. ESRL's Global Monitoring Division
(GMD) conducts long-term continuous measurements on atmospheric gases,
aerosols, and solar radiation to inform research on source and sink
strengths, global climate forcing, stratospheric ozone depletion, and
baseline air quality. The Division has a number of measurement
capabilities. However, the global baseline observations and the carbon
cycle observations are most likely to have a role in verifying the
effectiveness of emission reduction strategies. The programs which
support these observations will be examined briefly below.
Global Atmospheric Baseline Observatories
ESRL/GMD supports the Global Atmospheric Baseline Observatories in
five locations around the world: Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii;
Cape Matatula, American Samoa; the South Pole, Antarctica, and Trinidad
Head, California. Up to 250 different atmospheric parameters relevant
to the study of climate change and ozone depletion are measured at each
of these locations. Measurements are made to determine baseline
greenhouse gas levels and are critical to the collection and continuity
of the world's atmospheric measurements. The first continuous carbon
dioxide measurements, for example, were taken in 1958 by Dr. Charles
David Keeling at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The Mauna Loa
observations are now the longest record of continuous monthly mean
carbon dioxide measurements in the world and were the basis for the
now-famous Keeling Curve. The Keeling Curve showed the first
significant evidence of increasing carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere and was instrumental in showing that human activity is
changing the composition of the atmosphere through the combustion of
fossil fuels.
Carbon Tracker and Related Observations
ESRL/GMD also conducts a number of greenhouse gas measurements
through its observation networks. The Division's Carbon Cycle
Greenhouse Gases Group conducts measurements that document the spatial
and temporal distributions of carbon-cycle gases and provide essential
constraints to our understanding of the global carbon cycle. The Group
conducts in-situ and flask sampling of CO2 and other
atmospheric trace gases using platforms such as: tall towers and
existing television, radio and cell phone towers; ships; cooperative
fixed sampling sites; and aircraft.
These observations are linked with other agencies' and
international observation networks to support the ESRL's research and
visualization projects. One of ESRL/GMD's programs that could have a
role in verifying the effectiveness of emission reduction strategies is
its CarbonTracker program. Launched in 2007, the Carbon Tracker a
visualization tool for biological carbon flux on a regional and global
basis. Carbon tracker uses the aforementioned measurement networks,
other NOAA and DOE sampling sites, and sampling sites operated by
Australia and Canada. The measurements are fed into a model with 135
ecosystems and 11 ocean basins worldwide. The model then calculates
carbon release or uptake by oceans, wildfires, fossil fuel combustion,
and the biosphere and transforms the data into a color-coded map of
sources and sinks.
ESRL is also planning to support a future project known as CALNEX.
CALNEX 2010 is a joint NOAA, California Air Resources Board, and
California Energy Commission field study of atmospheric processes over
California and the eastern Pacific coastal region set to begin in 2010.
Direct emissions of a wide range of species will be studied, including
aerosol, gas-phase ozone, aerosol precursors (e.g., VOCs, NOX,
SO2, CO, etc.) and greenhouse gases (CO2,
CH4, etc.). The top-down approach that that will be used is
expected to provide an independent assessment of existing inventories.
Carbon Inventory, Management, Monitoring and Reporting by the USDA
Forest Service
The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program is one of the
longest running and oldest research programs of the U.S. Forest
Service. The U.S. program was modeled on inventory programs established
in Scandinavian countries in the 1920s. The first comprehensive
inventory of forests in the U.S. began in the early 1930s but was not
completed until the 1960s. The need for more current information led to
direction in the 1998 Farm Bill to the Forest Service to adopt a
continuous annual inventory system. The information in the inventory is
used to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with U.S.
forest lands. These estimates are incorporated into the National
Inventory of Emissions for the U.S. reported to the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
In addition, the Forest Service has an active research program on
carbon cycling in forests that includes more specific direct
measurements of the flux of greenhouse gases from forest vegetation and
soils and change in these in response to changes in ecosystem
conditions or management practices.
Compilation of the National Emissions Inventory and Monitoring by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA is the lead agency charged with compiling the U.S. National
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Data from DOE, USDA, and other
federal agencies are compiled to provide an annual accounting of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions. This Inventory is submitted to the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with our
obligations under this treaty.
EPA receives data on carbon dioxide emissions from electric power
generation facilities from continuous emission monitors at these
facilities. These data are collected as part of the cap-and-trade
systems for controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The carbon emissions are
monitored as a means of verifying individual facility emissions and
ensuring compliance with the cap-and-trade program.
National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST)
NIST's role is to develop standard reference materials and assist
with calibration and characterization of the instruments used to
observe and monitor greenhouse gases. Because these measurements are
made over long period of time and from many sources and by many
different groups and individuals, NIST's role of ensuring comparability
and accuracy of these measurements is very important. NIST works with
federal agencies to ensure the quality of the data gathered through our
monitoring and observation networks. In addition, NIST serves as the
official U.S. representative in international efforts to ensure quality
and comparability of data contributed by different nations to global
data repositories.
Observations and Monitoring Programs of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)
The Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE)
The Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) network is
sponsored by NASA's Atmospheric Composition Focus Area in Earth
Science. AGAGE and previous experiments that measure the composition of
the global atmosphere have been in place since 1978. The ground-based
network supports high frequency measurements of gases specific to the
Montreal Protocol--chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons--and non-CO2 gases specific to the
Kyoto Protocol (hydrochlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide).
AGAGE includes stations in non-U.S. countries and is part of a
collaboration with the System for Observation of Halogenated Greenhouse
Gases in Europe (SOGE).
NASA Space-Based Greenhouse Gas Sensors
NASA satellite and airborne data has in the past had an influence
on environmental policy, specifically in the case of the Montreal
Protocol. NASA Earth observing data helped develop the scientific basis
that led to the Montreal Protocol and contributes to the subsequent
ozone monitoring program to support the Protocol.
Data from existing NASA sensors on orbit are already being used to
study GHGs. Planned satellites are expected to have a greater
contribution. Satellites are expected to be a critical component in
obtaining the measurements needed to support potential climate
policies.
Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) on NASA's
Aura spacecraft. TES is a high-resolution infrared spectrometer
that makes direct measurements of the ozone globally and of
other gases, including carbon monoxide and methane. TES takes a
global survey on a 16-day repeat cycle. TES' measurements of
ozone at different altitudes are used to create an ozone
profile.
Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA's Earth
observing Aqua satellite. AIRS measures temperatures,
humidities and other properties to help researchers understand
the climate system and to improve weather forecasting. Included
in its measurements are global data on CO2 in the
mid-troposphere (about five miles above Earth). Researchers
also use AIRS data to measure ozone, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, and dust particles. AIRS,
however, does not measure CO2 near the surface where
it is emitted and absorbed into the land and ocean. To detect
the sources of emissions and the absorption of CO2
near the surface, a different type of sensor was required; that
requirement led to the development of the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory.
The Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA's Aura
spacecraft continues the record of ozone measurements collected
by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument and
other ozone measurements collected from previous NASA
satellites in support of the Montreal Protocol. OMI also
measures nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), bromine monoxide (BrO), and OCIO among other
aspects of air quality.
Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which was launched on
February 24, 2009 and failed to reach orbit, ``is the first spacecraft
dedicated to studying atmospheric carbon dioxide,'' according to a
December 2008 NASA publication entitled, ``Orbiting Carbon Observatory:
Science Writer's Guide.'' OCO carried three spectrometers and would
have detected CO2 at the level of one to two parts per
million--an increase of three times the precision of any earlier
satellites that had trace gas sensors. ``The surface footprint of each
measurement is [was to have been] about 1 square mile . . ..'' OCO was
to have collected eight million measurements of CO2
atmospheric concentration every 16 days. The small size of the
footprint and the number of measurements are important for achieving
the quality and accuracy of OCO measurements, which are ``accurate to
0.3 to 0.5 percent on regional to continental scales,'' according the
OCO Science Writers Guide. The Guide also notes that the level of
precision at which OCO's instrument was designed was necessary,
``because atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rarely vary by more
than two percent from one pole to the other.''
Better understanding of the absorption and emission of carbon and
the variation of those changes over time, would have provided
researchers with new knowledge about how carbon dioxide emissions
contribute to climate change, the efficiency of carbon sinks, and
helped researchers forecast changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This
fundamental knowledge will be important for designing strategies to
manage carbon emissions, according to researchers involved in the OCO
project.
The Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat)
ICESat is the satellite used to measure the mass balance of ice
sheets, cloud and aerosol heights and variations in land elevation and
vegetation cover. This satellite provides global coverage of topography
and vegetation. This satellite also provides specific observations of
the major polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. A follow-on
mission is planned to provide continuity for the study of the major ice
sheets.
Other Federal Agency Satellite and Airborne Measurement Projects
The Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 satellites were developed by NASA and
launched in 1985 and 1999 respectively. The satellites continue the
space-based Landsat observations of the Earth's land cover, which began
in 1972. The Landsat satellites are currently operated by the
Department of Interior's U.S. Geological Survey. NASA is developing the
Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM)--the follow-on to Landsat 7--for
the USGS. A proposed 2007 plan for a National Land Imaging Program,
which would sustain U.S. long-term space observations of the land has
thus far not been implemented.
A 2006 report, Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation
in Developing Countries: Considerations for Monitoring and Measuring,
noted that Landsat and other remote sensing data can be used to
identify deforestation. Landsat data have also been used in studies to
identify selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. (Selective logging
affects the carbon storage of tropical forests.) In addition, Landsat
data have been applied to research on the use of satellite images for
monitoring and verifying agricultural practices related to soil carbon
sequestration.
NASA was one of several agencies including the U.S. Department of
Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the University of California, and the
California Air Resources Board that participated in an airborne
research campaign to measure GHGs over California. According to a June
2008 news release from the Berkeley Lab, the goal was to gain knowledge
about how much California's greenhouse gas emissions are contributing
to the overall GHG total worldwide.
The flight was linked to the NASA ARCTAS (Arctic Research in the
Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites) program.
ARCTAS connects to the broader International Polar Year effort known as
Polar Study using Aircraft, Remote Sensing, Surface Measurements and
Models (POLARCAT), which is an international initiative to employ
aircraft and remote sensing platforms to investigate climate change,
air pollution, and atmospheric chemistry.
In addition, the High Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform
for Environmental Research (HIAPER) Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO)
project is an example of an airborne carbon measuring project that
involved other research institutions and facilities. With funding
support from NSF and NOAA, researchers from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Scripps, and Harvard teamed-up to develop
a project that would investigate whether northern forests were
absorbing less carbon than had been estimated and tropical forests were
absorbing more than estimated.
The project used an NSF/NCAR Gulfstream V jet, which has long-range
and high-flying capabilities that suited the project. Repairs and spare
parts were easily obtained because Gulfstream is a commercial aircraft
that is used around the world. In addition to carbon dioxide, HIPPO
measured other greenhouse gases at one- to ten-second intervals.
Key Non-U.S. Satellites and Sensors
Europe's key greenhouse gas monitoring sensor is known as SCIAMACHY
on the European Space Agency's Envisat satellite. The SCIAMACHY
instrument measures trace gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and
carbon monoxide in the troposphere and the stratosphere.
Japan's Greenhouse Gas Observing Satellite (GOSAT), named
``Ibuki,'' was developed to detect atmospheric carbon dioxide and
methane to support compliance monitoring of the Kyoto Protocol. The
Protocol is an international and binding agreement under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and establishes targets
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions during the 2008-2012 period.
Ibuki, which was launched on a Japanese H2-A rocket on January 23,
2009, includes an infrared spectrometer to detect carbon dioxide
(CO2) and methane (CH4) concentrations and a
cloud/aerosol sensor.
Japan also operates the Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS)
and its Phased Array L-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR) is an
advanced imaging radar which is particularly suited for forest and
wetland observations. PALSAR measurements are strengthening the
satellite capabilities for mapping tropical forests for initiatives
such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).
Finally, University of Toronto's Canadian Advanced Nanospace
eXperiment (CanX) program is a technology demonstration project. The
CanX-2 micro-satellite includes an Argus spectrometer which was
designed to record greenhouse gas constituents in the near infrared
band at a surface resolution of one kilometer.
Chair Gordon. Good morning and welcome to the Committee's
second hearing to examine the systems we have to track the
emissions, sequestration, and transport of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, on land, and on the oceans. We welcome our
witnesses. We will be having more Members; this is like a lot
of times in this committee, a busy day, but we are being
televised so some of our Members are watching us, and we have
our staff here watching here and in the back. And so we want to
get all this information down. This is very important.
In our first hearing we examined the greenhouse gas
reporting systems and the methods used to verify the
information reported to greenhouse gas registries. Today we
will hear about federally-sponsored programs to monitor
greenhouse gases.
Monitoring and verification of greenhouse gases doesn't
sound like a very exciting topic. It is a little like
housekeeping; it is an essential task that goes unnoticed until
it isn't done well or isn't done at all.
So without robust monitoring and verification systems we
cannot understand the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. We
cannot detect changes in atmospheric or ocean chemistry or
understand the potential impacts of these changes, and we
cannot evaluate the effectiveness of policies to control
emissions of greenhouse gases. Equally important, we cannot
verify compliance with emission reductions agreements.
Our nation is a leader in these areas of research. Some of
the satellite observations that enable us to track Earth's heat
budget are available only because of our investment in science
programs at NASA. The ground and satellite observations that we
gather tell us a lot about local weather and climate patterns,
air quality, and the health of ecosystems and the oceans.
The monitoring and measurement systems that we have today
serve primarily a research function. Some, such as the
monitoring system associated with EPA's Acid Rain Program serve
as a regulatory purpose, and we also track emissions to meet
our reporting obligations under international agreements: the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the
Montreal Protocol.
Our colleagues on Energy and Commerce have begun their work
to develop a plan to reduce our nation's greenhouse gas
emissions. In December, 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen
to forge an international agreement to reduce emissions.
We will need a robust monitoring system that is capable of
telling us whether we are reducing emissions and meeting our
policy goals, and we need to know how the earth's climate
system is responding. Of course, the specific design of the
monitoring system will depend upon the type of emissions
control policy we ultimately decide upon.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us here this
morning who will offer constructive suggestions on how we can
best utilize the assets we already have in place and make
strategic investments where necessary to develop a robust and
reliable monitoring system.
At a time when warming appears to be accelerating and
people are experiencing regional climate impacts already, we
need to ensure that we have the information we need on a
sustained basis to implement the most effective policies.
So thank you all for participating in this important
hearing.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hall for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chair Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Bart Gordon
Good morning and welcome to the Committee's second hearing to
examine the systems we have to track the emissions, sequestration and
transport of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, on land, and in the
oceans.
In our first hearing, we examined greenhouse gas reporting systems
and the methods used to verify the information reported to greenhouse
gas registries. Today, we will hear about federally sponsored programs
to monitor greenhouse gases.
Monitoring and verification of greenhouse gases doesn't sound like
a very exciting topic. It's a little like housekeeping--it is an
essential task that goes unnoticed--until it isn't done well or it
isn't done at all.
Without robust monitoring and verification systems, we cannot
understand the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. We cannot detect
changes in atmospheric or ocean chemistry or understand the potential
impacts of those changes. And, we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of
policies to control emissions of greenhouse gases. Equally important,
we cannot verify compliance with emissions reductions agreements.
Our nation is a leader in these areas of research. Some of the
satellite observations that enable us to track Earth's heat budget are
available only because of our investments in science programs at NASA.
The ground and satellite observations that we gather tell us a lot
about local weather and climate patterns, air quality, and the health
of ecosystems and oceans.
The monitoring and measurement systems we have today serve
primarily a research function. Some, such as the monitoring system
associated with EPA's acid rain program, serve a regulatory purpose.
And we also track emissions to meet our reporting obligations under
international agreements--the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent reports tell
us that we must control greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid
future accelerated warming and its most devastating consequences.
Our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee have begun
their work to develop a plan to reduce our nation's greenhouse gas
emissions. In December, 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen to forge
an international agreement to reduce emissions.
We will need a robust monitoring system that is capable of telling
us whether we are reducing emissions and meeting our policy goals. And,
we need to know how the Earth's climate system is responding.
Of course, the specific design of the monitoring system will depend
upon the type of emission control policy we ultimately decide upon.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us here this morning
who will offer constructive suggestions on how we can best utilize the
assets we already have in place and make strategic investments where
necessary to develop a robust and reliable monitoring system.
At a time when warming appears to be accelerating and people are
experiencing regional climate impacts already, we need to ensure that
we will have the information we need on a sustained basis to implement
the most effective policies.
Thank you all for participating in this important hearing.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, on I thank you for
holding the hearing here and measuring and verifying greenhouse
gas emissions, and I appreciate your leadership on this very,
very important topic.
While this may not be the most exciting part of the climate
change debate that Congress is going to have this year, I truly
believe it is one of the most important and appreciate those of
you who have prepared for this, who have traveled for this, and
who are giving us your time, because we listen to you because
you know more about what we are talking about than we do, and
we base the law on what you tell us, the part we believe and
understand. So speaking as American as you can for those of us
that are not physicists or didn't have the grade average that
most of you had. I wouldn't have liked any of you in college
because you ruined the curve for guys like me, but I appreciate
you being here.
And while it is said it is not the most exciting part of
the climate debate, but knowing exactly how many pollutants are
being emitted into the environment and establishing a
verifiable baseline as a requirement for virtually every
environmental law our country has ever passed, and without
knowing the current state of things, it is impossible for us to
truly assess the impact that we are having on the environment,
whether that is good or whether it is bad. And if we don't know
where we are starting, how can we prove that we have made any
progress?
Mr. Chairman, you and I both sit on another committee that
is focusing heavily on the climate change debate. The entire
premise of this debate in the Energy and Commerce Committee is
based on the idea that we can accurately measure, we can
accurately monitor, and accurately verify greenhouse gas
emissions coming from all sectors of the economy.
And it is also based on the idea that we can accurately
measure, monitor, and verify greenhouse gases removed from the
atmosphere through offsets. Setting a cap implies that we know
where we currently stand. The trade part implies that we know
where it is all coming from. We are betting the entire U.S.
economy on the assumption that verifiable data collection and
monitoring is as simple as some of the authors say it is going
to be.
The hearing we are having this morning demonstrates that we
do not have these abilities yet. Our witnesses are going to
tell us about the need for greater scientific information,
about the need for an accurate emissions baseline in order to
implement any regulatory scheme, about the necessity of
developing tools and protocols for verifying sources and sinks
of greenhouse gases. The fact that we are still early on in the
research and development phase of these methods and monitoring
technologies means that we cannot in good faith assure the
American people that any regulatory framework designed to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions based on such methods and
technology will not be harmful to the economy.
Accurate measurements, verifiable data, and the integrity
of methodology are the very things that form the foundation of
any regulatory scheme and are the instruments necessary for
responsible governance. Albert Einstein once said, and my kids
think I knew Albert Einstein, and he wasn't a bad guy. ``If we
knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would
it?''
Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with Albert. He was a
friend of mine, a good guy.
Our committee has to continue to be at the forefront of
this debate because the work we do here is the groundwork
needed by other committees to do their own work, so I have to
thank you once again for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and
I look forward to hearing from these very distinguished
witnesses, and I yield back my time, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for holding this
hearing today on monitoring, measuring and verifying greenhouse gas
emissions. I appreciate your leadership on this very important topic.
While this may not be the most exciting part of the climate change
debate the Congress will have this year, I truly believe it is one of
the most important. Knowing exactly how many pollutants are being
emitted into the environment and establishing a verifiable baseline is
a requirement for virtually every environmental law our country has
passed. Without knowing the current state of things, it is impossible
for us to truly assess the impact we are having on the environment,
good or bad. If we don't know where we are starting, how can we prove
that we have made any progress?
Mr. Chairman, you and I both sit on another committee that is
focusing heavily on the climate change debate. The entire premise of
the debate in the Energy and Commerce Committee is based on the idea
that we can accurately measure, monitor, and verify greenhouse gas
emissions coming from all sectors of the economy. It is also based on
the idea that we can accurately measure, monitor and verify greenhouse
gases removed from the atmosphere through off-sets. Setting a cap
implies that we know where we currently stand; the trade part implies
that we know where it is all coming from. We are betting the entire
U.S. economy on the assumption that verifiable data collection and
monitoring is as simple as wanting it to be.
The hearing we are having this morning demonstrates that we do not
have these abilities yet. Our witnesses are going to tell us about the
need for greater scientific information. About the need for an accurate
emission baseline in order to implement any regulatory scheme. About
the necessity of developing tools and protocols for verifying sources
and sinks of greenhouse gases. The fact that we are still early on in
the research and development phase of these methods and monitoring
technologies means that we cannot, in good faith, assure the American
people that any regulatory framework designed to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions based on such methods and technology will not be harmful
to the economy.
Accurate measurements, verifiable data and the integrity of
methodology are the very things that form the foundation of any
regulatory scheme and are the instruments necessary for responsible
governance. Albert Einstein once said, ``If we knew what we were doing,
it would not be called research, would it?'' Mr. Chairman, I couldn't
agree more with this sentiment.
Our committee must continue to be at the forefront of this debate
because the work we do here is the groundwork needed by other
committees to do their own work. So I have to thank you once again for
holding this hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witnesses.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and we will try to get
it in Texan so we can both understand it.
If there are other Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing
to discuss the monitoring and measuring of greenhouse gas emissions.
President Obama has made addressing climate change and greenhouse
gas emissions a priority for the 111th Congress. As we prepare to
tackle this major piece of legislation, it is imperative that we
understand where and how we produce greenhouse gases in the United
States and around the world. A strong system for measuring and
monitoring greenhouse gas emissions will help ensure compliance with
any emissions reduction programs and measure our progress towards
decreasing our greenhouse gas emissions.
I would like to hear from our witnesses today how our current array
of measurement systems can be most effectively and efficiently used to
develop baselines and ensure compliance with a new greenhouse gas
emissions reduction program. Further, I would also like to know what
new monitoring and measurement technologies will be necessary as we
reduce our emissions to lower levels and how the Federal Government and
U.S. academic research centers can remain on the forefront of this
important technology.
As we all know, the U.S. is not the sole producer of greenhouse gas
emissions, and we will not be the sole country to establish a program
to reduce greenhouse gases. I am interested to hear how our systems can
work internationally, especially as the United Nations prepares to
consider a new climate change agreement in January.
I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome today's panel to our hearing, focused on
federal programs for monitoring, measuring, and verifying sources and
sinks of greenhouse gases.
Today's hearing will also examine greenhouse gas impacts on Earth's
climate.
The United States is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse
gases. We are thus in the prime position to lead by example in
mitigating those emissions.
Doing so will not only improve our environment, but it may also
influence the world's biggest economies to do similar good.
While the federal agencies are already utilizing various strategies
to monitor and quantify greenhouse gas emissions, we are thinking
towards the future.
Today's hearing will examine the status of our current monitoring
systems.
It will also help guide Members of Congress on changes that should
be made to fulfill the need for verification and compliance with a
greenhouse gas control program.
Mr. Chairman, it is my sense that our Administration and the
American public favor progressive greenhouse gas mitigation policies.
Also, I believe that other nations are waiting for our leadership
in this area.
Currently, the Department of Energy has a voluntary emissions
reporting program in place.
It tracks the emissions of entities that volunteer to provide
information about greenhouse gas emissions associated with their
activities.
A voluntary system has not worked to sufficiently bring down
greenhouse gas emissions. The result is a slow up-tick in global
warming.
While I know that some fellow Members of this committee and a
minority of scientists may not agree, the consensus is that global
warming is happening.
At a local level, we have a problem with greenhouse gas and other
harmful pollutants that are emitted by a company just to the west of
Dallas.
This company has been authorized by the state to burn hazardous
waste as fuel.
The result is terrible air quality and a public health hazard. The
jet stream carries it into my district.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency's toxic release
inventory, this entity more than doubled the release of toxics into the
air between 1994 and 1995.
During 1995, the company discharged 11,000 pounds of chromium, 2000
pounds of butadiene, 7000 pounds of benzene, 255 pounds of methyl ethyl
ketone, 3000 pounds of toluene, 750 pounds of xylene and 250 pounds of
cyclohexane.
While emitting ``probable carcinogens'' such as benzene, butadiene
and chromium, this entity also releases toxic heavy metals including
arsenic and mercury.
The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this
business is the second largest source of dioxin emissions in the U.S.
Mr. Chairman, clean air is a serious concern that is literally
``close to home'' for me.
Thank you for hosting today's Full Committee hearing to learn more
about greenhouse gas emissions.
It is my hope that we can move forward proactively to devise
policies for verification of compliance and effectiveness of a
greenhouse gas control program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, thank you for hosting this
important hearing on ``Monitoring, Measurement, and Verification of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions II: The Role of Federal and Academic Research
and Monitoring Programs.'' Thank you to the witnesses for appearing
before the Committee today.
As Congress considers legislation this year to address the
emissions of greenhouse gasses, collecting accurate and comprehensive
scientific data about the progress and potential effects of climate
change has become ever more important. I am pleased that the scientific
infrastructure we have developed in response to previous international
agreements, such as the Montreal Protocol and the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change, has enabled us to chart the disturbing
trends in our climate. However, we must further develop our scientific
capacity if we are to collect the information necessary to implement
and monitor comprehensive policy solutions to climate change.
Today, I am interested in learning more about the efforts of our
witnesses to collect the data we need and what Congress can do to help.
I am disheartened by the recent failure of the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory to reach orbit, and I would like to know more about NASA's
plans to compensate for the loss of this critical tool. As a member of
the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, I am particularly
interested in the role universities have to play in researching climate
change, and I would be glad to hear the panelists' opinions with regard
to streamlining the flow of our scarce research dollars to the most
promising projects. Finally, as Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Organizations within the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am
interested in learning more about opportunities to facilitate
cooperation and coordination with international scientific bodies on
climate science research.
In closing, thank you again, Chairman Gordon, for calling this
important hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for offering your
testimony.
Chair Gordon. At this time I would like to introduce our
witnesses. Dr. Alexander MacDonald is the Director of the Earth
Systems Research Laboratory at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Richard Birdsey is the Project
Leader of the Research Work Unit, Climate, Fire, and Carbon
Cycle Systems at the Northern Research Station of the U.S.
Forest Service and the Chair of the Carbon Cycle Scientific
Steering Group. Dr. Michael Freilich is the Director of the
Earth Science Division at NASA. Ms. Dina Kruger is the Director
of the Climate Change Division in the Office of Atmospheric
Programs at EPA. Dr. Patrick Gallagher is the Deputy Director
of NIST, and Dr. Albert Heber is the Professor of Agriculture
and Biological Engineering at Purdue University and the Science
Advisor to the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study.
At this point I would like to recognize my friend from
Oregon, Representative David Wu, to introduce our last witness.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to
welcome Dr. Beverly Law for being here today. Dr. Law is a
Professor of Global Change Forest Science at Oregon State
University and currently serves as the Science Chair of the
AmeriFlux Network and as a member of the Science Steering
Groups of the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program and the North
American Carbon Program. She is also serving on the National
Research Council, Committee on Methods for Estimating
Greenhouse Gases. Her research is on the effects of climate and
disturbances on carbon, water, and energy exchange between
terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere and methods for
integrating observations and modeling to quantify and
understand regional carbon balances. Dr. Law has been an author
of over 100 journal articles. We welcome you, and we are glad
that we could turn out some Oregon weather for all the
witnesses today.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Wu, and Dr. Law, we hope you
will take it back to Oregon with you.
As our witnesses know, we try to limit our oral testimony
to five minutes. But we are on a short track here. This is very
important, and we want to hear from you, and we appreciate your
earlier written testimony, and I would encourage you when this
is over if you have additional thoughts as we prepare
legislation--Mr. Hall mentioned that we also serve on Energy
and Commerce Committee, and so we will be a part of it there,
but we want to be sure the monitoring is right, and we need
your help in doing that.
And so your written testimony will be included as a part of
the record, and when you have completed your testimony, we will
start questions. Each Member will have five minutes to ask
their questions.
So we will start now with Dr. MacDonald.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALEXANDER E. ``SANDY'' MACDONALD, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR LABORATORIES AND COOPERATIVE
INSTITUTES, OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. MacDonald. Good morning, Chair Gordon, Ranking Member
Hall, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me
to discuss the key role that NOAA plays in monitoring
greenhouse gases and aerosols.
Emissions are the result of human activities, particularly
of carbon dioxide, are changing the Earth's environment. The
unequivocal warming of the atmosphere and ocean, along with
increasing ocean acidity, are serious challenges to our future.
In addressing this threat it is important to assess the
effectiveness of potential mitigation programs. This will be
complex because in addition to fossil fuel emissions, soil and
vegetation exchange CO2 at the atmosphere. We are
fortunate that our advanced technical civilization has both the
tools and expertise needed to implement the monitoring systems
we will need.
NOAA has decades of experience monitoring greenhouse gases.
The current global system for monitoring can be traced back to
the 1950s when the first observations were made at the South
Pole and Mauna Loa, Hawaii. NOAA has six comprehensive
atmospheric observatories and routinely measures greenhouse
gases at over 100 sites worldwide with an accuracy of a 0.10
percent. Aircrafts, ship, and satellite measurements are also
used to get global scale distributions.
NOAA and its partners occasionally conduct field programs
where they deploy aircraft with sensitive instruments. Here is
a picture of our NOAA P-3, the flying chemistry lab, measuring
aerosols and gases in an experiment conducted over Houston in
2006.
NOAA could improve its North American monitoring to provide
a check on the success of the mitigation effort. It is helpful
to think of greenhouse gases like one thinks about a bank
account. The total amount of CO2 in the air, roughly
three trillion tons, is the equivalent of the bank balance.
Emissions increase the balance, which is bad, and when CO2
goes from the atmosphere into the ocean or land, it decreases
the amount in the atmospheric bank.
So there is two ways to check your bank balance. One is to
track the income and outgo in your checkbook. Another way is to
call the bank and say, how much money do I have? There are also
two ways to calculate how much CO2 is in the air.
First we would add the emissions, subtract the CO2
going into the land and ocean, and we call this the bottom-up
approach. The top-down method would be to simply measure, using
our tools, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
In the mitigation program it is very important that we do
both of these. By carefully tracking total amounts we can
independently check the emissions and tell us whether the
mitigation efforts are working. This would also allow us to
monitor the progress of the global program and see what other
countries are doing.
NOAA's carbon tracker is a sophisticated computer program
that measures the distribution and total amounts of carbon
dioxide. On this poster carbon tracker is showing areas of high
carbon dioxide in red. You see those in southern U.S., and
areas with low amounts in blue, and in this case the blue is
because the air flowed over Siberia and Canada, and the leaves
were soaking up the carbon dioxide, so that is why that blue
area northern U.S. is there.
Programs like AmeriFlux tell us the biological sources,
while fossil fuel emissions give us the human contribution.
History shows that accounting through self-reporting is not
adequate. Carbon trackers' top-down estimates are the ideal
compliment to the bottom-up emissions measurements. In the end
we count on the atmosphere to tell us the complete story.
Mitigation will require a more comprehensive program. Our
system for monitoring greenhouse gases was designed for
research understanding on planetary and continental scales and
wasn't designed for the regional scale that we will need for
national mitigation. Fortunately, the system can be enhanced in
the coming decade to meet our needs. Our surface networks, our
satellites, and things like the orbiting carbon observatory of
NASA would give us the horizontal coverage while aircraft and
other instruments could give us the vertical coverage. A robust
and complete emissions inventory will need to be implemented by
EPA and Department of Agriculture.
In conclusion, NOAA has a broad mission to understand and
predict the atmosphere and global ocean. We can serve as the
honest broker to determine how well our mitigation policies are
working and how they can be improved. We look forward to the
role NOAA will play in this important endeavor.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. MacDonald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alexander E. ``Sandy'' MacDonald
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and other
Members of the Committee. I am Alexander MacDonald, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes in the Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in the Department of Commerce. Thank
you for inviting me to discuss NOAA's research and monitoring programs
that support our understanding of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
as well as the country's needs with respect to monitoring of greenhouse
gases and aerosols in light of potential future mitigation policy and
overall advancement of climate science and research.
NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in Earth's
environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to
meet our nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. In support
of its mission, NOAA has developed a long-standing capability to
monitor and understand climate and climate change. From observatories
and cooperative sampling sites and satellites around the world, NOAA
measures virtually all greenhouse gases, ozone-depleting gases, and
aerosols to understand their trends, distributions, and fluxes. NOAA,
in cooperation with other agencies, conducts intensive research
campaigns to understand the impacts of regional emissions on climate
and air quality. Oceanic distributions and exchange of carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other gases with the atmosphere are monitored
intensively by NOAA scientists. From these measurements and models to
support them, NOAA scientists quantify and improve our understanding of
the sources, sinks, and trends of a host of related greenhouse gases
(including CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide), aerosols, and
atmospheric tracers. These continuing data records, maintained by NOAA
and its interagency partners (e.g., National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), et al.), reflect the U.S. scientific leadership in
this area, and are essential to diagnose current global climate trends
and project future climate impacts, including effects on global weather
extremes. NOAA's field missions and global networks for long-term
monitoring of greenhouse gases, ozone, ozone precursors, ozone-
depleting compounds, aerosols, aerosol precursors and surface radiation
produce the highest quality atmospheric data. These data provide a
reference for accurate climate model initialization and validation
necessary to develop credible scenarios for the future, and for
developing national and international emission management strategies.
In this testimony, I will briefly describe the issues related to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, identify some of the needs and
collaborative efforts underway for science-based support of emission
reduction efforts, summarize NOAA's capabilities and expertise in
providing information on greenhouse gases and aerosols, and address
what NOAA can do to provide the information society will need for
reducing emissions in this century.
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?
The carbon cycle and influences of greenhouse gases are complex and
dynamic. An efficient emissions policy requires a robust bottom-up and
top-down monitoring approach. Identifying and quantifying human and
natural emissions of these climate forcing agents, such as
CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, several halocarbons, and
certain aerosol and ozone-forming agents is necessary for informing
emission reduction strategies. We must understand where the emissions
are coming from in order to reduce their quantity. We also must be able
to identify which areas act as carbon ``sinks,'' removing CO2
from the atmosphere and possibly offsetting CO2 emissions,
and which areas act as ``sources,'' adding CO2 to the
atmosphere, e.g., areas of oceanic up-welling. To answer these
questions and ensure effective, efficient policy requires monitoring
and validation of emissions from specific sources and projects. In
addition, monitoring the concentrations of gases in the atmosphere for
verification with reported emissions is critical to understand whether
policies are having the desired result.
According to the IPCC Assessments, the increase of CO2
in the atmosphere is the single largest contributor to observed climate
change. Increasing atmospheric CO2, mainly from burning of
fossil fuels, has not only substantially altered global climate, but
has also increased the acidity of the oceans. This trend will continue
as long as humans continue to increase atmospheric CO2. It
is well understood that CO2, once emitted, remains in the
atmosphere and oceans for a very long time--many thousands of years.
Thus, the changes induced today will have a long-term impact on climate
and ocean acidity. For these reasons, reduction of CO2
emissions is often the primary focus in discussions about mitigating
climate change; urgency in doing so is well understood throughout the
scientific community.
Other greenhouse gases and aerosol influences must be considered in
any emission reduction strategy. Although gases such as methane and
nitrous oxide are not rising as fast as CO2, they still
contribute substantially to climate change, and their future growth
rates are uncertain. Anticipated changes in climate are likely to
affect the emission from land and water surfaces. Some aerosols, such
as black carbon, have a warming effect and others, which are mostly
associated with poor air quality, have a cooling effect. Aerosols, for
the most part, are partly offsetting the warming caused by greenhouse
gases. Therefore, it is important to know how changes in emissions will
alter atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosol.
There is a definite urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but
we cannot expect to see the effects of reduced emissions immediately on
the rate of climate change. There are various reasons as to why this is
the case: (1) many greenhouse gases, especially CO2, persist
in the atmosphere long after emissions are reduced or halted; (2) even
though the emissions are local, the climate change they bring about is
global and takes time to realize; (3) links between trends in
greenhouse gas concentration and North American weather extremes,
including hurricanes, tornadoes, damaging winds, floods, droughts, cold
waves, and heat waves have not been fully established; (4) there are
natural variations in climate and it will take time before we have the
necessary data to show that changes in climate have grown larger than
the natural variation (i.e., to establish statistical significance
between what we are experiencing and what is part of natural
variation); and (5) since climate change is a global problem, the
actions of other nations also have an effect on climate. In the short-
term, then, we must rely on reporting and measurement of human-caused
emissions and observations of the greenhouse gas and aerosol abundances
in the atmosphere to provide the sole basis for evaluating the
effectiveness of actions to mitigate climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions are generated by practically all economic
sectors, including energy, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation,
housing and urban planning, and public health.
A NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
NOAA maintains a widespread global monitoring network, including a
dense observation system in North America, and an ability to measure
many atmospheric tracers to characterize the origins of greenhouse
gases. NOAA works in partnership with many federal agencies and
international organizations, and has been providing greenhouse gas
information on global, hemispheric, and continental scales for a long
time. NOAA's observation systems and partnerships have evolved over
several decades around the goal to resolve scientific questions about
the global carbon cycle and climate change. But today the question has
become, ``How can we provide scientific information to support and
enhance emission reduction efforts?'' An observation and analysis
system developed to effectively support and enhance emission reduction
efforts would have significant economic and environmental value, and
would support the efforts of decision-makers at all levels of
government. At regional levels, verification that reported emission
reductions are consistent with what is observed in the atmosphere will
require many more observations of greenhouse gases and tracers
(including those from satellites like those currently being built or
planned at NASA), improved and higher resolution modeling, and an
enhanced understanding of biospheric responses to climate change. It
will require the expertise contained in several federal agencies,
especially DOE, NASA, USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The need for sound scientific information regarding climate change
mitigation will accelerate. The Committee has identified several
questions with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and
the research endeavors and capabilities currently underway in our
nation. Chosen courses of action will require a firm grounding in
science and a reasonable expectation of success. Taking action to
mitigate climate change is followed by the need to answer questions of
accountability--Are the actions working as intended? Do we need to do
something different? Do we need to accelerate or can we relax emission
reduction efforts? How do these reduction efforts affect other air
pollutants and solid and liquid effluents? The lead-up to actions, and
the follow-through of determining the effectiveness of those actions,
are both rooted in science.
Science-based information is needed to support greenhouse gas
emission reduction policy and includes knowledge of the current
emissions and atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases, on-going
verification that emission reduction efforts are having their intended
effect, and an understanding of how natural greenhouse gas emissions
and uptake are impacted by climate change.
History shows that emission measurements are most reliable when
there is a robust verification process. Reported emissions (i.e.,
emissions inventories) are necessary for regulation and initiating
emission models, but we will have to verify that reported emissions are
consistent with what is observed in the atmosphere. No large-scale
emission reduction effort has succeeded without independent
verification of its progress, whether it is ozone depletion, air
quality, acid rain, or wastewater management. For example, such efforts
by NOAA and NASA, required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, has
been critical to verifying the success of emission reductions related
to stratospheric ozone depletion. This and other efforts, however, are
simple compared to what lies ahead with climate change forcing agents.
The complexity and variability of the carbon cycle alone present a
challenging task of verifying that reported emission reductions are
consistent with what we observe in the atmosphere. In the end, the
atmosphere tells the story--do observed changes in the atmospheric
levels reflect calculated emissions?
Objective, credible, and specific information about the
effectiveness of mitigation efforts undertaken, and about the response
of the natural carbon cycle to climate change itself, will be necessary
to guide policies. Given the sustained investments required to meet
this challenge, it is critical that efforts to reduce emissions be
verifiable at local, regional and national levels and consistent with
evidence in the atmosphere. It is also possible that potential
feedbacks in the climate system could exacerbate the problem. For
example, there is a real possibility that the melting of Arctic
permafrost soils in response to global warming will liberate enormous
amounts of methane and CO2, and would be at that time out of
our control. Aerosols also need to be watched, as they can have both
warming and cooling effects and are linked to some potential greenhouse
gas emission reduction strategies. Thus, in addition to verification of
the efficacy of emission reduction programs and offsets, based on
observed atmospheric conditions, we must focus on climate information
at regional and local levels to confirm the effectiveness of any
efforts or policies to mitigate climate change, and understand
distributions, trends, and Earth-system impacts of increasing CO2
and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For management to be
effective, society will require the best information that research can
deliver.
It is also important to clarify the limits to what monitoring (and
efforts to verify that reported emissions are consistent with what is
observed in the atmosphere) at the local and regional level can
accomplish. A comprehensive climate policy will require compliance at
the individual source level and a ``bottom-up'' reporting approach.
NOAA's capabilities will not verify emissions at individual sources,
this will be the responsibility of the EPA through compliance
assistance efforts. However, at the aggregated level, the information
NOAA can provide will serve to inform EPA's efforts.
WHAT ARE NOAA'S CAPABILITIES?
NOAA's capabilities span a range of activities relevant to climate
science, including observations, analysis, modeling, prediction and
assessment. NOAA maintains global observational networks and numerous
field programs, and works closely with partnering agencies, institutes,
and universities across the Nation and around the world. NOAA is well-
poised to work with key federal agencies and other partners to
determine the effectiveness of mitigation efforts, and to integrate new
information into its natural resource management efforts.
Measurements and products of NOAA's research contribute
significantly to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. NOAA is
active with 12 other agencies in the Carbon Cycle Science Program (now
part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, CCSP). This is
coordinated through the NASA/USDA-led Carbon Cycle Interagency Working
Group (CCIWG), which meets tri-weekly and sponsors the North American
Carbon Program and Ocean Carbon Biogeochemistry Program. Research in
these programs, involving both agency and university scientists, is
coordinated through separate CCIWG-sponsored Scientific Steering Groups
that meet twice yearly. The CCIWG also sponsors biennial all-
investigators meetings, workshops at national conferences, and the
development of the First State of the Carbon Cycle Report, 2007 (CCSP
Synthesis Report 2.2) for North America. This report summarized our
current understanding of the sources and sinks of carbon in North
America, based primarily upon bottom up (i.e., ecosystem measurements
and calculations) approaches which are compared to top down (i.e.,
atmospheric measurement and analysis) approaches, driven mainly by
NOAA's measurements and CarbonTracker. Currently the CCIWG agencies are
working with carbon cycle scientists across the Nation to develop a new
Carbon Cycle Science Program for the coming decade. Efforts coordinated
through the CCIWG have been extraordinarily successful in bringing the
diverse research capabilities of scientists and organizations across
the country to understand how human and natural systems contribute to
CO2 and related greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. NOAA is
proud of its on-going role at all levels in this effort.
On a global basis, NOAA's observations of greenhouse gases and
aerosols form the backbone of the World Meteorological Organization's
(WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch Programme. NOAA's carbon cycle monitoring
network currently constitutes two-thirds of the atmospheric monitoring
sites reporting to the WMO Greenhouse Gas Data Centre (WDCGG). Data
from the WDCGG are a primary component of the Global Climate
Observation System. Updated and displayed daily, NOAA's high-quality
measurements of carbon cycle and other greenhouse gases from all of its
sites are available worldwide to all interested parties. Because of
this strong global role, NOAA has leadership positions on the GEO
(Group on Earth Observations) Task Team for Carbon and the WMO
Scientific Advisory Groups for greenhouse gases, aerosols, and ozone.
Greenhouse Gas and Aerosol Monitoring. NOAA has monitored all of
the major greenhouse gases, along with aerosols, for nearly 40 years at
its baseline observatories and its cooperative sampling sites. This
long-term commitment to monitoring these substances has required
detailed, accurate measurements, high quality research, and
technological advancement over the decades. NOAA's skills and
commitment in this effort are unsurpassed. For example, the measurement
of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans has flourished under
NOAA since its work began several decades ago. This science-based
effort requires sustained, comparable measurements at an accuracy level
of 0.05 percent or better. NOAA's capabilities and commitment is
acknowledged by the scientific community throughout universities,
federal agencies, and international organizations. Scientists
researching the carbon cycle or conducting climate research depend upon
NOAA to provide the world calibration scale and to deliver consistent,
accurate field measurements of CO2 and other climate-
relevant gases. The significance of NOAA's capabilities is exemplified
by the agency's high level of quality control and assurance (e.g.,
ongoing, long-term comparisons of field measurements), its involvement
in national and international planning and execution, and its
leadership role in the world community--via the WMO--for calibration.
Oceanic Measurements. The largest, active reservoir of CO2
is the ocean, which accumulates 40-50 percent of the CO2
emitted into the atmosphere. Processes in the ocean constitute the
ultimate sink for atmospheric CO2, though those removal
processes take thousands of years. Understanding the cycling of carbon
in the ocean has been at the core of NOAA's mission for decades. NOAA
scientists provide about half of the Nation's measurements of CO2
in both deep and surface waters globally and are leaders in
understanding the processes that drive gas exchange between the ocean
and atmosphere. NOAA scientists also are leaders in understanding ocean
acidification, which is driven by increasing CO2 in the
atmosphere, and they are major players in the international effort to
monitor, understand, and assess the trends of carbon in the ocean and
its impacts on ocean habitat and living resources.
Satellite Observations. NOAA retrieves data on CO2 and
other greenhouse gases and aerosols from NASA satellites. NASA and
international satellites complement NOAA's global in situ observing
system for greenhouse gases by providing global coverage, high-spatial
resolution and vertically integrated measurements. To ensure data
comparability, it is critical that the satellite retrievals be
consistent in form with long-standing, high quality, accurate
measurements made on the ground or from aircraft and with reanalysis
output such as that of NOAA's CarbonTracker. Data comparability
requires a coherent, on-going research effort among groups involved in
both ground-based and remote measurements and traceability to
international standards such as provided by NIST; these efforts provide
NOAA with an opportunity to work closely with national and
international partners in this endeavor.
Intensive Field Campaigns. NOAA has a demonstrated capability of
carrying out intensive observational campaigns using NOAA aircraft as a
``flying chemistry laboratory'' to measure all the major greenhouse
gases, tracers that help ascertain the origin of the gases,
tropospheric ozone and its precursors, and aerosols and their
precursors (Figure 1). This capability can be deployed anywhere in the
U.S. and in most places in the world to ``spot check'' emissions of
climate forcing agents from specific regions and establish internal
relationships among emissions of different gases. Suitably planned
observational campaigns can help quantify emissions of climate-forcing
agents and identify their locations and emission sectors. NOAA's
capability can help establish a reasonably useful baseline of emissions
from various parts of the country.
Process Understanding. NOAA has a demonstrated capability in
carrying out research to understand and quantify the transformation of
chemicals to climate relevant agents such as ozone and aerosols. NOAA
also is a leader in seeking to understand and quantify the transport of
chemicals. These capabilities enable NOAA to translate observations
into information that can be used in models to predict what actually
happens in the Earth system.
Integration of Observations through CarbonTracker. NOAA's
CarbonTracker tool is widely acknowledged as the most open and
effective reanalysis approach to date for estimating CO2
emissions and uptake (Figure 2), particularly at large spatial scales.
When fully developed, CarbonTracker will make it possible to track
regional emissions of CO2 over long periods of time and to
determine which areas are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.
CarbonTracker uses an existing land model, recognized as the best for
this work. The land model is informed in part by measurements carried
out in the DOE's Ameriflux Network, which provides information on
ecosystem function on kilometer scales. (Augmenting Ameriflux sites in
the future would allow for incorporation of additional atmospheric
measurements into CarbonTracker and help improve its resolution,
particularly near Ameriflux sites.) The land model also is informed by
NASA and NOAA satellite observations of land surface and biosphere
characteristics. CarbonTracker uses a transport model with satellite-
supported meteorological fields that can exploit the current
distribution of observing sites. Finally, CarbonTracker incorporates
global fossil emission estimates (DOE), fires (NASA MODIS instruments
on NASA Aqua and Terra satellites) and a modification of NOAA's world-
class ocean circulation model. Because CarbonTracker constrains the
model results with atmospheric observations, it was able to identify
the impact of the 2002 drought on North American absorption of
CO2. This suggests that, under its current configuration,
CarbonTracker is effective in capturing large-scale, North American
phenomena. There is not, however, a current greenhouse gas monitoring
network large enough for CarbonTracker to provide fine scale resolution
with low uncertainty.
An important role that a ``top down'' system like CarbonTracker
plays is to independently validate the combined fluxes calculated from
``bottom up'' efforts such as estimated fossil fuel emissions and
biological sources. If estimates of sources and sinks do not agree with
measured atmospheric concentrations, the ``top down'' approach provides
the information needed to continually improve our understanding of the
carbon cycle.
Analysis of data to predict climate change and its impacts. NOAA
has a demonstrated capability in climate and chemistry modeling. Such
modeling is essential for providing information about why past changes
occurred, knowing what the ``climate baseline'' is now, and identifying
what can be expected when emissions are altered. These models can
quantify consequences of changes in emissions on both climate and air
quality. They also are useful in predicting what will happen in the
future and how ecosystems and human systems will respond, with and
without emission regulations--information that will be important for
decision-makers.
WHAT NOAA CAN DO TO HELP VERIFY EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Based on the capabilities described above, NOAA will play a central
role providing in scientific information that will be necessary to
verify whether reported greenhouse gas emission reductions are
consistent with what is observed in the atmosphere. NOAA can help,
along with other agencies, in characterizing a baseline for atmospheric
composition, supporting EPA's development of greenhouse gas emission
inventories, and setting up a greenhouse gas information system for the
21st century. NOAA, along with other agencies, can provide timely
analyses on the impacts of the proposed regulatory action by verifying
reported emissions at the aggregated level, assessing the effectiveness
of offsets, and characterizing the impacts of emission reduction
efforts across sectors and regions of the Nation and world.
Upgrade the Greenhouse Gas and Aerosol Monitoring System. The
current greenhouse gas monitoring systems implemented by the federal
science agencies are designed to support research to understand the
role of gases and aerosols in climate forcing. The growing need to
provide scientific verification and support to efforts to mitigate
climate change through changes in human-caused emissions requires a
more comprehensive monitoring system. Such a system will need to be
developed over the next decade with cooperation among federal agencies,
particularly NOAA, NASA, National Science Foundation (NSF),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Transportation
(DOT), and DOE, and with our international partners. Global
measurements of CO2, such as those NASA's Orbiting Carbon
Observatory (recently lost on launch), would have made is one example
of the new capabilities that will be needed. NASA's and NOAA's roles in
verifying NASA satellite data through comparisons with CarbonTracker
profiles and with direct measurements by aircraft and ground-based
facilities will be critical for demonstrating the potential for
incorporating satellite measurements into a comprehensive system of
observations. NOAA and NASA have recently developed a method to measure
mid-troposphere CO2 from the NASA Atmospheric Infrared
Sounder instrument on NASA's Aqua satellite. NOAA is investigating
other new technologies, including use of manned and unmanned aircraft,
commercial aircraft, and tall towers to sample air above the surface.
We are also working on exciting new possibilities, such as the Air
Core, a method of bringing air from all altitudes (a chemical sounding)
back to the laboratory for analysis. Air Core was invented by Dr.
Pieter Tans of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory. A major
advantage of retrieving air samples is that it allows the measurement
of many tracers which can be used to attribute sources and sinks of
CO2.
Establish a Greenhouse Gas Information System for the 21st Century.
The ability of the United States and other nations to effectively
implement policies for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations would benefit considerably by ensuring that reported
emission reductions and offsets are consistent with atmospheric
observations at regional and national scales. A U.S. program to reduce
human-caused concentrations of CO2 that incorporates such a
system would help guarantee an efficient, effective, and economic
approach to emission reduction. It would have considerable value for
improving our approach to reducing emissions and verifying treaty
agreements.
Such a system would combine ground-based, air-based, ocean-based,
and space-based measurements with facility and site-specific
measurements, carbon-cycle modeling, fossil-fuel emission inventories,
land-use data, and an extensive distribution system for information
about sources and sinks of greenhouse gases at policy-relevant temporal
and spatial scales. A greenhouse gas information system would need to
be linked to enhanced capabilities for seamless weather-climate
modeling and prediction across timescales.
A global greenhouse gas information system would build from
existing capabilities and require collaboration to expand and develop
improved ground, sea, and air-based measurements; sustained space-based
observations; and measurements of non-CO2 short-lived gases
for fossil-fuel combustion attribution. Ground-based observations must
be focused on accuracy as well as long-term continuity to be of value
to the climate record. Deriving actionable information from these
observation sources further requires coordinated efforts in carbon-
cycle modeling, data assimilation, and data analysis--spanning several
networks, spatial scales, disciplines, and agencies. The specific
requirements of such a system would be dictated by policy objectives
and by the degree of international cooperation.
This information system could build on NOAA's current global
leadership, observation, modeling, prediction, and analysis
capabilities and would involve coordination with other federal
agencies, national and international partners, and the private sector.
This information system also would be a structural, operational, and
research backbone in a global effort to verify reduction of CO2
and other greenhouse gas and certain aerosol emissions and quantify
changes in emissions or uptake by natural systems. Such a system would
have lasting value for national and international assessments and would
serve as the ultimate tool for guiding these efforts globally. To
successfully simulate the atmospheric CO2 record, a
reanalysis tool like CarbonTracker must work with the most advanced
models of the coupled oceanic and terrestrial carbon cycle, which would
require collaborations with federal and State agencies, universities,
and international partners. A dense observing network and targeted
field campaigns combined with a data assimilation capability would
provide an objective check on efforts to track emissions and the
contributions of fossil fuel use.
Deliver early information to establish a baseline characterizing
the influence of current and past emissions on atmospheric composition.
There are near-term opportunities for helping establish a baseline of
current emissions and providing process information in support of model
development. Verification of emissions from some individual sources can
be started almost immediately. Climate change forcing agents, their
precursors, and related tracers can be measured with existing
instruments placed on NOAA's aircraft, ships, and ground-based
stations. This early information would aid in evaluating overall
emission reduction strategies. Such measurements can be coordinated
with those from other agencies (e.g., NASA, DOE, NSF, DOT, and EPA) to
provide a more comprehensive coverage of sources, geographic regions,
and temporal characteristics for providing baseline information on
emissions as quickly as possible.
Support development of robust emission inventory of climate forcing
agents for the country. A systematic, up-to-date inventory of
emissions, their distributions, and their variations will help
decision-makers base their decisions on accurate information, climate
scientists more accurately model future climate and its impacts, and
stakeholders feel confident of the consequences of the emission
changes. A robust, accurate, updated, emissions inventory can be
developed, refined, and maintained through close interaction with other
agencies, most notably by supporting EPA, DOE's Energy Information
Administration, and others maintaining accounting registries.
Development of an improved inventory would go hand-in-hand with
development of a greenhouse gas information system for the 21st
century, as improvements in emission estimates inform model development
and vice-versa.
Model, predict and analyze the impacts of proposed mitigation
actions on climate change. NOAA has the capability to make climate
predictions, and this capability is being continually improved. NOAA's
capabilities will be critical for predicting the consequences of any
actions taken to reduce emissions. Such information will be essential
to support the best possible decisions.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In conclusion, I have described the issues involved in dealing with
reduction of emissions for the benefit of climate, the science-based
information needs for dealing with reductions, the expertise NOAA
currently has to address some of the issues, and what more NOAA--in
conjunction and coordination with other federal agencies--can do to
provide science-based information for emission reductions.
NOAA--with its broad mission responsibilities for physical and life
sciences, and its stewardship responsibilities--and its national and
international partners have the technological prowess to implement the
comprehensive and highly sophisticated global information systems
needed to measure the effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation
strategies. Such a system should include new satellite sensors, an
improved monitoring network in the atmosphere and oceans, and powerful
new techniques to analyze the data in support of policy. We look
forward to the role NOAA will play in providing the information society
will need for reducing emissions in this century.
Biography for Alexander E. ``Sandy'' MacDonald
Dr. Alexander E. (Sandy) MacDonald was named the first Director of
the Earth System Research Laboratory and first Deputy Assistant
Administrator for NOAA Research Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes
on July 27, 2006. Dr. MacDonald served as Acting Director for the Earth
System Research Laboratory and Director of the ESRL Global Systems
Division during the consolidation of the Boulder Laboratories into the
Earth System Research Laboratory in 2006. Prior to the consolidation,
Dr. MacDonald led the Forecast Systems Laboratory.
Dr. MacDonald was the Director of the Program for Regional
Observing and Forecasting Services (PROFS) from 1983 to 1988. From
1980-1982, he was Chief of PROFS' Exploratory Development Group and
from 1975-1980 he was a Techniques Improvement Meteorologist in the
Scientific Services Division, Western Region, National Weather Service
in Salt Lake City, UT. He was an Air Force Officer while a member of
the U.S. Air Force from 1967-1971.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. MacDonald. I agree. NOAA is a
very important player in this equation.
Dr. Law, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. BEVERLY LAW, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOSYSTEMS AND SOCIETY; SCIENCE CHAIR, AMERIFLUX NETWORK,
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Law. Chair Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to talk
about the AmeriFlux Network and the potential to quantify
fluxes from natural and managed systems in the context of
greenhouse gas emissions.
The AmeriFlux Network has about 90 flux sites currently,
and it has great potential to improve understanding of the
carbon cycle and land-based contributions to greenhouse gases.
AmeriFlux provides ecosystem-level measurements of the net of
ecosystem carbon processes that produce a source or a sink to
the atmosphere. The data are used to calibrate remote sensing
data and models. Carbon cycle and climate system monitors use
flux data to characterize land sources and sinks for carbon and
to understand ecosystem responses to climate and land use.
So the most effective tool to measure the net carbon fluxes
from natural and managed systems is an array of flux sites. The
most powerful tool to produce spatial estimates of fluxes from
ecosystems is a bottom-up process model that ingests the flux
data as well as data from inventories and remote sensing of
land characteristics, and this is used to map the carbon stocks
and fluxes for every square kilometer.
The output of a bottom-up process model could be used to
constrain estimates of the terrestrial portion of the observed
greenhouse gases. Continuity of AmeriFlux needs to be ensured.
The network is built on a model of cooperating investigators,
primarily university professors. The AmeriFlux records are now
seven to fifteen years in length and are beginning to show
long-term trends. AmeriFlux sites are supported by multiple
agencies with the Department of Energy funding about half the
sites.
I am in the unique position of heading a regional project
that uses observations and models that are going to be
discussed today. To develop a sustained and robust carbon
monitoring system, I think it is necessary to enhance the
AmeriFlux Network, intensify the greenhouse gas concentration
network, improve crop and forest inventories, ensure continuity
of critical remote sensing data, including Landsat and MODIS
for the land or bottom-up approach, provide more resources for
coordinated data management for assimilation in models, and
accelerate data availability and analysis for a more
comprehensive modeling and assessment.
For AmeriFlux some required resources would be to add sites
in under-represented regions and disturbances classes of
forests, add measurements of methane fluxes and isotopes for
identifying sources, and add well-calibrated CO2
concentration measurements to augment NOAA's CO2
observations. Additional resources are required for AmeriFlux
data management and data processing and regional to global
analysis. The resources needed for a robust monitoring system
are about the same as that for carbon cycle research.
The effects mechanism for communication between academic
community and federal agencies are the science steering groups
of the North American Carbon Program and the Carbon Cycle
Science Program. The NACP is the best organizing mechanism for
developing an integrated national network of observations and
modeling the challenges implementing an integrated national
system quickly.
Mechanisms for international coordination of infrastructure
and analysis could build on the NACP and the new European
infrastructure called the International Carbon Observation
System. ICOS is a system for carbon monitoring and verification
based on observations and modeling of ecosystem fluxes to
assess terrestrial sources and sinks and greenhouse gases to
quantify anthropogenic sources.
FluxNet is a network of networks, and FluxNet and the FAO
Global Terrestrial Observing System could operate within this
framework. To ensure that data collected by different nations
are comparable, institutional support is required for
coordinating observation systems and developing high-quality
data systems.
In summary, the tools and communication mechanisms exist
for monitoring, measuring, and understanding greenhouse gas
sources and sinks. Each of the agencies has been working on
their piece of the puzzle. Now what is required is a high level
of commitment and coordination to build an integrated national
system.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Law follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beverly Law
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and other
Members of the Committee. I am Dr. Beverly Law, Professor of Global
Change Forest Science at Oregon State University, and Science Chair of
the AmeriFlux Network. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the AmeriFlux Network, and the potential to
quantify GHG fluxes from natural or managed ecosystems with respect to
potential mitigation strategies and advancing carbon cycle science.
Purpose and Status of the AmeriFlux Network
AmeriFlux was initiated in 1996. It currently consists of 90
research sites that measure biology properties, meteorology, and
carbon, water vapor and energy exchanges between terrestrial ecosystems
and the atmosphere. The sites are in different vegetation types,
climatic conditions, and stages of response to natural events and
management. Most of the sites are in the lower 48 states, with a few
sites in Alaska, Central and S. America (Fig. 1). Similar networks
exist on other continents and are loosely coordinated through FLUXNET
(Baldocchi, 2008), with over 500 sites from the tropics to high
northern latitudes.
The aim of AmeriFlux is to:
quantify and explain the amounts and variation in
carbon storage and the exchanges of carbon dioxide, water vapor
and energy at multiple timescales, and
provide systematic data and analysis that has value
for monitoring climate variables and change in terrestrial
ecosystem processes in response to climate, land use and
management
The AmeriFlux records are now seven to fifteen years in length and
continuation is essential for understanding long-term trends in
ecosystem response to climate and management. Support for AmeriFlux is
currently provided on a site-by-site basis, and is funded by multiple
agencies, with DOE funding about half of the sites. Some long-term,
high-quality records are endangered by lack of continued support. Most
of the sites are run by academic researchers.
The network plays a major role in the North American Carbon Program
(part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program), where flux data are
used to test model assumptions, or to optimize models and apply them
spatially. The models also require inputs of remote sensing data on
land surface characteristics (Law et al., 2004). Carbon cycle and
climate system modelers use the flux data to characterize terrestrial
sources and sinks for carbon, effects of climate and land use change on
ecosystem fluxes, and effects of ecosystems on climate.
Potential to Improve Understanding of the Carbon Cycle and Accuracy of
GHG Inventories
The AmeriFlux Network has great potential to improve understanding
of the carbon cycle, and land-based contributions to greenhouse gases
(GHG). Response of ecosystems to management can be detected by
AmeriFlux measurements, which provide direct measurements of net carbon
dioxide exchange at the stand-scale that represents the integrated
effect of various ecosystem processes. The area coverage of a flux site
is the appropriate scale for understanding the effects of climatic
events and management activities on terrestrial sources and sinks, such
as the outcome of mitigation strategies. For example, the effects of
thinning 30 percent of tree biomass in a forest stand were evaluated
using net carbon dioxide exchange measurements in the years before and
after the thinning (Misson et al., 2006).
Models optimized with flux data can be used to test scenarios of
response to mitigation actions. Mitigation actions cannot be detected
by top-down methods that incorporate atmospheric CO2
concentration observations, but this role can be filled by AmeriFlux,
which was designed to be a land-based observation network.
Long-term flux data at individual sites show trends that allow one
to identify the relative importance of factors influencing carbon
uptake. For example, at Harvard Forest, annual net carbon uptake over
15 years has averaged 2.5 tons carbon/hectare/year, and has increased
at an average rate of 0.2 tons carbon/hectare/year. The 15 years of
data track changes in net carbon uptake driven by long-term increases
in tree biomass, successional change in forest composition, and
climatic events, processes not well represented in current models
(Urbanski et al., 2006). Along with the energy fluxes, the data have
proven valuable in evaluating and improving carbon cycle and climate
system models, as indicated in many publications and model comparisons.
The potential to improve accuracy of GHG inventories relies on
increasing the density of GHG measurements across the continent. A
small subset of AmeriFlux sites measure well-calibrated carbon dioxide
concentration profiles in an above the vegetation canopy, and more
sites could be augmented. These data would improve the density of GHG
concentration measurements made by NOAA over the continent so that it
might become possible to resolve regional GHG sources and sinks.
Potential to define reliable baselines of GHG fluxes from natural or
managed ecosystems
The most effective tool to measure the effect of natural events and
management at annual timescales is an array of flux sites. The most
powerful tool to produce spatial estimate of GHG fluxes from ecosystems
is a bottom-up process model that ingests these data. A bottom-up
approach starts with measurements where the action is taking place. For
example, a regional project uses observations from forest and
agricultural inventories, AmeriFlux sites, and Landsat data in a
process model to produce estimates of terrestrial carbon stocks and
fluxes for every square kilometer (Law et al., 2004, 2006). The model
grows forests after disturbances and data compare well with forest
biomass from inventories. This type of approach can be applied across
the U.S. to track changes in terrestrial sources and sinks at a
resolution appropriate for the scale of spatial variability that
exists. The output of bottom-up process models could be used in
CarbonTracker to improve its estimates of the terrestrial contributions
to observed greenhouse gas concentrations.
The potential of the network to define reliable baselines of
sources and sinks in the U.S. is high in the near future, but it will
require enhancements and a more coordinated effort of the different
science communities and agencies. The coordination could be improved
through the North American Carbon Program (NACP), part of the Carbon
Cycle Science Program.
Internationally, the potential to define baselines of GHG fluxes
from natural or managed ecosystems using tower flux measurements is low
in the next few years. The distribution of sites is variable, with a
sufficient density of sites in Europe and Japan, but no sites in some
countries. China and India recently started their own networks. In the
past 10 years, the global network of sites has mushroomed from about
100 sites to over 500 flux sites in the regional international
networks, so it is possible that the status will change quickly.
However, continuity of existing observations remains threatened in some
countries, like Canada. In addition, it requires technical expertise
both in instrument maintenance and data analysis that isn't likely to
be available everywhere.
Additional resources required to develop and sustain a robust carbon
monitoring system
This is something that is required; the details are yet to be
determined. It would be necessary to enhance the AmeriFlux Network,
intensify the CO2 concentration network, enhance the crop
and forest inventory programs, ensure continuity of critical remote
sensing data, provide more resources for coordinated data management
systems for data assimilation, and accelerate analysis of available
data for more comprehensive modeling and assessment.
Continuity of the AmeriFlux sites needs to be ensured. Improvements
in the AmeriFlux Network would require adding new sites in under-
represented biomes, eco-climatic regions, and early stages of forest
growth following disturbance events and management/mitigation actions.
In 2005, an analysis indicated locations where new towers were needed
(Fig. 2 and Hargrove et al., 2003); gaps have since been filled in the
SE and SW U.S. Sites should be enhanced with measurements of methane
fluxes, another carbon source from land surfaces. New measurements
could include isotopes for distinguishing sources and well-calibrated
CO2 concentration measurements that could augment NOAA's GHG
observations. The required resources for a robust monitoring system are
the same as if the primary purpose of the network remains focused on
carbon cycle research.
More resources are needed for AmeriFlux data management to serve a
broad user community. Increased computational resources are needed for
data processing and modeling for regional, continental and global scale
analysis (e.g., distributed computer clusters, and time on a super
computer).
Many of the products needed for integrating AmeriFlux observations
with other data and models are provided by individual investigators or
programs with other missions, some with significant lags (years) in
data availability and others lacking continuity. Additional resources
are required for more rapid delivery of upstream data products that are
critical to modeling and assessment, such as the State of the Carbon
Cycle Report (CCSSP, 2007). Examples are Landsat data products,
spatially derived weather data, and inventory estimates of biomass and
productivity.
Relationship between academic community involved in carbon cycle
research and regional to continental mapping of
fluxes of GHG, and the federal agencies supporting
this work
There are existing mechanisms for communication between the
academic community and the federal agencies supporting the work. The
academic community involved in NACP projects is using the range of
observation networks and models to produce maps of fluxes of GHG. The
observation and modeling communities are represented on the steering
groups. The Science Steering Groups of the NACP and Carbon Cycle
Science Program meet a couple of times a year with the program managers
in the Interagency Working Group. This has proved to be an effective
way for scientists to discuss current gaps in observations or
knowledge, and future research needs. The challenge is in responding to
these needs in a timely manner.
Mechanism for Coordinating Efforts with Other Nations to Better
Understand Carbon and GHG
A mechanism for coordinating observation networks among nations
could build on the NACP and the Integrated Carbon Observation System
(ICOS), a new European Research Infrastructure for quantifying and
understanding the greenhouse balance of the European continent and of
adjacent regions. ICOS aims to build a network of standardized, long-
term, high precision integrated monitoring of (1) atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations to quantify the fossil fuel component;
(2) ecosystem fluxes of carbon dioxide, water vapor and energy and
ecosystem variables (http://icos-infrastructure.ipsl.jussieu.fr/). The
ICOS infrastructure would integrate terrestrial and atmospheric
observations at various sites into a single, coherent, highly precise
database, which would allow a regional top-down assessment of fluxes
from atmospheric data, and a bottom-up assessment from ecosystem
measurements and fossil fuel inventories. This is similar to
aspirations of the U.S. North American Carbon Program (NACP).
One of the activities of the North American Carbon Program is
ongoing coordination with Canada and Mexico on carbon observations and
modeling. Here, the framework and science plan are under development,
but again, there aren't enough resources for a high degree of
coordination. Additional support necessary to ensure that data
collected by different nations are comparable includes institutional
support for coordination of observation systems, interchange of
standards, and development of curated, active data management systems
for data assimilation.
Within the frameworks of NACP/ICOS, a mechanism for coordinating
tower flux work with other nations is the scientific bodies FAO Global
Terrestrial Observing System--Terrestrial Carbon (GTOS-TCO) and
FLUXNET. These frameworks exist, but there isn't enough support for a
high degree of coordination. GTOS is supported by the Food &
Agricultural Organization, and the role of GTOS-TCO is to organize and
coordinate reliable data and information on carbon, linking the
scientific community with potential end users. One important recent
product is the guidelines for terrestrial carbon measurements and
global standardization of protocols for submitting data to a database
for international comparisons (Law et al., 2008).
The FLUXNET project is a ``network of regional flux networks,''
serving a synthesis coordination role rather than primary data
collection. The intent is to stimulate regional and global analysis of
observations from tower flux sites. It is operated from the U.S., and
has functioned intermittently depending on grants (http://
www.fluxnet.ornl.gov/fluxnet/index.cfm). Through FLUXNET, we produced a
global database using the data standardization protocols we developed
for AmeriFlux (and published in the GTOS document, Law et al., 2008).
However, the FLUXNET database is currently static and no one is
responsible for continually updating it. To continue these developments
and building international continuity in methods and databases, it
would make sense for the community to have FLUXNET regularly funded.
Along with guidelines for instrumentation and calibration we provide on
the AmeriFlux web site, we have the templates for international
coordination; they just need to be implemented.
Summary
The AmeriFlux Network of 90 sites has great potential to improve
understanding of the carbon cycle, and land-based contributions to GHG.
AmeriFlux provides direct measurements of net carbon dioxide exchange
at the stand-scale that represents the integrated effect of various
ecosystem processes. The area coverage of a tower is the appropriate
scale for understanding the effects of climatic events and management
activities, such as the outcome of mitigation strategies.
The network plays a major role in the North American Carbon
Program, where modeling approaches use the flux data to test model
processes, or to optimize the models and apply them spatially with
inputs of weather data and remote sensing data on land surface
characteristics (e.g., Landsat products, MODIS; Goward et al., 2008).
Carbon cycle and climate system modelers use flux data to characterize
terrestrial sources and sinks for carbon, responses of carbon and
energy fluxes to climate and land use change, and resulting radiative
forcing feedbacks to climate.
The potential of the network to define reliable baselines of
sources and sinks in the U.S. is high in the near future, but it will
take enhancements and a more coordinated effort of the science
communities and federal agencies. Critical to this effort is timely
availability of upstream observations and data products that are used
in terrestrial models to map fluxes. The coordination could be improved
through the North American Carbon Program.
Internationally, the potential to define baselines of GHG fluxes
from natural or managed ecosystems using tower flux measurements is low
in the next few years. The distribution of sites is variable, with a
sufficient density of sites in many developed countries, but no sites
in some countries. It also requires technical expertise both in
instrument maintenance and data analysis that isn't likely to be
available everywhere. Continuity of existing observations remains
threatened in countries like Canada.
Additional resources will be required to develop and sustain a
robust carbon monitoring system. It would be necessary to enhance the
AmeriFlux Network, intensify the GHG observation network, improve
terrestrial inventories, ensure continuity of remote sensing data,
develop coordinated data management, and accelerate analysis of
available data for more comprehensive modeling and assessment.
Additional resources are needed to ensure continuity of the
AmeriFlux sites. Required resources would fill gaps in coverage by
existing AmeriFlux sites, particularly in under-represented regions and
biomes, and in different stages of forest growth such as following
management/mitigation actions. The sites should be enhanced with
additional measurements to include methane fluxes (another GHG),
isotopes for distinguishing sources, and well-calibrated CO2
concentration measurements. NOAA CO2 concentration
measurements and CarbonTracker would benefit from addition of well-
calibrated CO2 concentration measurements on more of the
AmeriFlux towers. More resources are needed for AmeriFlux data
management, data processing and modeling for regional to global scale
analysis (e.g., distributed computer clusters, and access to super
computers). The required resources for a robust monitoring system are
the same as if the primary purpose of the network remains focused on
carbon cycle research.
There are existing mechanisms for communication between the
academic community and the federal agencies supporting the work. The
observation and modeling communities are represented on the steering
committees of the Carbon Cycle Science Program and NACP, and meet
regularly with the Interagency Working Group of the federal agencies to
identify gaps and needs. The challenge is meeting those needs in a
timely manner.
Mechanisms for international coordination of infrastructure and
analysis could build on the NACP and the new European infrastructure
called the International Carbon Observation System (ICOS). FLUXNET, a
`network of regional flux networks,' and the FAO Global Terrestrial
Observing System would operate within this framework. Additional
support necessary to ensure that data collected by different nations
are comparable includes institutional support for coordination of
observation systems, interchange of standards, and development of high
quality data management systems.
In summary, the tools and communication mechanisms exist for
monitoring, measuring and understanding GHG sources and sinks. Each of
the agencies has been working on their piece of the puzzle. Now what is
required is a high level of commitment and coordination to build an
integrated national system. For successful implementation, the
observation networks, analysis teams, and data management need to be
enhanced in the near term to develop and sustain a robust carbon
monitoring system.
Citations
Baldocchi, D.D. 2008. `Breathing' of the Terrestrial Biosphere: Lessons
Learned from a Global Network of Carbon Dioxide Flux
Measurement Systems. Australian Journal of Botany 56:1-26.
CCSP. 2007. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The
North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global
Carbon Cycle. Anthony W. King, Lisa Dilling, Gregory P.
Zimmerman, David M. Fairman, Richard A. Houghton, Gregg
Marland, Adam Z. Rose, and Thomas J. Wilbanks, editors, 2007. A
report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC.
Goward, S.N., J.G. Masek, W. Cohen, G. Moisen, G.J. Collatz, S. Healey,
R.A. Houghton, C. Huang, R. Kennedy, B.E. Law, S. Powell, D.
Turner, M. Wulder. 2008. Forest Disturbance and North American
Carbon Flux. EOS Transactions 11:105-106.
Hargrove, W.W., F.M. Hoffman, B.E. Law. 2003. New Analysis Reveals
Representativeness of AmeriFlux Network. EOS Transactions
84:529.
Law, B.E., T. Arkebauer, J.L. Campbell, J. Chen, M. Schwartz, O. Sun,
C. van Ingen, S. Verma. 2008. Terrestrial Carbon Observations:
Protocols for Vegetation Sampling and Data Submission. Report
55, Global Terrestrial Observing System. FAO, Rome. 87 pp.
Law, B.E., D. Turner, J. Campbell, O.J. Sun, S. Van Tuyl, W.D. Ritts,
W.B. Cohen. 2004. Disturbance and climate effects on carbon
stocks and fluxes across western Oregon USA. Global Change
Biology 10:1429-1444.
Law, B.E., D. Turner, M. Lefsky, J. Campbell, M. Guzy, O. Sun, S. Van
Tuyl, W. Cohen. 2006. Carbon fluxes across regions:
Observational constraints at multiple scales. In J. Wu, B.
Jones, H. Li, O. Loucks, eds. Scaling and Uncertainty Analysis
in Ecology: Methods and Applications. Springer, USA. Pages 167-
190.
Misson, L., J. Tang, M. Xu, M. McKay, A.H. Goldstein. 2005. Influences
of recovery from clear-cut, climate variability, and thinning
on the carbon balance of a young ponderosa pine plantation.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 130:207-222.
Urbanski, S., C. Barford, S. Wofsy, C. Kucharik, E. Pyle, J. Budney, K.
McKain, D. Fitzjarrald, M. Czikowsky, J.W. Munger 2007. Factors
Controlling CO2 Exchange on timescales from hourly
to decadal at Harvard Forest. Journal of Geophysical Research
112: G02020, doi:10.1029/2006JG000293.
Biography for Beverly Law
Dr. Beverly Law is Professor of Global Change Forest Science at
Oregon State University. She currently serves as the Science Chair of
the AmeriFlux Network, and as a member of the Science Steering Groups
of the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program and the North American Carbon
Program. She is also serving on the National Research Council Committee
on Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gases. Her research is on the
effects of climate and disturbances on carbon, water, and energy
exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere; and methods
for integrating observations and modeling to quantify and understand
regional carbon balances. Dr. Law has been an author or co-author on
over 100 refereed journal articles, including lead author on a World
Meteorological Organization Norbert Gerbier-MUMM International Award
for meteorology publication of the year (2004).
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Law.
And Dr. Birdsey, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD A. BIRDSEY, PROJECT LEADER AND
SCIENTIST, USDA FOREST SERVICE; CHAIR, CARBON CYCLE SCIENTIFIC
STEERING GROUP
Dr. Birdsey. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the
Committee. Thanks for inviting me here. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk for a little while about monitoring,
measuring, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions. I will talk
a little bit about USDA inventory and monitoring programs,
about how they may be used to verify greenhouse gas mitigation
activities, and then about some interagency activities we are
involved in.
First I want to spend a minute discussing the role of U.S.
forests in the climate system. U.S. forests currently take up
about 12 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions from the
United States. This is a terrific service that these forests
provide. We are not sure how that will evolve in the future,
but it is something we want to take a good track of. We want to
maintain these forests in a healthy way so that as climate
changes they are adaptable and can continue to provide these
ecosystem services.
Department of Agriculture has conducted inventories of the
land for about 75 years, and we have a network of experimental
forests and ranges that have been continuously collecting data
for in some cases more than 100 years. These information
systems are the basis for the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory,
the Forestry Sector, and this--these inputs are reviewed
periodically, and based on these reviews we do thinks some
improvements are needed.
USDA also provides data for land managers to use. We have
developed very practical and cost-effective methods for
estimating greenhouse gas sources and sinks at the level of
farms or forestry projects. So these are very small-scale
activities that we provide services to those land owners.
We also have developed some user-friendly estimation tools
so that private owners and land managers can have a little
easier time developing estimates that are specific for their
circumstances.
Our ground-based observation systems are also essential for
detecting the signs of climate change and eventually for
monitoring our ability to respond to climate changes. For
interagency and academic collaborations the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the Forest Service works closely with
Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, NASA, DOE, and other
agencies and universities to develop the state-of-the-art
greenhouse gas inventories.
The Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group coordinates
carbon cycle research under the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program. I have been associated with this group for something
like eight years. I find it quite fascinating how they are able
to bring ten or more different agencies together to the table
periodically to talk about the research that is going on, to do
the best job they can to coordinate it, and then go back to
their individual agencies and departments and work through
those systems. I think it has been very effective.
The Carbon Cycle Steering Group that I chair provides input
about carbon cycle science and particularly its relevance to
the various stakeholder communities so we can assure that
science is meeting the needs of society.
We have found that key elements of a national observation
network are lacking or at risk of loss, and you are hearing
about some of those from the other witnesses today.
As I mentioned at the beginning, U.S. forests provide a
tremendous service of taking up a large percentage of our
greenhouse gas emissions. The future of this is somewhat
uncertain. There are many threats to the forests; climate
change, land use change, fire, insects, and so forth, as well
as the opportunity to manage those forests to remain healthy
and continue to provide this service. Properly-managed forests
across all ownerships; public, private, and in urban and rural
areas can make a big difference in the future of mitigating and
adapting to climate change.
These forests in rural areas and communities can really
help improve people's lives, and we appreciate the opportunity
to discuss the role of monitoring and ensuring that these
forests continue to provide those services.
Thanks for the opportunity, and I will be glad to answer
any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Birdsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard A. Birdsey
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me today to discuss monitoring, measuring, and verifying greenhouse gas
emissions. I am the Project Leader of the Research Work Unit ``Climate,
Fire, and Carbon Cycle Sciences'' in the Northern Research Station of
the U.S. Forest Service. In addition, I currently Chair the Carbon
Cycle Science Steering Group. This Steering Group, comprised of about
20 experts involved in carbon cycle research and application from
federal, State, university, and non-government organizations, reviews
the status of carbon cycle science sponsored by U.S. agencies and
departments. I will focus my remarks on the purpose and current status
of USDA inventory and monitoring programs, their use in verifying
greenhouse gas mitigation activities, and relevant federal interagency
activities regarding carbon cycle research and monitoring.
Status of USDA Inventory and Monitoring Programs
Forestry, agriculture, and other land uses may either contribute to
or remove greenhouse gases (GHG) from the atmosphere. Land use
practices have affected GHG levels in the atmosphere through management
of perennial systems and forests, land use changes, cultivation and
fertilization of soils, production of ruminant livestock, management of
livestock manure, and fuel consumption. Carbon is accumulating in U.S.
forests, wood products, croplands, and urban lands, offsetting overall
U.S. GHG emissions by about 12 percent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA conducts critical research, observation, survey, and analysis
needed to assess greenhouse gas emissions and carbon storage on U.S.
lands. We work closely with our partners in the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Energy on national, regional,
local, and entity scale greenhouse gas inventories and methods.
USDA also maintains critical observation and data systems that will
be needed to monitor and track changes in climate and the implications
of climate change. USDA contributions include:
Providing the greenhouse gas estimates from land use,
land use change, and forestry and agricultural statistics to
EPA for the Official U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
Periodically producing a stand-alone inventory of
greenhouse gas sources and sinks from the forestry and
agriculture sectors to accompany the Official EPA inventory.
Preparing project and farm-scale methods for
estimating greenhouse gas sources and sinks for the Department
of Energy's Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting System.
Creating user-friendly estimation tools for private
landowners and land managers. These tools are designed to
provide a ``greenhouse gas footprint'' of individual forest
lands and farms.
These systems include: the U.S. Forest Inventory (FIA), the
National Resources Inventory (NRI), the Census of Agriculture, climate
and weather observations, Experimental Forests and Ranges, and various
surveys of cropping and management practices.
The Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (FIA) of the Forest
Service has tracked the condition and changes in vegetation on public
and private lands for more than 75 years, and is the longest running
forest inventory program if its kind in the U.S. The nationwide network
of experimental forests and ranges provides up to 100 years of data on
vegetation, climate and hydrology. Scientific support comes from
partnerships with universities, federal and State agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and the forest industry. Scientists and
managers are using this information and working together to develop
strategies for managing our changing forests and rangelands.
FIA data has been the basis of the reported changes in carbon
stocks of the forestry sector of the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory, as
reported annually to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change by the Environmental Protection Agency.\2\ This is the national
monitoring baseline for carbon in forests and wood products, following
international reporting requirements and guidelines, and undergoing
annual review by an international panel of experts. Its basis in the
existing forest inventory program has advantages because of the
extensive sample plot network which confers the ability to attribute
observed changes geographically (e.g., by state), by broad ownership
category (e.g., public, private) and by other characteristics of the
land such as forest type or productivity class. Since the estimates are
based on a statistical sampling approach involving remote sensing and
direct field observations, the error of the reported estimates can be
statistically described. The extensive FIA data, inventory, and
analytical framework has the capacity to answer questions now that will
arise as actions are implemented to increase carbon storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To improve the data from forest inventories as a basis for
monitoring carbon, additional sampling is needed for carbon in soils,
dead wood and down woody debris. Areas recently disturbed from events
such as hurricanes and large wildfires need additional sampling to
assess impacts. If reports are required for areas smaller than states,
such as groups of counties or specific national forests, remote sensing
augmented with intensified sampling density will be required. Movement
of carbon in wood products from specific regions and ownerships are
important but are not tracked through the chain of custody. Land-use
and land-cover changes are not estimated accurately for small areas,
which could be resolved with enhanced use of remote sensing and better
coordination between agricultural and forest inventories. Some U.S.
regions important to understanding forest carbon dynamics are currently
under-sampled, such as Alaskan boreal forests and forested urban areas.
Implementing these changes would improve the U.S. greenhouse gas
inventory and provide additional capability to report estimates for
specific land areas of interest.
The National Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistically-based,
longitudinal survey administered by the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) that has provided conditions and trends for
multiple environmental resources on non-federal U.S. lands since 1956
(known as the Conservation Needs Inventories until 1977). The National
Resources Inventory samples more than 800,000 points nationally; each
year 210,000 of these are studied remotely and 5,000 to 10,000 field-
visited. Much of the sampling relies heavily on information provided by
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey databases. Soil
carbon is estimated from biomass production, disturbance (e.g.,
tillage, grazing or timber harvest) and loss by erosion, decomposition
or removal of plant material. Effects of soils, landscape position and
climate are factored into the estimates. Scientists from Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
are using National Resources Inventory data to assess the effectiveness
of conservation practices in the Conservation Effects Assessment
Project (CEAP).
In 2006, USDA prepared the only set of comprehensive landowner-
scale greenhouse gas inventory methods available in the U.S. These
methods were established by USDA for use the Department of Energy's
Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry.\3\ Uniform standards and
definitions provide consistent assessments of greenhouse gases at the
landowner scale. To accompany these methods, the USDA Forest Service
and Natural Resources Conservation Service provide decision-support
tools. The COLE\4\ and COMET-VR\5\ models are examples of on-line
estimators that support greenhouse gas registries and markets. Another
example is i-Tree,\6\ the Forest Service's suite of on-line tools
developed to measure urban forestry benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Smith, James E.; Heath, Linda S.; Skog, Kenneth E.; Birdsey,
Richard A. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested
carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States.
Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343. Newtown Square, PA. USDA NE-343: 216 p.
\4\ http://ncasi.uml.edu/COLE/
\5\ http://www.cometvr.colostate.edu/
\6\ http://www.itreetools.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill authorized the Secretary of
Agriculture to establish technical guidelines for science-based
measurement of environmental services benefits derived from
conservation and land management activities. The Farm Bill specifically
directs the Secretary to give priority to the establishment measurement
standards--in consultation with research community and others--for
carbon credits in order to facilitate landowner participation. The
Secretary has established the Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets
as a separate agency and is proceeding to staff the office to
accomplish this work.
The Forest Service is an active participant in the U.S. network of
flux towers (known as AmeriFlux) along with other sponsoring agencies
such as Department of Energy. We have found that locating these
intensive measurement systems in areas where other kinds of data
collection takes place, such as our network of long-term Experimental
Forests, facilitates integration of data across space and time, which
improves verification as well as providing critical parameters for
models that are used to diagnose the causes of current changes in
carbon flux and to project changes under future climate scenarios.
Integration of data and models can improve annual estimates and help
attribute observed annual changes in carbon stocks to natural causes
such as climate variability.
Other Forest Service monitoring and mapping programs are becoming
highly relevant for understanding and monitoring changes and impacts on
forest carbon stocks. For example, under the National Fire Plan, annual
mapping of burned areas and intensity of wildfires provides critical
data to estimate the contribution of fire emissions to the overall
carbon budget of the Nation's forests. Mapping for the entire U.S. is
currently incomplete, and there could be some improvement in linking
maps of burned areas with vegetation classifications and better
estimates of emissions based on fire intensity.
In addition to the National Resources Inventory, the Soil Survey
Division of the Natural Resources Conservation Service routinely
samples soils and measures soil organic carbon. This information is
available for about 30,000 sites through the U.S. and its
territories.\7\ Nearly 650 sites are added annually. Land use data is
available for many of these sites along with soil landscape attributes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Soil Survey Center http://ssldata.nrcs.usda.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of a Robust Carbon Monitoring System for GHG Mitigation
Project Monitoring
Monitoring needs for GHG mitigation projects are highly dependent
on the specific reporting requirements, which are currently
inconsistent among emerging GHG registries and markets. Critical
determinants of monitoring needs are the definition of the reporting
entity, and optional requirements to separate out changes in carbon
stocks caused by natural events from those caused by human activities.
Reporting entities may be defined as any legally defined entity;
examples include individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, or
government entities such as cities or states. Some of the registries
and markets allow reporting by one entity on behalf of others. These
organizations are known as ``aggregators'' because their purpose is to
work with groups of reporters and thus achieve some efficiency in
monitoring and reporting costs. There are 10 million family forest
landowners in the U.S.\8\ For a small landowner who wishes to
participate in a carbon program, the monitoring and reporting cost per
acre may be high, or they may lack the technical skills to perform the
monitoring. But if the landowner is willing to be grouped with others,
aggregators can serve their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NRS-INF-06-08. May 2008. Who owns America's Forests? Family
Ownership Patterns and Family Forest Highlights from the National
Woodland Owner Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the project or landscape level, we have the technology to
measure and monitor changes in carbon stocks using remote sensing and
field sampling. Most of the current and proposed markets and registries
rely on sampling and measurements, which may be coupled with predictive
models, to track or project changes in carbon emissions or
sequestration. These approaches are practical and cost effective, and
can be independently verified by a third party.
It may be difficult to separate human-induced causes from natural
causes of observed changes at the project level. This is because
inventory approaches measure the changes in ecosystem carbon that
result from all causal factors combined. For example, if tree growth
rates increase as a result of both physiological response to increasing
atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrogen fertilization, inventory
measurements will not separate the effects of these two causes.
Currently, the only ways to separate such causes are to conduct
controlled experiments in the ecosystems of interest or to employ
ecosystem process models which may or may not be available.
National-scale Monitoring: Capabilities and Gaps\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ From the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Steering Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Successful CO2 management requires robust and sustained
carbon cycle observations, yet key elements of a national observation
network are lacking or risk displacement on the basis of competing
priorities.
Major threats to existing programs involve sustainability of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) high accuracy
well-calibrated satellite observations of land and oceans, and
continuity of land/atmosphere CO2 flux measurements. Major
gaps include an improved spectral range and resolution for satellite
measurements of oceans, sustained field observations at sea,
insufficient density of atmospheric observations, incomplete geographic
coverage of land inventories, lack of soil carbon monitoring, and lack
of observations of the terrestrial-ocean interface. Steps could be
taken to better integrate monitoring programs, and close current data
gaps.
Since 1972, the Landsat series of satellites has provided spatial
and temporal representation of land cover/land use change,
classification of vegetation, and detection of natural disturbances.
Landsat enables quantification of land vegetation and soil carbon
fluxes to and from the atmosphere by providing spatially continuous and
extensive estimates of above-aground biomass and/or land cover type
that aid in the extrapolation of in situ measurements over large
regions. The critically important Landsat data are expected to continue
without a data gap, or if one should develop it is expected to be very
brief, until the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM). The Landsat 5
and Landsat 7 satellites are very resilient. Refined projections of
fuel usage computed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
which operates the NASA-developed Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 satellites,
suggest that Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 could have sufficient fuel to
operate at least through 2012, exceeding previous expectations. The
NASA and USGS LDCM has a launch readiness data of December 2012.
The NASA Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)
instruments on NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites, which were launched in
May 2002 and December 1999, respectively, produce crucial global
observations of primary production and vegetation phenology. A
continuous record of primary production and phenology started with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Advanced Very
High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instruments in 1981 and continues
with higher accuracy measurements by MODIS. This information is used in
combination with ground observations and models to provide regional
estimates and maps of carbon stocks and fluxes.
The global network of inter-calibrated measurements of atmospheric
carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)
concentrations has been central to climate and carbon cycle studies for
decades. These properties reflect the net effect of all global carbon
sources and sinks to the atmosphere (anthropogenic, terrestrial and
aquatic fluxes). The observational system also provides trace gas
measurements (e.g., O2, 13CO2, CO, and
other species) indicative of carbon sources. Current in situ
measurements are made in limited areas from aircraft, towers, and
marine, mountaintop and coastal observatories. NASA Aqua and Aura
satellites measure global distributions of CO, CO2,
CH4, and a myriad of greenhouse gases.
Land-based inventories periodically quantify carbon stocks and
fluxes for biomass, soil, and fossil fuel emissions, but as already
noted, there are some gaps in sampling of carbon pools and some
geographic regions are under-sampled. Expanded forest inventories, if
deemed necessary, could provide sampling of carbon in soils, dead wood
and down woody detritus, especially areas where incidents of natural
disturbance have accelerated and where large quantities of soil carbon
are vulnerable. Agricultural inventories primarily focus on non-federal
lands--federal rangelands are under-sampled. Data on land use
management and management history, both of which significantly
influence changes in carbon, are lacking. The fate of carbon as it is
transported across the landscape and accumulates in other terrestrial
or aquatic systems is largely unknown. With a coordinated and
consistent suite of core observations, forest and agriculture
inventories would be integrated and better positioned to inform
emerging policies and actions.
Soil carbon monitoring has large spatial and temporal gaps; this is
significant because soil carbon is the largest terrestrial carbon stock
and highly vulnerable to loss with warming. If determined to be
necessary, a multi-agency supported network of soil carbon
observations, with the capacity for performing measurements over
decades and associated with other networks of terrestrial observations
and inventories, would radically improve estimates of soil and
ecosystem carbon dynamics at multiple scales.
Direct observations of CO2 fluxes over decades are
necessary to capture terrestrial carbon and water cycle responses to
climate variability and to improve carbon and climate system model
simulations. The AmeriFlux Network, initiated in 1996, currently has
more than 100 sites observing biological properties, meteorology, and
carbon, water and energy exchanges between terrestrial ecosystems and
the atmosphere. Continuation would provide understanding of long-term
trends in response to climate, yet support for AmeriFlux is currently
provided on a site-by-site basis, and some long-term, high-quality
records are endangered.
Rivers and groundwater at the land-ocean margins play a central
role in linking terrestrial and marine cycles of carbon. The magnitude
of weathering and erosion processes on land, sediment storage within
the river system, and transport, transformation and burial processes in
adjacent ocean margins demonstrate that these systems are an important
part of the global carbon cycle. Existing research plans stress the
importance of examining both the terrestrial and oceanic sinks for
organic and inorganic carbon; however, the primary connection between
these two environments is not adequately addressed. Despite a long
history by the U.S. Geological Survey of gauging U.S. rivers and
streams, there has been a gradual loss of long-term discharge
monitoring stations and decreased number of annual carbon measurements.
These long-term measurements provide understanding of anthropogenic
changes to the hydrologic cycle.
Observational network design will need to respond in an effective
and highly coordinated fashion among agencies, closely integrated with
policy, land management, and scientific communities. Long-term global
carbon observations can inform climate change mitigation policy and
management decisions, and permit steps to be taken to close critical
current gaps and avoid future gaps in observation continuity.
Verifying Compliance with Potential Climate Agreements
International climate treaties are likely to require monitoring and
verification at the national scale; therefore, the discussion of gaps
and threats contained in the previous section is most relevant.
However, individual projects and activities that collectively affect
national estimates and that may be governed by programs or markets also
need monitoring and verification at much more detailed scales. As
previously described, at the field plots or small watersheds scale of a
project, there are published and practiced methods for sampling and
measuring ecosystem carbon pools and how they change over time. At more
regional scales such as a state or country, there are ongoing
inventories and direct observations of CO2 flux that form an
internationally accepted basis for estimating ecosystem carbon and
changes over time.
The difference between detection capabilities of atmospheric
measurements and project-level measurements is one of scale. The
current level of greenhouse gas mitigation would not produce an effect
on the atmosphere that is detectable by direct atmospheric
measurements, especially considering that there are other causes of
atmospheric CO2 changes that cannot be easily factored out
(e.g., climate variability). Eventually, under a larger global offset
program, such changes should be detectable by atmospheric measurements
of CO2 concentrations, and the sum of direct observations of
activities on the land would add up to the aggregate observations of
effects on the atmosphere.
Federal Interagency Activities Regarding Carbon Cycle Research and
Monitoring
The Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group (CCIWG), currently co-
chaired by USDA and NASA, coordinates carbon cycle research under the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).\10\ This entails
coordinating research programs within and across agencies, coordinating
the solicitation and review of research proposals (when appropriate),
implementing targeted research, providing an interface with the
scientific community conducting carbon cycle research, updating needs
assessments, working to secure resources for new activities, and
reporting results and accomplishments. The CCIWG is comprised of
members from 10 participating federal agencies and departments that
support and execute U.S. carbon cycle science research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Additional information about U.S. carbon cycle science is
available at: http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/programs.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to both improve scientific knowledge and understanding of
the carbon cycle and support application of this scientific knowledge
to societal needs, a number of strategic research questions are used to
guide the efforts of the Carbon Cycle Science Program. These research
questions are part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program strategic
plan and indicate the complete scope of the research coordinated by the
Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/
default.htm
What are the magnitudes and distributions of North
American carbon sources and sinks on seasonal to centennial
time scales, and what are the processes controlling their
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dynamics?
What are the magnitudes and distributions of ocean
carbon sources and sinks on seasonal to centennial time scales,
and what are the processes controlling their dynamics?
What are the effects on carbon sources and sinks of
past, present, and future land-use change and resource
management practices at local, regional, and global scales?
How do global terrestrial, oceanic, and atmospheric
carbon sources and sinks change on seasonal to centennial time
scales, and how can this knowledge be integrated to quantify
and explain annual global carbon budgets?
What will be the future atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide, methane, and other carbon-containing greenhouse
gases, and how will terrestrial and marine carbon sources and
sinks change in the future?
How will the Earth system, and its different
components, respond to various options for managing carbon in
the environment, and what scientific information is needed for
evaluating these options?
The Carbon Cycle Science Steering Group reviews the status of
carbon cycle science. As mentioned earlier, I currently Chair this
Steering Group, comprised of about 20 experts involved in carbon cycle
research and application from federal, State, university, and non-
government organizations. The function of this group is to provide
individual as well as broad scientific and application input to the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program about the direction of carbon cycle
science and its relevance to the various stakeholder communities, and
to identify gaps and potential new areas of emphasis. One of the main
recent activities of this group has been to charter a team to update
the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan which is now about 10 years old.
One of the principal coordinated interagency activities with a very
strong observing component is the North American Carbon Program. The
North American Carbon Program is designed to address the strategic
research question:
What are the magnitudes and distributions of North
American carbon sources and sinks on seasonal to centennial
time scales, and what are the processes controlling their
dynamics?
Scientists participating in the North American Carbon Program work
in a coordinated fashion to assess the status of understanding of the
magnitudes and distributions of terrestrial, freshwater, oceanic, and
atmospheric carbon sources and sinks for North America and adjacent
oceans; enhance understanding of the processes controlling source and
sink dynamics; and produce consistent analyses of North America's
carbon budget that explain regional and continental contributions and
year-to-year variability. This program is committed to reducing
uncertainties related to the increase of carbon dioxide and methane in
the atmosphere and the amount of carbon, including the fraction of
fossil fuel carbon, being taken up by North America's ecosystems and
adjacent oceans, including uncertainty regarding the fraction of fossil
fuel carbon.
Similarly, the Ocean Carbon and Climate Change (OCCC) program was
designed as an ocean component of the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science
Program. A strategic plan provides the scientific rationale for
coordinated ocean surface and space observations, experimental study,
numerical modeling, and data assimilation efforts for the coastal
ocean, ocean basins and atmospheric components of the carbon cycle over
North America and adjacent coastal ocean and ocean basins.\12\ The
strategy consists of several coordinated and integrated elements on
global ocean carbon observing networks, multi-disciplinary process
studies, data fusion and integration, synthesis and numerical modeling,
and new technological development. While the program encompasses a wide
breadth of ocean biology, chemistry, and physical research, the program
promotes linkages and interactions with related ongoing oceanographic,
climatic, and carbon cycle programs to address the full range of
scientific elements relevant to marine carbon dynamics and climate
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/documents/
occc-is-2004.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major products of the Carbon Cycle Science Program is
the CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.2, The First State of the
Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): North American Carbon Budget and
Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle.\13\ This report involved
dozens of scientists from many disciplines interacting with
stakeholders to assess knowledge and progress in understanding and
managing the carbon cycles. The report highlighted the magnitude and
sources of carbon emissions and sinks for North America, how they are
changing, and what options are available to reduce emissions or enhance
sinks. The future of this North American terrestrial sink is highly
uncertain because we lack sufficient predictive capability to know how
regrowing forests and other sinks will respond to changes in climate
and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/final-report/
default.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary and Conclusions
USDA plays a leadership role in assessing land based
greenhouse gas sources and sinks. U.S. forests currently offset
about 12 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Forest Inventory and Analysis data has been the basis
of the reported changes in carbon stocks of the forestry sector
of the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory, as reported annually to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Improvements are needed in forest inventories for
monitoring carbon: additional sampling is needed for some
carbon pools and areas recently disturbed from events such as
hurricanes and large wildfires; uncertain estimates of land-use
and land-cover changes could be resolved; and some critical
U.S. regions important to carbon dynamics are currently under-
sampled, such as Alaskan boreal forests and forested urban
areas.
National Resources Inventory data estimates soil
carbon from biomass production, disturbance and loss. An
expansion of efforts to collect agricultural land management
data could provide information for modeling carbon dynamics.
At the smaller scale of a project, there are
published and practiced methods for sampling and measuring
ecosystem carbon pools and how they change over time.
USDA has defined the accounting rules and guidelines
for forestry and agriculture in a national greenhouse gas
registry. This work may inform development of a federal program
under which forestry and agriculture carbon credits could be
generated.
Successful CO2 management requires robust
and sustained carbon cycle observations, yet key elements of a
national observation network(s) are lacking or at risk of loss.
These gaps and threats limit ability to estimate current carbon
budgets or to make projections of baselines.
Threats to existing monitoring programs involve
continuity of satellite observations of land and oceans, and
continuity of land/atmosphere CO2 flux measurements.
Major gaps in existing carbon cycle monitoring
include a need for improved spectral range and resolution for
satellite measurements, insufficient density of atmospheric
observations, incomplete geographic coverage of land
inventories, lack of land use and management histories, lack of
long-term soil carbon monitoring, and lack of observations of
the terrestrial-ocean interface.
International climate treaties are likely to require
monitoring and verification at the national scale; however,
individual projects and activities that collectively affect
national estimates and that may be governed by programs or
markets also need monitoring and verification at much smaller
scales.
Carbon cycle research under the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program is coordinated by the Carbon Cycle Interagency
Working Group.
The Carbon Cycle Science Steering Group is a group of
about 20 experts involved in carbon cycle research and
application from federal, State, university, and non-government
organizations. The function of this group is to provide
individual as well as broad scientific and application input to
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
One of the principal coordinated interagency
activities with a very strong observing component is the North
American Carbon Program. The North American Carbon Program is
designed to improve monitoring of the magnitudes and
distributions of North American carbon sources and sinks on
seasonal to centennial time scales, and improve understanding
of the processes controlling their dynamics.
There are globally important carbon sinks in North
America in plant material and soil organic matter. The future
of this North American terrestrial sink is highly uncertain
because we lack sufficient predictive capability to know how
regrowing forests and other sinks will respond to changes in
climate and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with the
Committee. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Biography for Richard A. Birdsey
Dr. Richard Birdsey is Project Leader of Research Work Unit
``Climate, Fire, and Carbon Cycle Sciences'' in the Northern Research
Station of the U.S. Forest Service. The mission of the Work Unit is to
develop and provide the basic science, quantitative methods, and
technology needed to make decisions about forest ecosystems and the
atmosphere related to climate change, fire, and carbon. Dr. Birdsey is
currently Chair of the Carbon Cycle Science Steering Group. This
Steering Group, comprised of about 20 experts involved in carbon cycle
research and application from federal, State, university, and non-
government organizations, reviews the status of carbon cycle science
sponsored by U.S. Agencies and Departments. Dr. Birdsey is a specialist
in quantitative methods for large-scale forest inventories and has
pioneered the development of methods to estimate national carbon
budgets for forest lands from forest inventory data. He has compiled
and published estimates of historical and prospective U.S. forest
carbon sources and sinks, and analyzed options for increasing the role
of U.S. forests as carbon sinks for offsetting fossil fuel emissions.
Dr. Birdsey has coordinated a national effort to update accounting
rules and reporting guidelines for U.S. forests in the national
greenhouse gas registry, and identified forest management strategies to
increase carbon sequestration. He manages a research program involving
several U.S. Forest Service Laboratories and Experimental Forests, and
cooperating Universities and other institutions, with research emphases
on basic plant processes, ecosystem nutrient cycling, and measurement
and modeling techniques.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, and Dr. Freilich, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL H. FREILICH, DIRECTOR, EARTH SCIENCE
DIVISION, SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Dr. Freilich. Chair Gordon, Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss NASA's greenhouse gas
measurements and analysis activities conducted in conjunction
with other federal agencies.
NASA develops satellites to make global measurements of
greenhouse gases and many other environmental quantities. NASA
Research and Applied Sciences Program coordinated with other
agencies to analyze space-born, aircraft, and ground-based
measurements to advance our understanding of greenhouse gases
and their impacts on climate.
As a result of efforts by NASA and our sister agencies we
know beyond a doubt that nearly half of human CO2
emissions remain in the atmosphere with the other half removed
from the atmosphere into the ocean and the land biosphere. When
accumulated over large areas such as ferial forests, these
natural exchange processes clearly have considerable impact,
but we have much to learn about their details and about how
they will evolve as the climate changes.
We are measuring aspects of the carbon cycle from space
today. Data from the MODIS instruments are used to estimate
regional carbon uptake by terrestrial and aquatic vegetation.
The AIRES instrument on the ACWA Mission and the ORA spacecraft
test instrument measure upper-air profiles of CO2.
However, elucidating air sea and air land exchange processes
requires accurate CO2 measurements near the surface.
This is what the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, OCO, would have
accomplished.
In February, as you know, NASA's OCO Mission crashed due to
a launch vehicle failure. OCO would have acquired global,
accurate, near-surface measurements of atmospheric carbon
dioxide. A comprehensive validation activity was planned and
funded using ground-based instrumentation from NASA and
auxiliary measurements from NOAA, NSF, and other agencies. OCO
would have provided unique global information on spatially-
extensive regional scale, natural sources, and sinks of carbon.
We have been investigating recovery approaches. A team of
imminent U.S. and international researchers has assessed the
state of carbon cycle science and considered whether a new
space mission is warranted now in light of present and planned
NASA and international missions. They conclude that an OCO re-
flight or an equivalent mission will, indeed, advance carbon
cycle science and could provide a basis for thoughtful policy
decisions and long-term monitoring.
NASA engineering teams, in parallel, are examining mission
options including a near identical carbon copy mission and
combining a copy of the OCO instrument with a thermal infrared
sensor on a single spacecraft to fly in constellation with the
Landsat Data Continuity Mission. It is our objective to have
solid technical and programmatic understandings of both the
carbon copy and the combined OCO thermal infrared missions by
the end of May.
We have also been coordinating with our Japanese colleagues
to expand previously-planned U.S. validation contributions to
their GOSAT Ibuki Mission and to utilize data from that mission
to test the existing OCO algorithms. The use of the GOSAT
measurements, while they can't address all of the science
issues that had been planned for OCO, will accelerate the
production of quality products from any future NASA mission.
U.S. interagency groups like the CCSP Program Office, the
Climate Change Technology Program, U.S. Ocean Action Plan
Committees, and USGEO, the group on earth observations,
coordinate many agency activities. NASA relies on DOE, USDA,
NOAA, and other agencies for critical in situ and airborne
observations of greenhouse gases and carbon storage in soil and
plants, and of course, they rely on NASA for high-quality
global remote sensing products to extend the reach and
resolution of the existing networks.
Together we have developed vastly-improved understanding of
the atmosphere and carbon cycle that can now inform climate
policy and carbon management approaches.
Uncertainties of climate predictions for the 21st century
are driven as much by our inability to quantify the feedback
between biogeochemical cycles and climate change as by the
uncertainty in the physical models of the climate and water
vapor feedback of economic projections of fossil fuel
emissions.
However, sustained, accurate, space-based observations are
now improving the science of climate change and enabling better
resource management and decision-making. In situ and airborne
observations, research activities, and technology advancement
are increasing our understanding of the carbon cycle. All of
the agencies must continue our collaborations to achieve these
ends.
The potential benefits are immense, coupling our present
knowledge of emission inventories with new understanding of
fluxes will not only support policy development and evaluation
but may also identify areas for mitigation efforts and lower
the cost of compliance.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Freilich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael H. Freilich
Good morning Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss
NASA activities in conjunction with other federal agencies in the
measurement and monitoring of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the
exchange processes between the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land.
As the Nation's civil space agency and as a leader in Earth System
Science, NASA develops and flies instruments and missions to measure
greenhouse gases--and a host of other vitally important environmental
quantities--globally, from the vantage point of space. Through our
vigorous research program, NASA uses measurements from space, air, and
land to advance our understanding of key natural processes that
determine amounts, transports, and climate impacts of the greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, with particular attention paid to the ways in
which these gases are exchanged between the air, the land, and the sea.
The quantitative knowledge we gain through the measurements and
research is codified in numerical models, which can then be combined
with future measurements to provide predictions of future conditions
and to anticipate the effects of different policies and mitigation
approaches. Through our Applied Sciences program, NASA develops
products that combine the measurements with the understanding to
provide information required by stakeholders and in particular by other
federal agencies. Once developed and demonstrated by NASA, space-borne
measurement approaches can be used to monitor greenhouse gases and
their impacts over the entire globe and for long periods of time. The
satellite data, in conjunction with essential ground-based and airborne
measurements acquired by many agencies and combined in an integrated,
coordinated way, provide critical information related to verification
and to the efficacy of policy decisions.
Greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide (CO2),
are extremely important components of the Earth system. They play key
roles in determining the Earth's energy balance--how much of the
incoming energy from the Sun is trapped within the Earth system of
atmosphere, land, and ocean, and how much of that energy is re-radiated
back out to space. In contrast with other greenhouse gas species which
are broken down by chemical reactions in the atmosphere, CO2
is not destroyed; rather, the carbon is primarily cycled between the
atmosphere, the surface layers of the ocean, and terrestrial vegetation
over time scales of a few centuries. Therefore, decisions that we make
today, and mitigation approaches that we take today, will still be
determining conditions on Earth many generations into the future. As
another consequence of long residence times and relatively rapid
transport within the atmosphere, emissions originally localized at
specific geographic locations influence environmental conditions around
the entire globe. The distributions and concentrations of CO2
and other greenhouse gases must thus be measured and predicted
globally--a job that requires the global coverage and high spatial
resolution of satellite measurements, combined with ground-based and
airborne data and the use of comprehensive numerical Earth system
models.
As will be discussed later in my testimony, we know beyond a doubt
that over periods of a few years, about half of the CO2
emissions remain in the atmosphere and the remainder of the emitted
CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and goes into the ocean
and the land for long time periods. While the localized magnitudes of
these natural exchange processes are small, their overall impacts can
be considerable when accumulated over huge areas such as boreal forests
and the oceans. While we know the global net effects of these exchanges
over time scales of a few years, we must make and analyze new
measurements of near-surface atmospheric greenhouse gas mixing ratios
and land use/land cover conditions in order to understand the details
of the processes, and to be able to make accurate predictions as to how
the processes will change as the Earth's climate evolves.
Make no mistake about it, however: the measurements of greenhouse
gases that are necessary to accurately define important, spatially
extensive, natural atmosphere-land and atmosphere-ocean exchange
processes are difficult to make and require the Nation's cutting edge
technological as well as scientific skills. The benefits, however, are
immense. Coupling our present extensive knowledge of emission
inventories with new information and understanding we will gain on the
magnitudes and uncertainties of natural and human-induced fluxes from
land use changes and management practices will not only provide
additional information to support policy development and evaluation,
but also may identify additional areas for mitigation efforts and lower
the cost of compliance.
NASA's Existing Capabilities for Measuring Carbon
Climate encompasses more than Earth's physical climate and physical
observations. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), nitrous oxide
(N2O), ozone, and water vapor. These gases play key roles in
climate change, which involves the biogeochemistry of Earth's
atmosphere and biosphere (land and ocean). NASA's satellites, along
with coordinated in situ and remote sensing networks and airborne
science programs established and operated by many other agencies, help
to quantify, characterize, and improve the accuracy and precision of
greenhouse gas measurements over the land, as well as in the atmosphere
and ocean. NASA ground-based networks provide critical long-term data
for the validation of remote observations and contribute to national
and international observational databases. NASA modeling activities
along with measurements synthesize our understanding of the importance
of greenhouse gases to climate change. While NASA does not have an
operational aspect to its mission for monitoring practices, NASA data
are utilized by partners in other agencies for operational activities.
Given the importance of understanding how CO2 cycles
through the environment, the NASA Earth Science Division maintains a
vigorous research program through its carbon cycle and atmospheric
composition focus areas to study the distribution and the forces
determining the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other
key carbon-containing atmospheric gases (especially methane), as well
as carbon-containing aerosols. Data from NASA satellites are studied,
and observations are also made from airborne platforms and surface-
based measurements in ways that can be used to validate and complement
space-based observations. Satellite data are obtained for land cover
and terrestrial and oceanic productivity, as these are critical in
providing quantitative information about the distribution of the
biosphere and the biospheric activity that exchanges carbon-containing
gases between the land, ocean surface and the atmosphere. They can also
provide critical information about the distribution and impact of
fires, which play an important role in adding carbon-containing (and
other) trace gases into the atmosphere. Models are then used to
assimilate observations to produce accurate yet consistent global data
sets, to infer information about sources and sinks, and to simulate
future concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases that contribute
to, and are affected by, climate change.
Through a series of direct measurements and models, NASA helps to
characterize and quantify greenhouse gases and related controlling
processes in the terrestrial, near-surface aquatic, and atmospheric
environments. Data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on the
Aqua spacecraft delivers ozone, water vapor, methane, and CO2
concentrations. The Aura spacecraft's Tropospheric Emission
Spectrometer (TES) provides information on ozone, CO2,
methane, and water vapor, while its Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)
provides ozone, nitrous oxide, and water vapor mixing ratios and the
Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) measures Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2), ozone, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and aerosols.
However, the policy and science issues associated with methods for
enhancing carbon uptake in forest and agricultural land, and with
spatially extensive air-land/air-sea exchange processes, require
accurate measurements near the surface. Because of the techniques used
to make the measurements, both the AIRS and the TES CO2 data
correspond to upper-level concentrations (above about 13,000 to 36,000
feet), while the MLS measurements correspond to even higher levels in
the stratosphere. Had the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) been
successful, the combination of its accurate surface CO2
measurements and the upper-level profiles obtained by AIRS would have
provided a valuable component of a global data acquisition capability.
The NASA airborne fleet can detect and help quantify all of the
aforementioned greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For the ocean,
Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) data from the Terra
and Aqua spacecraft can be used to estimate CO2 exchange
between the ocean and atmosphere. MODIS data are also used to estimate
annual carbon uptake by terrestrial and aquatic vegetation over broad
regions.
These observations are particularly powerful when the measurements
from multiple assets are combined. One recent example of NASA's
activity in this area is the Arctic Research of the Composition of the
Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites (ARCTAS) field campaign
carried out in the spring and summer of 2008. In the ARCTAS campaign,
data from three NASA aircraft based in Canada and Alaska, making
flights as far away as Greenland, studied the gas phase and particulate
composition of the troposphere, emphasizing their distribution in the
atmosphere over North America and the Arctic. In particular, in the
summer campaign, numerous observations of air affected by forest fires
were made. By combining data from aircraft and satellites, scientists
are now better able to understand the regional scale impacts of fires
and long-range pollutant transport on air quality and the implications
for climate.
Within planned future missions, the Deformation, Ecosystem
Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) mission, and to a lesser extent
the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-II (ICESat-II), will
contribute to improved estimates of above-ground carbon storage in
vegetation that can be used to monitor the activity of forest carbon
sinks and quantify carbon losses from them to the atmosphere due to
major disturbances (storms, harvest, fire, etc.). Among later Decadal
Survey-recommended missions presently under study, the Active Sensing
of CO2 Emissions Over Nights, Days, and Seasons (ASCENDS)
mission will measure CO2, the Geostationary Coastal and Air
Pollution Events mission (GEO-CAPE) will measure ozone and CO2
exchange between atmosphere and ocean, the Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystems
(ACE) will be used to estimate annual carbon uptake by aquatic
vegetation, and the Global Atmospheric Composition Mission (GACM) will
measure ozone, water vapor, and aerosols.
The NASA Earth Science Research Program goals in carbon cycle
science are to improve understanding of the global carbon cycle and to
quantify changes in atmospheric CO2 and CH4
concentrations as well as terrestrial and aquatic carbon storage in
response to fossil fuel combustion, land use and land cover change, and
other human activities and natural events. NASA carbon cycle research
encompasses multiple temporal and spatial scales and addresses
atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic carbon reservoirs, their coupling
within the global carbon cycle, and interactions with climate and other
aspects of the Earth system. The primary disciplinary research programs
that support carbon cycle science at NASA are conducted within its
Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems, and Atmospheric Composition focus areas
(including the Upper Atmosphere, Tropospheric Chemistry, Atmospheric
Chemistry Modeling, analysis, and Prediction, Ocean Biology and
Biogeochemistry, Radiation Sciences, Terrestrial Ecology, Land Cover/
Land Use Change, the Modeling Analysis and Prediction,
Interdisciplinary Science, Carbon Cycle Science, Ozone Trends, Earth
Observation Satellites Science, Aura Science programs, and to some
extent, Physical Oceanography programs).
A focus on observations from space pervades carbon cycle research
by NASA and is a basis for partnerships with other U.S. Government
agencies and institutions. NASA carbon cycle research contributes
toward the goals of major U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
activities, including the U.S. North American Carbon Program (NACP) and
the Ocean Carbon and Climate Change Program (OCCC).
As an example, NASA working with other agencies and Departments
under the NACP is working to improve estimates of carbon storage in
forests and the impacts of disturbance (fire, insects and pathogens,
severe storms, etc.) on this carbon storage. Other NASA NACP studies
are developing regional carbon budgets, documenting year-to-year
variations in sources and sinks, and attempting to attribute those
changes to particular factors. Other NASA satellite studies are
documenting changes in growing season length and the occurrence of
critical seasonal events in ecosystems (e.g., budburst, flowering, leaf
fall, algal blooms) that also affect carbon dynamics. All of these
studies are advancing our scientific understanding and monitoring
capacity--as well as advancing our abilities to evaluate the carbon
cycle implications of land management practices.
NASA research has also focused on developing the scientific
foundation for sound decision-making with respect to climate policy and
the management of carbon in the environment. NASA's current and future
well-calibrated measurements from space facilitated by NIST standards,
in combination with decades of scientific understanding achieved
through such studies, and the Agency's experience in demonstrating new
decision support capability put NASA in a strong position to contribute
to the Nation's responses to climate change. NASA's global observations
and global modeling capabilities also will help to reduce regional and
global climate and carbon cycle science model uncertainties.
The NASA Applied Sciences Program projects extend the products of
Earth science research and the tools associated with that research,
including observations, measurements, predictive models, and systems
engineering, to meet societal needs beyond NASA Earth Science Research
Program objectives. The Applied Science Program also addresses carbon
management. For example, projects exploit NASA carbon cycle research
results and related capabilities to enhance decision-making within
agencies responsible for resource management and policy decisions that
affect carbon emissions, sequestration, and fluxes among terrestrial,
aquatic, and atmospheric environments.
NASA can provide its research observations, well-calibrated and
well-validated for assessment and quantification of greenhouse gases
and of aggregate changes in carbon sources and sinks on the land and in
the ocean. Space-based measurements of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere are available now, albeit limited in utility, and will only
improve in the future (with potential recovery from OCO and future
development of ASCENDS, and ACE). Current observations of land cover,
vegetation dynamics and ocean color, as well as numerous climate
variables, allow for the identification and characterization of
terrestrial and aquatic carbon sources and sinks as well as for
attribution of some of the processes controlling their dynamics. Future
observations of vegetation canopy height profiles will demonstrate and
prove new abilities to support the estimation of carbon sequestration
in forests.
The Role of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)
On February 24, 2009, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)
failed to reach orbit after liftoff from Vandenberg Air Force Base in
California due to a launch vehicle mishap. This mission was designed to
make near-global measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide mixing
ratios (approximately equivalent to the CO2 concentration in
a vertical column of the atmosphere) over the sunlit hemisphere of the
Earth. The OCO measurements were designed to have high precision and
dense spatial sampling. Indeed, OCO was designed to make the most
challenging atmospheric trace gas measurements ever made from space.
The OCO measurement approach was designed to be most accurate in
the lower troposphere close to the air-sea and land-air interface,
which is where the transfers of atmospheric CO2 to the ocean
and the terrestrial biosphere take place. OCO was thus optimized to
allow study of the CO2 transfer processes, and
quantification of the spatially extensive, regional-scale (several
hundreds of miles in extent) sources and sinks of carbon in the natural
system, and to allow their monitoring on seasonal time scales. To
accomplish these tasks, OCO was designed to measure total column
CO2 with a precision of almost one part per million (ppm),
spatial resolution less than one mile for instantaneous measurements,
and a sampling pattern (a combination of orbit and swath width) that
allowed global coverage on approximately monthly time scales. The on-
orbit measurement strategy for OCO would have allowed accurate data to
be obtained both over land and over the harder-to-measure, but larger,
areas of the global oceans. The relatively small spatial footprints
(high resolution) would have allowed measurements through clear-sky
regions even in the presence of broken clouds. The OCO measurements
would have been more accurate, had higher spatial resolution, and had
greater coverage than those of any other existing space-borne trace gas
measurement system. A comprehensive validation activity was planned and
funded as part of the OCO mission. Using precisely calibrated
measurements from upward-looking, ground-based instruments in the
multi-agency Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) along with
auxiliary information from NOAA, NSF, and other agency programs,
residual errors in the OCO measurements were to have been identified
and removed, resulting in a calibrated OCO data set referenced to the
World Meteorological Organization standard. Indeed, the OCO mission
activity has contributed three of the primary TCCON sites (Park Falls,
Wisconsin; Lamont, Oklahoma; and Darwin, Australia) in this global
network.
As a research, science, and technology demonstration agency, NASA
rarely plans from the start to build multiple copies of instruments or
missions. Given the importance of making multiple simultaneous
measurements of many different quantities in order to understand the
interactions between processes that define the Earth as a complex but
integral system, the NASA Earth Science Division has historically
focused on breadth of missions and measurements, rather than building
multiple copies of instruments and missions in order to proactively
assure rapid replacements in the event of launch catastrophes or early
mission failures. Indeed, our careful design, construction, and
extensive testing at every step of the process have resulted in
spectacular success rates and long lifetimes for many of our Earth
missions.
Prior to February 24, 2009, NASA had neither plans nor resources to
build a replacement mission, either as a ``carbon copy'' of OCO itself
or as a functional equivalent mission or instrument.
Following the launch failure, the NASA science and engineering
teams have been actively investigating recovery from many different
approaches. From the start, NASA has ensured that the OCO Science Team,
augmented with researchers from our Research and Analysis programs and
international scientists, have been kept intact and funded to
investigate the state of carbon cycle science, whether the present key
issues should or must be addressed through space-based measurements,
and whether a new space mission was warranted in light of the present
on-orbit assets of NASA and our international partners.
On April 9, 2009, the science team's thoughtful, well-documented
white paper was completed. The science team concluded that an OCO
reflight or a functionally equivalent mission is necessary to advance
carbon cycle science and to provide the basis for thoughtful policy
decisions and societal benefits. Based on this scientific foundation
(and working in parallel with the science analyses, anticipating the
result), NASA tasked the engineering teams to examine several options
for rapid mission implementation. The Team identified the top three
candidate approaches as: (1) rebuilding an OCO mission with as few
changes as possible and launching the so-called ``Carbon Copy'' into
its planned orbit as an element of the ``A-Train,'' the constellation
of five U.S. and international satellites flying in close formation to
make a ``virtual observatory'' with highly synergistic, near-
simultaneous measurements; (2) combining a near-copy of the OCO
instrument with a Thermal Infrared (TIR) sensor on a single spacecraft,
to be launched into close constellation with the Landsat Data
Continuity Mission (LDCM), presently under construction for launch in
December 2012; and (3) building a near-copy of the OCO instrument for
launch to and flight on the International Space Station (ISS).
Each of these options has challenges, ranging from electronic parts
obsolescence which preclude any complete identical rebuild of the OCO
instrument and spacecraft, to significantly degraded coverage from the
ISS orbit and the need to provide a dedicated pointing mechanism for
the OCO instrument, and accommodation issues associated with the flight
of both a TIR and an OCO-like instrument on the same spacecraft. There
are also advantages to each of these approaches, which help offset the
challenges described above, including early launch availability and
relative simplicity for the ``Carbon Copy,'' possible lower launch
costs and servicing potential for the ISS flight, and chances for an
LDCM launch to allow more overlap than otherwise possible with the now-
ancient Landsat 7 and Landsat 5 missions, while still providing
synergistic multi-spectral and thermal infrared measurements within
about six to twelve months after the LDCM launch.
At present, our understanding of the Carbon Copy option is most
mature, while the OCO/TIR combined mission is being studied vigorously
to refine its parameters. The scientific degradations associated with
the flight of OCO on the ISS discourage near-term focus on this option.
It is our objective to have solid technical and programmatic
understandings of both the Carbon Copy and combined OCO/TIR missions by
the end of May.
In parallel with NASA investigation of OCO reflight options, we
have been collaborating substantively with our Japanese colleagues to
expand and accelerate previously planned U.S. contributions to the
validation of GOSAT/IBUKI CO2 measurements and to utilize
GOSAT/IBUKI data to help refine existing high-level OCO algorithms.
While the accuracy and sampling characteristics of GOSAT/IBUKI are
insufficient to allow key OCO science and policy questions to be
addressed adequately, the use of the GOSAT/IBUKI measurements to help
refine OCO algorithms now will accelerate the production of quality
products from a future mission.
It should be noted that one of the mid-term missions that the
Decadal Survey recommended for NASA to develop was a laser-based,
carbon dioxide-measuring mission called ``ASCENDS'' (Active Sensing of
CO2 Emissions over Nights, Days, and Seasons). Using active
lasers rather than reflected sunlight, ASCENDS is expected to provide
CO2 measurements in polar regions during the winter and at
night. Technology development advances required for the lasers on
ASCENDS preclude its early flight within the next three years.
Furthermore, the use of reflected sunlight for OCO measurements (versus
the active lasers for ASCENDS) makes the smaller and simpler OCO-like
instrument attractive for long-term monitoring of near-surface CO2
levels and offset processes.
We will keep the Committee informed as we develop the technical and
programmatic understanding necessary for future decisions on OCO
recovery options and their associated budget implications within the
broader context of other Earth Science priorities.
Working With Our Interagency Partners
U.S. interagency programs provide the fora for coordination of the
respective agency activities. These bodies include the CCSP Program
Office, the Climate Change Technology Program, the U.S. Ocean Action
Plan committees, and U.S. Group on Earth Observations (U.S. GEO). The
majority of the collaborations and coordination are achieved through
informal interagency interactions among the program managers and
scientists that are responsible for the aforementioned research
efforts. There are important inter-dependencies that both require and
challenge interagency coordination. NASA relies on the Department of
Energy, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration for critical in situ and
airborne observations of greenhouse gases and carbon storage in soils
and plants--and, of course, they rely on NASA for calibrated, validated
remote sensing data products. Together, we have developed vastly
improved understanding of the atmosphere and carbon cycle to go with
those measurements that can now be applied to the development of
climate policy and carbon management.
Internationally, partnerships are made in many fora, examples
include Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), the
Committee on Earth Observing Satellites (CEOS), the Global Carbon
Project, the World Climate Research Program, and other IGBP and UNEP-
WMO programs. International bilateral meetings are also helpful for the
international coordination.
The academic research community and federal efforts are mainly
coordinated by the program managers in the Earth Science Division, who
take great strides at NASA among flight programs, research, and applied
sciences to ensure the research community and management communities
provide feedback to the overall efforts of the NASA Earth Sciences
Division. The National Research Council of the National Academies of
Sciences has provided valuable inputs from the community regarding
future research directions for NASA (e.g., the recent Decadal Survey).
NASA also listens closely to its advisory subcommittee and the Science
Steering Groups associated with the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program,
the North American Carbon Program, and the Ocean Carbon and
Biogeochemistry Program.
Going Forward
Uncertainty of climate for the 21st century is driven as much by
our inability to quantify the feedback between biogeochemical cycles
and climate change, as it is by uncertainty in the physical modeling of
the cloud and water vapor feedback or economic projections of fossil
fuel emission. These uncertainties in the feedback processes result in
large differences in the predictions of climate models. At present,
even for fixed, prescribed fossil fuel emission scenarios, the
predicted atmospheric CO2 levels in 2100 from the best
coupled carbon-climate models differ by more than 300 ppm, which is
equivalent to about 40 years of present anthropogenic CO2
emission levels (e.g., Freidlingstein et al., J. Climate, 19 (2006),
3337-3353).
Space-based observations sustained over a long period of time at
the current level of quality or better are critical to improving the
science of climate change and enabling better resource management and
decision-making. Well-calibrated in situ and airborne observations for
validation and for study and diagnosis of process controls,
complementary research activities, as well as technology advancement,
are necessary to improve observational capabilities. NASA, NOAA, NSF,
and USGS must continue and enhance their collaborations to achieve
these ends.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss NASA activities in the
measurement and monitoring of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the
exchange processes between the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or the other
Members of the Committee may have.
Biography for Michael H. Freilich
Michael H. Freilich is the Director of the Earth Science Division,
in the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters. Prior to
coming to NASA, he was a Professor and Associate Dean in the College of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. He
received BS degrees in Physics (Honors) and Chemistry from Haverford
College in 1975 and a Ph.D. in Oceanography from Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (Univ. of CA., San Diego) in 1982. From 1983-1991 he was a
Member of the Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Dr. Freilich's research focuses on the determination, validation,
and geophysical analysis of ocean surface wind velocity measured by
satellite-borne microwave radar and radiometer instruments. He has
developed scatterometer and altimeter wind model functions, as well as
innovative validation techniques for accurately quantifying the
accuracy of space-borne environmental measurements.
Dr. Freilich served as the NSCAT Project Scientist from 1983-1991
and as the Mission Principal Investigator for NSCAT from 1992-1997.
Until he relinquished his project posts to join NASA HQ, he was the
Mission PI for QuikSCAT (launched in June, 1999) and SeaWinds/ADEOS-2
(launched in December, 2002). He was the team leader of the NASA Ocean
Vector Winds Science Team and is a member of the QuikSCAT, SeaWinds,
and Terra/AMSR Validation Teams, as well as the NASDA (Japanese Space
Agency) ADEOS-2 Science Team.
Dr. Freilich has served on many NASA, National Research Council
(NRC), and research community advisory and steering groups, including
the WOCE Science Steering Committee, the NASA EOS Science Executive
Committee, the NRC Ocean Studies Board, and several NASA data system
review committees. He chaired the NRC Committee on Earth Studies, and
served on the NRC Space Studies Board and the Committee on NASA/NOAA
Transition from Research to Operations.
His honors include the JPL Director's Research Achievement Award
(1988), the NASA Public Service Medal (1999), and the American
Meteorological Society's Verner E. Suomi Award (2004), as well as
several NASA Group Achievement awards. Freilich was named a Fellow of
the American Meteorological Society in 2004.
Freilich's non-scientific passions include nature photography and
soccer refereeing at the youth, high school, and adult levels.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Freilich, and Ms. Kruger, you
are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. DINA KRUGER, DIRECTOR, CLIMATE CHANGE
DIVISION, OFFICE OF ATMOSPHERIC PROGRAMS, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Kruger. Good morning, Chair Gordon and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning
about monitoring, measurement, and verification of greenhouse
gas emissions. My name is Dina Kruger, and I am the Director of
EPA's Climate Change Division, and my testimony this morning is
going to focus on the data that EPA already collects, our
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the proposed Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule, and our assessment of international reporting
programs.
I would like to begin by offering background information
about some EPA programs that are relevant to today's topic. We
implement successful cap-and-trade programs such as the one for
acid rain, which has served as a model for greenhouse gas
trading. EPA also heads an annual interagency effort to develop
and publish the official U.S. inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions, and just last month we issued a proposed rule to
establish an economy-wide, facility-level reporting system for
greenhouse gas emissions.
What is common to all of the work that we do is the
emphasis on accurate, comprehensive, transparent, and timely
monitoring. Simply put, you cannot manage what you do not
measure. Moreover, one size does not fit all. The best methods
and systems for obtaining high quality greenhouse gas data must
be customized to suit the specific policies we are implementing
and the emission sources we are addressing.
For example, the monitoring system required to establish
baselines and assess progress under a facility-based regulatory
program must provide timely and accurate emissions data from
each affected facility.
Since 1995, under EPA's Acid Rain Trading Program, power
plants have reported sulfur dioxide emissions measured by
continuous monitors in their stacks. Importantly, over the same
period each unit has also reported carbon dioxide data. With
power plants representing over one-third of the Nation's
CO2 emissions, we already have a head start on the
monitoring program for greenhouse gas emissions.
Other large stationary sources could also potentially
monitor greenhouse gas emissions, and these additional sources
are the primary focus of EPA's proposed Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule, which was signed by Administrator Jackson on
March 10. In this rule EPA proposed to collect emissions data
from entities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of
CO2 equivalent per year. Many emission sources,
including many agricultural sources, as well as cars, trucks,
homes, and small businesses would not be subject to monitoring
and reporting requirements under our proposed thresholds
because of their small size or the complexity or cost of
accurately monitoring their emissions.
Instead, greenhouse gas emissions from these smaller
sources are covered by upstream providers of fossil fuels and
industrial gases. EPA estimates that the proposed reporting
program would provide baseline data for facilities representing
between 85 and 90 percent of the national greenhouse gas
emissions.
I would also like to highlight the U.S. National Greenhouse
Gas Inventory, which is an annual accounting of all human-
caused sources and sinks and provides a means of measuring
progress against our national goals. EPA has published this
inventory since 1993, in cooperation with numerous federal
agencies including the Departments of Energy, Agriculture,
Defense, and State.
Given its scope, the National Inventory requires a variety
of methodological approaches and technologies. Fossil fuel
combustion is the source of approximately 80 percent of our
national greenhouse gas emissions, and estimates for this
source are accurate to within a few percentage points. In the
forest and agriculture sectors we believe that the data are
good but could be improved through continued coordination
between the land agencies such as USDA and agencies with remote
sensing capabilities such as NASA and NOAA.
Finally, I will address greenhouse gas monitoring in other
countries. We expect the same level of effort and accuracy from
other industrialized countries as we have achieved with our own
National Inventory, and to a large extent, our expectations are
met. However, there is room for improvement in developing
countries, and we have identified three main obstacles to
better data.
First, reporting requirements for developing countries are
inadequate because the reporting is currently too infrequent.
Second, government agencies and technical experts in these
countries do not receive the sustained support necessary for
strong, for a strong inventory, and investments in fundamental
data such as national statistics in many developing countries
are lacking.
Third, deforestation and agricultural practices are the
primary emission sources in many developing countries, and
these are also the most technically-difficult sources to
monitor. Approaches like remote sensing techniques could be a
cost-effective tool to improve land use data in these
countries.
In conclusion, the greenhouse gas monitoring challenge is
complex but solvable. While our primary focus at EPA is on the
management of emissions from specific emission sources and
projects, we also need to be sure that the reported and
verified bottom-up emissions data are representative of what we
see in the atmosphere. We may find that our monitoring
approaches need to be modified, obtain insights that lead to
better policies, or identify additional ways to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Agencies such as NOAA, NASA, DOE, and
USDA are important players in this realm and a coordinated
effort with and among these agencies can achieve the necessary
comprehensive top-down understanding.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kruger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dina Kruger
Introduction
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify about monitoring, measurement and
verification of greenhouse gas emissions. I am Dina Kruger, Director of
EPA's Climate Change Division. Today my testimony will focus on what
data EPA already collects under existing regulatory programs; EPA's
proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; as well as
international reporting programs. Accurate data on greenhouse gas
emissions are an essential component for climate change research and
the foundation for implementing and assessing programs to reduce
emissions. EPA looks forward to continued opportunities to work with
the Committee in this area.
Existing Data
I would like to begin by offering some background about programs
EPA implements that are relevant to today's topic. We implement two
successful cap and trade programs: the Acid Rain Trading Program and
the NOX Budget Trading Program. These two programs have served as
models for greenhouse gas cap and trade programs such as the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Western Climate Initiative (WCI),
and the European Union Emissions Trading System (EUETS). In order to
fulfill reporting obligations under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), ratified by the United States in
1992, EPA leads an annual interagency effort to develop and publish a
national inventory of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, the most
recent of which was submitted last week on April 13. We also implement
a number of partnership programs targeting non-CO2
greenhouse gases such as methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride. And, just last month, EPA issued a proposed
rule to establish an economy-wide mandatory reporting system for
greenhouse gas emissions. This Reporting Rule was discussed during your
first hearing on this topic in February, and will be the focus of part
of my testimony today.
Mr. Chairman, what is common to all of the work we do across the
entire suite of EPA air programs, is the emphasis on accurate,
comprehensive, transparent and timely monitoring. Simply put, you
cannot manage what you cannot measure. Moreover, we recognize that
effective greenhouse gas monitoring is inextricably linked to the
specific policies being considered, and the types of emission sources
we are addressing. One size does not fit all. The best methods and
systems for obtaining high quality greenhouse gas data must be
customized to suit our specific policies and purposes.
The monitoring equipment and systems required to establish
baselines and assess progress under a facility-based regulatory
program, for example, need to provide timely and accurate data of
emissions from each affected facility. We collect this type of data
under EPA's Acid Rain Cap and Trade Program, which covers electricity
generating units. These units are required to install and operate
continuous sulfur dioxide emission monitors in their stacks, or for
smaller or low emitting units a continuous fuel monitor of comparable
accuracy. Each facility measures hourly and reports to EPA on a
quarterly basis. All of these measurements are uploaded to EPA's
database automatically through secure Internet connections, where the
data are then checked and checked again by sophisticated software
routines. The end result is emissions data that provide empirical
support for the trading program and assurance that each facility is
operating on a fair and level playing field. Importantly, since the
program began in 1995, each electricity generating unit also has
reported carbon dioxide emissions data through the same procedures, as
required under Section 821 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. With
the electricity sector representing over one-third of the Nation's
CO2 emissions, we already have a head start on the
monitoring program for greenhouse gas emissions.
Proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
Other large stationary sources could also potentially monitor
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These additional sources are the
primary focus of EPA's proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, signed
by Administrator Lisa Jackson on March 10th and published in the
Federal Register on April 10th. Pursuant to the direction of Congress,
EPA's proposed GHG Reporting Rule focuses on emissions from sources
above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy. The
proposed Reporting Rule has not been designed to track project-based
offsets, such as carbon sequestration from agricultural or forest
lands, or to create a comprehensive national inventory--both of which I
will discuss later.
In this rule, EPA proposes to collect greenhouse gas emissions data
from about 13,000 entities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of
CO2 equivalent per year, or produce or import fuel or
industrial gases. In total, the proposed rule is estimated to cover 85
to 90 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The 25,000 ton
threshold is roughly equivalent to the amount of CO2 that
would be produced by burning 131 rail cars of coal. The proposed rule
attempts to mitigate any impacts on small businesses by including the
25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year threshold. As
a result, this rule would affect larger industrial facilities, such as
refineries, iron and steel mills, cement and petrochemical plants.
Many emission sources would not be subject to monitoring and
reporting requirements under the thresholds proposed in the proposed
Reporting Rule because of their small size or the complexity or cost of
accurately monitoring their emissions. This includes many agricultural
sources as well as emissions from individual cars and trucks, homes,
and small businesses. Instead, emissions from the use of fossil fuels
in smaller sources is covered ``upstream,'' by which we mean that coal
mines, petroleum refineries, natural gas processing facilities, and
natural gas distribution companies would report on the carbon contained
in fuel they supply to the economy. While there are tens of millions of
cars and houses, there are approximately 3,500 suppliers of fossil fuel
in the economy, representing approximately 30-35 percent of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions, and the estimation of emissions from these
sources is both manageable and accurate.
EPA estimates that with the 25,000 ton annual threshold and the
inclusion of ``upstream'' providers of fossil fuels and industrial
gases, the greenhouse gas reporting program could provide baseline
emissions data for facilities representing between 85 percent and 90
percent of national greenhouse gas emissions. We are working hard to
complete the Reporting Rule this fall, and are proposing that the first
reports will be due in March of 2011 and cover year 2010 emissions.
At this point, let me say a few words about verification in the
proposed reporting program, as this issue has been the subject of
discussions in this committee and in other venues. EPA is proposing a
centralized verification program modeled on our experience in the Acid
Rain program, which I just summarized. EPA has successfully verified
data across its Clean Air Act programs for decades. The northeast
states through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative chose to run
their greenhouse gas cap and trade program using the CO2
data that EPA collects and verifies through the Acid Rain Program
rather than reinvent the wheel. We are confident that this system
currently applied to the Acid Rain program can be extended to the
verification of all emissions data reported under EPA's greenhouse gas
reporting program (i.e., 85-90 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions).
Effective monitoring tools and protocols for offset projects must
also be customized to the specific emission sources and project
categories under consideration. In our experience, methane capture
projects, such as landfill gas or coal mine methane, can be monitored
effectively using off-the-shelf technology. EPA has experience with
these technologies by virtue of having implemented partnership programs
with these industries for more than fifteen years. Other offset
projects, particularly in the agriculture and forestry sectors, pose
unique monitoring challenges. While data may meet national inventory
needs, project-level estimates can be more challenging in these sectors
due in part to the variability of the emission reductions or
sequestration levels. In the case of sequestered carbon specifically,
there is also the risk of reversals back to the atmosphere, through
natural disturbances like forest fires or changes in management
practices, like tilling soil.
U.S. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory
The second greenhouse gas monitoring program that I would like to
highlight is the U.S. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory which is an
annual accounting of human-caused emissions and sequestration across
all sectors. This inventory provides the means of measuring progress
against national goals, including President Obama's goal to reduce
emissions by 14 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2020 and by 83
percent by the year 2050, and will be the metric by which success is
judged. EPA has coordinated our nation's annual greenhouse gas
inventory since 1993, in cooperation with numerous other federal
agencies. The Department of Energy provides essential data on the
national fossil energy accounts. The Department of Agriculture (USDA)
provides data and methodological support for land-based emissions and
sequestration. The Department of Defense has proactively taken the lead
on improving our understanding of emissions from their aircraft and
ship operations. And the State Department, as the lead agency for
United Nations (UN) treaties, submits the inventory each year to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
As I indicated, the national greenhouse gas inventory includes all
sources and sinks, from the burning of fossil fuels for transportation,
to methane generated from decomposing organic wastes, to sequestration
of CO2 in our forests and soils. Such a wide-ranging effort
necessarily requires a variety of methodological approaches and
technologies, and the quality of the data varies across source
categories. Fossil fuel combustion is the source of approximately 80
percent of our national greenhouse gas emissions--and our colleagues at
the Energy Information Administration take great effort to ensure that
the national energy snapshot is accurate and up to date. Our own
studies and independent reviews confirm that this largest component of
our national inventory is accurate to within a few percentage points,
and because EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) have ``piggy-
backed'' on existing government systems, the American taxpayer has not
needed to fund redundant projects.
Other sources are considerably more challenging. For example,
nitrous oxide, a very potent greenhouse gas, is emitted primarily from
highly variable biological process in soils, lakes and streams. These
biological processes can be accelerated by the application of
fertilizer, or through deposition of industrial pollutants, but our
scientific understanding and our ability to predict emissions are
incomplete.
As I indicated earlier, sequestration of CO2 in soils
and forests is a special case. We cannot realistically measure the
carbon in every acre of land, so we must use a sampling approach. The
Forest Service has an extensive national system of measurement plots
covering much but not all of the country's forests. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Resources Conservation Service also
collects data on our agricultural soils. From EPA's perspective, the
data are good but our national inventory would benefit from the
development of additional monitoring and measurement approaches and
continued integration of the data currently collected by land agencies
such as USDA and agencies with remote sensing capabilities such as the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
International Reporting Programs
The third topic I would like to address is greenhouse gas
monitoring in other countries. We expect the same level of effort and
accuracy from other industrialized countries as we have achieved with
our national inventory, and to a large extent our expectations are met.
Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia have strong greenhouse gas
monitoring systems due to investments by each government and a rigorous
system of international annual expert peer review. In addition to
monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions at the national level
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, many
of these countries have developed or are developing, facility-level
reporting systems, similar in scope to EPA's recent proposal for our
domestic mandatory GHG reporting system. Among these countries there is
a strong foundation of mutual trust in each other's data.
There is more room for improvement in the major developing
countries. EPA has worked with many of these countries to build
greenhouse gas monitoring capacity, and we have found that there are
three main obstacles standing in the way of better data. First, the
reporting requirements are inadequate for developing country parties to
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Developing countries are
required to submit only a summary level inventory approximately every
five to six years. Modest and infrequent international reporting
commitments give the wrong signal to government agencies and technical
experts in these countries--they do not receive the political and
financial support necessary for a strong inventory. Second, there are
low-tech or ``no-tech'' opportunities that are being missed. In many
developing countries there is a need to strengthen government and
research institutions so that agencies communicate and greenhouse gas
monitoring expertise is built up and retained over time. The collection
and retention of basic national statistics for the energy,
transportation, and waste sectors by these organizations and
institutions would provide a solid first step in developing national
estimates of greenhouse gas emissions, without the use of prohibitively
expensive monitoring technologies or practices. Third, deforestation
and the addition of new agricultural lands are the primary sources of
GHG emissions in many developing countries and these are also the most
technically challenging sources to monitor. Remote sensing techniques
could be a cost-effective tool to improve agricultural and land-use
data in these countries. Given the lack of resources and capacity in
many developing countries and a range of assurances necessary with
regard to competitiveness, the U.S. may benefit from a robust global
atmospheric greenhouse monitoring program. Such a program could verify
that efforts to reduce emissions leads to real reductions in the
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, and that offsets agreed
to by the international community are having the intended effects. Such
a system should complement ongoing programs in developed countries and
a concerted effort by developing countries to improve reporting.
Conclusion
EPA also recognizes the scientific community's important role in
verifying the effectiveness of our domestic and international policies.
EPA's focus is primarily on the management of emissions from specific
emission sources and projects, but we also need to be sure that
reported and verified bottom-up emissions data are representative of
atmospheric measurements and to know whether these policies are having
the desired result on the climate. This is a challenging task for an
issue as complex as climate change, but it is essential. Agencies
including NOAA, NASA, DOE, and USDA are important players in this realm
and a coordinated effort among those agencies can achieve the necessary
comprehensive ``top-down'' understanding. In some cases, we may find
that our monitoring approaches need to be modified, as we identify new
information about greenhouse gas sources, sinks or processes. Moreover,
as we gain better understanding of how the atmosphere is responding to
our policies through these top-down measurements, we can use that
information to modify our policy goals or identify additional
verifiable measures that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To the
extent that this hearing serves to advance this important discussion,
it will be very useful to EPA and our partner federal agencies.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the greenhouse gas
monitoring challenge is complex but solvable. We have high quality GHG
emissions data for the large facilities that could be included in a
future regulatory program such as cap-and-trade. Our national inventory
is solid but could be improved in certain areas, particularly outside
the energy sector. Inventories in major developing countries need to be
improved through a combination of institutional and technological
steps. And it is clear that collecting top-down measurement data can
also play an important role in informing whether the bottom-up data
being collected are comprehensive, helping policy-makers further
evaluate the effectiveness of any policies implemented.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the
Committee today. I hope the information I have provided is useful, and
I look forward to the answering the Members' questions.
Biography for Dina Kruger
Dina Kruger is Director of the Climate Change Division at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Ms. Kruger is responsible for a wide
range of programs and analyses dealing with climate change policy,
economics, mitigation technologies, science and impacts, and
communication. She is currently managing the development of an EPA
rule-making on the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases, in response
to the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment. She also manages
preparation of the U.S. National Inventory of Greenhouse Gases and
Sinks, which is submitted annually to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change, and served as an elected member of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Task Force Bureau on
Greenhouse Gas Inventories from 1998-2008. Ms. Kruger directs a wide
range of economic, technical and scientific analysis on a variety of
climate policy issues.
Ms. Kruger joined EPA in 1989, and prior to that worked at ICF
Consulting, the Investor Responsibility Research Center, and the Office
of Technology Assessment. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the
University of Washington, and received a Master's degree from the
Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Kruger, and Dr. Gallagher.
STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE
Dr. Gallagher. Good morning, Chairman Gordon and Members of
the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today and discuss the National Institute of
Standards and Technology's role and interactions with other
federal agencies in measuring, monitoring, and verifying
greenhouse gas emissions.
Today what I would like to do is highlight how NIST works
with these other agencies to support climate monitoring
programs and to measure and verify greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate change measurements require high accuracy, excellent
comparability, and exceptional stability to meet the stringent
requirements for detecting changes in the earth's climate over
very long timescales. Rigorous traceability of measurements to
the international system of units called the SI are essential
for meeting these requirements and provide a firm scientific
basis for policy decisions and to help ensure that our
measurements are accepted internationally.
The NIST Laboratories support other federal agencies that
have a primary mission for climate research and monitoring,
many of them represented here today with me on the panel. The
NIST Laboratories provide the measurement science, measurement
traceability, the production and dissemination of fundamental
data, standards development, and dissemination to support these
agencies in their satellite air and surface space measurement
programs.
By statute, NIST is the national measurement institute of
the United States, and in this capacity is responsible for the
national standards of measurement and for their compatibility
within the SI framework with the standards of other nations. To
achieve international compatibility of measurement, NIST works
with its counterpart agencies in other countries, and NIST
advancement, maintenance, and dissemination of base SI units
underpins private sector investments and measurement technology
and standards, and it provides the means for assessing the
quality of measurements.
We also provide benchmark references for so-called second
and third tier suppliers of measurement services, including
private sector test and calibration laboratories, manufacturers
of test equipment and control systems, and the businesses that
rely on these services and tools.
Today I would like to illustrate how NIST carries out this
role by using two examples. First, NIST has a major role in
supporting satellite remote sensing programs by developing the
appropriate standards, calibration, and characterization
methods and by creating the tools to analyze measurement
uncertainties. This is important not only to the government
satellite programs but also to the commercial satellite
industry and various other civilian and government programs.
The NIST Laboratories possess unique measurement science
capabilities such as specialized laser facilities, radiometers,
and optical radiation sources that are developed at NIST to tie
the measurements performed by the satellites to fundamental
standards traceable to the SI units. Current NIST research is
lowering the uncertainties on fundamental standards to meet the
increasingly stringent measurement requirements for climate
research. The requirements for these measurements are directly
defined through our collaborations with other agencies and
their satellite programs.
A second major area of activity at NIST is in the accurate
measurement of gas emissions, including greenhouse gases. For
over 15 years NIST has worked closely with the EPA to provide
the measurement technologies and measurement traceability to
the SI for gas emissions controlled under the Clean Air Act.
This includes the cap-and-trade program for industrial sulfur
emissions. This program provides measurement traceability to
the SI for cylinder gas standards used to calibrate emission
stack monitors and works directly with specialty gas suppliers
to provide calibrated gases through the NIST Traceable
Reference Materials Program. This program has been credited
with resulting in a 30 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide
emissions relative to 1980 levels.
This experience serves as a useful model for developing
greenhouse gas mitigation programs. The ability to accurately
measure and verify greenhouse gas emissions is an important
foundation for policy-makers and regulators charged with the
development and implementation of policies. Understanding the
measurement technologies required and how they are deployed
into the market are key considerations in the establishment of
realistic and effective limits.
In my written testimony I have included further details on
current capability and on some of the emerging measurement
challenges for greenhouse gases and verification programs.
Accurate climate change measurements provide confidence in
measured and predicted climate change trends and aid the
development and assessment of mitigation strategies. The NIST
Laboratory Program is committed to providing the measurement
science, traceability data, and standards to support other
federal agencies in their climate programs and to ensure that
their measurements tie to international standards as needed. We
also work with the private sector so that they can provide the
needed accurate and traceable measurement services to support
any mitigation program.
I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gallagher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick D. Gallagher
Good morning Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST's) role and interactions with other federal agencies in the
measurement, monitoring, and verification of greenhouse gas emissions.
The NIST Laboratories, with core competencies in measurement science,
traceability, fundamental data, and standards development and
dissemination, have a long history of supporting the measurements
needed for climate change research and greenhouse gas emission
monitoring carried out by other federal agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), all of which are represented here today.
Overview of NIST's Role
Today, I will discuss how NIST works to identify the necessary
measurement requirements needed to accurately assess not only baseline
inventories of greenhouse gases important to understanding climate
change but also for supporting the implementation of greenhouse gas
mitigation policies. Climate change measurements require high accuracy,
excellent comparability, and exceptional stability to meet the
stringent requirements for detecting changes in the Earth's climate
over long time scales. Rigorous traceability of measurements to the
International System of Units (SI) is essential for meeting these
requirements and for providing a firm scientific basis for policy
decisions. NIST's role in working with the climate change research
community to help meet traceability requirements is well recognized and
has been highlighted, for example, in the strategic plan for the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program:
``. . . Instrument calibration, characterization, and
stability become paramount considerations. Instruments must be
tied to national and international standards such as those
provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) . . .''
The NIST laboratory programs support those in other federal
agencies involved in climate change monitoring activities, which
include NASA, NOAA, and EPA represented here today as well as DOE,
USGS, USDA, and NSF. The NIST laboratories provide the measurement
science, measurement traceability, production and dissemination of
fundamental data, and standards development and dissemination (both
artifact and documentary) to support other government agencies and
their satellite, air, and surface\1\-based measurement programs by
ensuring the accuracy, comparability, and stability of their data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Surface denotes both land and ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By federal statute NIST is the National Measurement Institute (NMI)
of the United States responsible for national standards of measurement
and for their compatibility, within the SI framework, with the
standards of other nations. To achieve international compatibility in
measurement, NIST works with its counterpart NMIs in other countries.
These government-established entities exist in nearly every
industrialized nation. NIST's advancement, maintenance, and
dissemination of base SI units (length, mass, time, electric current,
temperature, amount of substance, and luminous intensity) and a growing
number of derived units underpin private-sector investments in
measurement technology and standards. The measurement foundation laid
by NIST provides the necessary means for assessing the quality of
measurements made daily during the design, production, inspection, and
sale of goods and services. They provide benchmark references for so-
called second and third-tier suppliers of measurement services,
including private-sector test and calibration laboratories,
manufacturers of measurement tools and control systems, and the
businesses that rely on these services and tools.
The international community, through the 23rd General Conference on
Weights and Measures, has acknowledged the importance of SI traceable
measurements to monitor climate change (2007)\2\ through:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www1.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/23/11/
the expansion in the number of international and
national initiatives to address the challenges and implications
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of climate change for the world,
working arrangements between the International
Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) and the United
Nation's World Meterological Organization (WMO),
the increasing importance of optical radiation
measurements and physico-chemical measurements of air, ground-
based as well as airborne, and physico-chemical measurements of
ocean water, which support research into the understanding of
the causes and impacts of climate change, and
the importance of basing long-term measurements which
relate to climate change on the stable references of the SI.
Through international agreements, measurement results traceable to
different NMIs can be accepted across international borders, thereby
improving transaction efficiency and eliminating potential regulatory
burdens and technical barriers to international trade.
NIST's Measurement Science and Standards Role in Assessing Climate
Change
Predicting the Earth's future climate and monitoring the effects of
climate change depend upon highly accurate, comparable, and stable
measurements that are often made by a variety of organizations,
instruments, and nations over decades or longer time scales and need to
be integrated. Thus, traceability of a range of measurements to
international standards with known uncertainties is critical for
assessing accuracy and quality. Accurate SI-traceable climate change
measurements provide confidence in measured and predicted climate
change trends and aid the development and assessment of mitigation
strategies.
There are unique challenges in climate monitoring associated with
measurements from space, air, and surface1-sensors. Climate
change monitoring has more stringent measurement requirements than
those for weather forecasting. Strategies are required to improve the
accuracy and stability of weather-forecast measurements to enhance
their utility for climate monitoring and prediction. A 2006 workshop on
Achieving Satellite Instrument Calibration for Climate Change
(ASIC3),\3\ sponsored by NIST, NOAA, NASA and others, highlighted the
challenges of using weather satellites for climate monitoring. Many of
the challenges have also been highlighted in the 2004 NRC report,
``Climate Data Records from Environmental Satellites.'' This report
stresses sensor accuracy, characterization, uncertainty analysis,
interagency collaboration, and continued reanalysis of climate data
records. Furthermore, satellite programs within NASA and NOAA generally
have requirements that the pre-launch calibration be tied to
international standards based on the SI system of units. The WMO
affirmed this goal by stating in one of the twenty Global Climate
Observing System (GCOS) Climate Monitoring Principles\4\ that
``Rigorous pre-launch instrument characterization and calibration,
including radiance confirmation against an international radiance scale
provided by a national metrology institute, should be ensured.''
Airborne- and surface-based measurements likewise need such
traceability to help validate and calibrate satellite measurements and
provide comparability with satellite measurements when integrated into
climate data records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Achieving Satellite Instrument Calibration for Climate Change
(ASIC3), edited by G. Ohring, available at http://
www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/ASIC3-071218-webversfinal.pdf
\4\ The complete set of Global Climate Monitoring Principles are
found at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/
index.php?name=monitoringprinciples
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST's role is in addressing the unique challenges associated with
satellite remote sensing by developing the appropriate standards,
calibration and characterization methods, and creating the tools to
analyze measurement uncertainties. NIST's role is important not only to
government satellite programs but also to the commercial satellite
industry and various civilian and government programs that depend on
remote sensing measurements and data. The NIST laboratories possess
unique measurement science capabilities needed to address the demanding
accuracy of remote sensing for climate change monitoring. Specialized
laser facilities, radiometers, and optical radiation sources developed
at NIST tie measurements performed by satellite sensors to fundamental
standards traceable to SI units. To ensure the quality of NIST
standards and of climate change measurements tied to these standards,
NIST participates in measurement comparisons with the climate change
research community and with national standards laboratories around the
world. Current NIST research is lowering the uncertainties on
fundamental standards to meet the increasingly stringent measurement
requirements for climate research. The requirements for such
measurements are defined through our collaborations with NASA, NOAA,
USGS in their satellite-based climate change research and monitoring
programs.
NIST's Role in Supporting Mitigation Efforts
Rigorous and traceable measurements will also be needed to support
and implement any climate change mitigation strategy. Recently, various
approaches for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions have been proposed.
Many proposals are modeled on the successful 15-year-old cap-and-trade
system for industrial sulfur emissions within the U.S.,\5\ which
enabled the reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions by approximately 30
percent relative to 1980 levels. The sulfur dioxide program focused on
the relatively small number of electricity generating plants in the
central U.S. It is based upon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Clean Air Act of 1990, Public Law 101-549, http://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:SN01630:%7CTOM:/bss/
d101query.html%7C
emission source monitoring, with support from NIST
measurement standards,\6\,\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ S.A. Martin, et al., ``Economic Impact of Standard Reference
Materials for Sulfur in Fossil Fuel,'' http://www.nist.gov/director/
prog-ofc/report00-1.pdf
\7\ J.T. Schakenbach, Use of Calibration Gases in the U.S. Acid
Rain Program, Accreditation and Quality Assurance 6(7), 297-301 (2001).
the use of SO2 mitigation technologies,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
energy efficiency improvements by users.
NIST's primary role in the sulfur dioxide emissions program was to
provide measurement traceability to the SI for cylinder gas standards
used to calibrate emission stack monitors. This was accomplished by
supplying calibrated gases through our establishment of the NIST-
Traceable Reference Materials (NTRM) program in conjunction with the
private sector.
Confidence in greenhouse gas mitigation policies also depend on
accurate measurements of greenhouse gases. Accurate measurements of all
greenhouse gas emissions are critical for establishing emission
baselines, monitoring compliance, and verifying performance of other
policies and offset or project-based approaches. Measurement strategies
are strongly influenced by the nature of the greenhouse gas emission,
e.g., CO2 emissions are generated by many economic sectors
ranging from power generation and manufacturing to transportation
vehicles and residential heating to land use and land use change, but
methane, with a global warming potential 25 times that of
CO2, is emitted primarily from landfills, the transport and
use of natural gas, livestock production, and coal mining.\8\ The
geographical characteristics of greenhouse gas emissions also vary from
localized point sources, such as electricity generation and
manufacturing plants, to those that span a broad spatial scale, such as
landfills and agriculture. Advances in measurement science can provide
new and additional scientifically credible metrics to support
implementation of effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. EPA, Methane Sources and Emissions, www.epa.gov/methane/
sources.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement capabilities necessary to support a robust and
effective greenhouse gas mitigation program will also rely on various
technological approaches. Since CO2 and other greenhouse gas
emissions are generated from a wide number of economic sectors, the
range of greenhouse gas measurement and estimation capabilities range
from established technologies, such as commercially available
continuous emission monitoring instruments that are often used for
large point source emission quantification (and are a mainstay of the
successful sulfur emissions cap-and-trade system), to approaches to
estimate emissions as a function of levels of activity or production.
Indeed some quantification systems, such as the continuous monitoring
of extended geographical areas, are currently not available.
Although the measurement and estimation requirements to implement
greenhouse gas reduction policies are still being defined, NIST, as the
Nation's NMI, offers unique capabilities to support such policies
through its measurement science mission and expertise. Such support
includes measurement science research, sensor calibration, artifact and
chemical standards, documentary standards, fundamental data, and
laboratory accreditation programs that allow transparent and efficient
emissions measurements by ensuring the accuracy and comparability of
quantitative measurements of greenhouse gas emissions and reductions
(e.g., offsets).
A host of recent workshops has highlighted the increasing interest
in implementing a greenhouse gas mitigation program and active
discussions are ongoing to determine the attributes of a possible U.S.
program. NIST participates in measurement and monitoring discussions in
many strategic working groups, committees and workshops along with
other federal agencies, the academic climate change research community
and the private sector. Such groups have produced reports and
recommendations, including the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
report on the State of the Carbon Cycle, the international Committee on
Earth Observation Satellites, the workshop on Achieving Satellite
Instrument Calibration for Climate Change (ASIC3), and most recently,
the Air and Waste Management Association's First International
Greenhouse Gas Measurement Symposium. NIST's active participation in
such working groups helps to facilitate the measurements and standards
development component of this effort. NIST also teams with the private
sector and others to undertake a continuous assessment to identify new
measurement needs.
Through NIST's identification of measurement needs, multiple issues
stand out:
Assess Baseline Emissions--There is a clear and
critical need for more accurate methods to assess baseline
amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted by
multiple industries and technology sectors in a consistent and
verifiable manner both nationally and internationally. The UN
has issued guidelines for how countries should estimate
CO2 emissions, but even with best practice
guidelines, the question of uncertainty in emissions from key
sectors remains a major issue. Additional research to support
better emission measurement, monitoring, and modeling
techniques is necessary to reduce these uncertainties.
Need for Improved Monitoring Technologies--Accurate
and standardized monitoring technologies are needed to support
greenhouse gas emission inventory efforts. The greenhouse gas
inventory community needs to reconcile measurements of
greenhouse gases made from top-down approaches, typically used
by the climate science community for long-term climate records,
and the bottom-up approaches that are essential to the
implementation of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A variety of measurement approaches and techniques will be
required to address the many specific sources of greenhouse gas
emissions, spanning point or local sources to emissions from
broad spatial scales. Methods based on ground- and satellite-
based remote sensing are anticipated to require new scientific
and technological developments.
Need for Accurate Data for Determining Limits for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions--Accurate inventories of emissions and
the methods for verifying them are an important foundation for
policy-makers and regulators charged with the development and
implementation of policies, as well as for the facilities and
sources that must comply. Such data, and an understanding of
the measurement technologies required, are also critical to the
establishment of realistic and effective limits.
International Recognition--Ensuring transparency and
trustworthiness in international carbon markets requires a
centralized and agreed-upon set of standards and methods for
accrediting various monitoring organizations and laboratories.
Implementation of such a system will benefit from the existing
infrastructure of the international SI system of units and the
international metrology community.
Furthermore, successful implementation of U.S. greenhouse gas
reduction policies is a multi-faceted issue and will involve several
federal agencies. NIST has a long history of successful collaborations
with EPA on emission measurements and standards, e.g., the highly
successful sulfur emissions trading system, collaboration on
development and maintenance of the NIST/EPA Gas-Phase Infrared Database
and the NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library, and the standards that
underpin automobile emissions testing. NIST also has strong
partnerships with NOAA and NASA in the area of sensor calibration for
environmental measurements and has, for example, provided spectroscopic
data for NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) and the Active
Sensing of CO2 Emissions over Nights, Days, and Seasons
(ASCENDS) mission concept.
Summary
Accurate SI-traceable climate change measurements provide
confidence in measured and predicted climate change trends and aid the
development and assessment of mitigation strategies. The NIST
laboratory programs provide the measurement science, measurement
traceability, production and dissemination of fundamental data, and
standards development and dissemination (both artifact and documentary)
to support other federal agencies and their satellite, air, and
surface-based measurement programs by ensuring the accuracy,
comparability, and stability of their data. NIST is also uniquely
poised to provide private-sector manufacturers and users of greenhouse
gas emissions monitoring equipment with the tools to make accurate
measurements and assess measurement accuracy.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on NIST's work on
measuring, monitoring, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions. I would
be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Biography for Patrick D. Gallagher
Dr. Patrick Gallagher is the Deputy Director of the U.S. Department
of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He
is also carrying out the responsibilities of the Director. (The NIST
Director position is vacant.) Gallagher provides high-level oversight
and direction for NIST. The agency promotes U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards,
and technology. NIST's FY 2008 resources total $931.5 million and the
agency employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, support
staff and administrative personnel at two main locations in
Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO.
Prior to becoming Deputy Director, Gallagher served as Director of
the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), a national user facility
for neutron scattering on the NIST Gaithersburg campus, since 2004. The
NCNR provides a broad range of neutron diffraction and spectroscopy
capability with thermal and cold neutron beams and is presently the
Nation's most used facility of this type. Gallagher received his Ph.D.
in Physics at the University of Pittsburgh in 1991. His research
interests include neutron and X-ray instrumentation and studies of soft
condensed matter systems such as liquids, polymers and gels. In 2000,
Gallagher was a NIST agency representative at the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC). He has been active in the area of U.S.
policy for scientific user facilities and was Chair of the Interagency
Working Group on neutron and light source facilities under the Office
of Science and Technology Policy.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Gallagher. Dr. Heber, when my
family gets together on Sundays, oftentimes my daughter and her
cousins have to sit at the children's table because it is not
big enough for everybody else. We still love them, and we are
glad you are here and sorry you had to be pushed off a little
bit, but your testimony still is as important as everyone
else's. So you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALBERT J. HEBER, PROFESSOR, AGRICULTURAL AND
BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PURDUE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Heber. Chair Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and other
Members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you about the measurement and mitigation of greenhouse
gases from livestock operation.
All farms generate various air pollutants to some degree.
The big question is how much, and that is not an easy question
to answer because on-farm measurements are difficult and
costly.
Methane comes from enteric fermentation and anaerobic
decomposition of manure. Enteric fermentation is primarily
derived from beef and dairy cattle in this country. Nitrous
oxide is generated directly and indirectly from the nitrogen in
livestock manure. Carbon dioxide is produced by anaerobic
digestion of manure and animal respiration.
Animal agriculture emits only two and a half percent of the
total of United States greenhouse gas emissions according to a
recent EPA report. According to a recent article by Dr. Capper
in the Journal of Animal Science, greenhouse gas reductions
occur with increased production efficiency.
For example, the carbon footprint was reduced by one-third
since 1944, as milk yield per cow quadrupled. Other reductions
occur through methane utilization by anaerobic digesters, good
compost management, applying manure to land agronomically, and
diet modification.
We have much to learn about greenhouse gas emissions from
livestock operations, and we do this through laboratory and
field studies. The field studies can give us baseline source
emission rates, and they allow us to test mitigation
strategies. The use of scientific emission models to estimate
emissions is the least expensive, but they need to be validated
with the expensive field data. While regulatory models have
inherent limitations, science--academic scientific studies
have, can have a great influence on them.
The National Air Emission Monitoring Study was funded by
the livestock commodity groups. The objectives are to quantify
air emissions from livestock production, provide reliable data
for developing and validating barn and lagoon emission models,
and to promote a national consensus on methods of measuring,
calculating, and reporting air emissions in general.
The approach of the NAEMS is to monitor 38 barns at 15
different sites, and they are monitoring the regulated
pollutants and also at ten open sources. Overall 20 farms are
involved in this study. Prior studies that we conducted at pork
and egg layer facilities are very similar, but they are not as
comprehensive as what we are doing in the NAEMS. Each barn site
monitoring site uses state-of-the-art equipment and an
instrumentation trailer at the farm.
The open source measurements utilize open path laser
technology to measure ammonia and other gases. The open paths
surround the source. The 20 farms in the National Air Emission
Monitoring Study are located throughout the United States and
were selected to be representative of other livestock species
or representative of other farms in their respective livestock
species.
A 2,000-page protocol document was written in 2006, and was
approved by the EPA prior to setting up the project, and all
sites were set up in 2007, and so the two-year monitoring
effort will be completed by the end of this year.
The NAEMS infrastructure and the expertise developed by it
are a tremendous resource for conducting a similar
comprehensive study of emissions of greenhouse gases as
recommended in a recent report by the General Accounting
Office. Such a study as a follow on to the NAEMS should
continue to: One, refine and improve measurement methods, two,
provide data to develop and validate computer models, three,
consider expanding measurements to other farm sources like the
land application of manure, which wasn't addressed by the
NAEMS, and four, to test mitigation strategies that can reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Heber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Albert J. Heber
Introduction
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and other Members of the
Committee, I am Dr. Albert Heber, Professor of Agricultural and
Biological Engineering at Purdue University, and Director of the
National Air Emissions Monitoring Study. Thank you for the invitation
and opportunity to speak to you about measurements and mitigation of
GHG on livestock operations.
My statement will cover the following topics:
1. Agricultural sources of greenhouse gases.
2. Description of National Air Emission Monitoring Study.
3. Estimated costs of on-farm GHG monitoring.
4. Potential for using NAEMS infrastructure for follow-on GHG
studies.
5. Measuring GHG emissions.
6. Uncertainty of on-farm GHG monitoring.
Agricultural Sources of Greenhouse Gases
1. Methane (CH4) from ruminant livestock (sheep and
cattle) and from anaerobic digestion of organic wastes.
2. Carbon dioxide (CO2) from anaerobic digestion of
organic wastes and from animal exhalation.
3. Nitrous oxide (N2O) from conversion of nitrogen
compounds in nitrification (NH4 to NO3)
and denitrification (NO3 to N2) processes
(McGinn, 2006).
4. GHG emission from agricultural land.
Research on quantifying GHG from agricultural sources started in
the 1970s (e.g., Bremner and Blackmer, 1978). The International Atomic
Energy Agency published a manual on measurement of methane and nitrous
oxide emissions from agriculture in 1992 (IAEA, 1992). The First
International Greenhouse Gas Measurement Symposium was held in San
Francisco, CA from March 23-25, 2009. Research on mitigation of
agricultural GHG emissions from soil started in the 1990s (e.g., Mosier
et al., 1996; Mosier et al., 1998). Recent investigations on GHG
emission reductions were conducted in animal barns and manure treatment
facilities (e.g., Tada et al., 2005; Weiske et al., 2006; VanderZaag et
al., 2008; Cabaraux et al., 2009). The warming potential of greenhouse
gases (N2O + CH4) were about 22g, 34g and 168g
CO2 equivalents per day and per pig on fully slatted floor,
straw or sawdust deep litter respectively (Cabaraux et al., 2009).
The latest inventory of GHG emissions and sinks in U.S. was
published by USEPA (2009).
National Air Emissions Monitoring Study
BACKGROUND
Animal feeding operations (AFOs) commonly emit certain amounts of
particulate matter (PM), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide
(H2S), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), greenhouse gases
(GHG), and odorous compounds. Historically, concern about non-GHG
pollutants arose first from potential worker and animal health issues,
and with nuisance complaints. The U.S. Government assumed a greater
role in regulating air emissions from agriculture during the last
decade. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began applying
federal air quality regulations to AFOs around the year 2000 (Schutz,
et al., 2005). Particulate matter and non-methane VOCs are criteria air
pollutants under the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990 (U.S. EPA, 1990).
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) required reporting of NH3 and H2S
emissions exceeding 100 lb/day. However the U.S. EPA recognized a lack
of reliable data for emissions of these pollutants from AFOs (Schutz et
al., 2005).
As the EPA began enforcing air laws at AFOs, the agricultural
community voiced their concern that the current air contaminant
emission estimates for AFOs were either based on data from outdated
studies or did not represent modern livestock farms (Schutz et al.,
2005). The National Research Council (National Research Council, 2003)
shared this concern, and recommended that EPA improve its methods of
estimating AFO air emissions. In January, 2005, the Air Consent
Agreement (ACA) was announced in the Federal Register (U.S. EPA, 2005).
The ACA is an agreement between livestock (dairy, pork, egg, and
broiler chicken) commodity groups and U.S. EPA. The ACA required an
industry-funded nationwide AFO emission study that would provide a
scientific basis for the determination of compliance with the air laws.
Industry participation in the ACA included 2,568 livestock production
operations representing a total of 6,267 farms.
The objectives of the NAEMS were to: 1) quantify rates of air
emission from pork, dairy, egg, and broiler production facilities, 2)
provide reliable data for developing and validating models for
estimating emissions from livestock operations, and 3) promote
standardized methodology for measuring livestock and poultry farm
emissions.
Unique Characteristics of the NAEMS
The barn portion of the NAEMS has several unique characteristics
compared to previous baseline studies.
1. It is measuring a comprehensive set of pollutants
(PM2.5, PM10, TSP,
NH3, H2S, and CO2 at all 15
barn sites, CH4 at five sites, and non-methane VOC
at two sites).
2. The monitoring period is 24 months. The longest previous
baseline study was 15 months long (Jacobson et al., 2004).
3. Largest number of farm buildings (38) measured among four
livestock species using the same protocols. Jacobson et al.
(2004) monitored 12 buildings among three livestock species in
their study of PM10, TSP, NH3,
H2S, and odor.
4. Sites were selected to maximize representativeness under
the constraints of the other site selection criteria.
5. Quality assurance and quality control was improved with a
Category 1 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
6. The EPA-approved QAPP (barn portion) included 57 standard
operating procedures (SOPs) and 14 site monitoring plans
(SMPs).
7. Novel methods include the use of ultrasonic technology to
measure the ventilation airflow of naturally ventilated barns
(Ndegwa et al., 2008).
8. The NAEMS is measuring gas and PM emissions from barns
(Heber et al., 2008) and gas emissions from lagoons, basins and
dairy corrals (Grant et al., 2008) and both measurements are
being conducted at four of the twenty farms.
BARN MONITORING SITES (taken from Heber et al., 2008)
The barn monitoring sites (Table 1) were selected based on the
following criteria:
1. Producer participation in the ACA.
2. Representativeness of the farm for its livestock type.
3. Proximity to academic expertise in air quality research.
4. Conduciveness and suitability of the site for collecting
reliable data.
5. Producer collaboration (very important to successful long-
term, on-farm studies).
6. Potential for measurement of outdoor manure storage systems
at the same site.
The sow farms in North Carolina (NC4) and Oklahoma (OK4) have pull-
plug pits with outdoor (lagoon) manure storages (Table 1). The Iowa sow
farm (IA4) uses deep pits in the barns to store manure. The North
Carolina and Indiana finisher operations are flush and deep pit barns,
respectively. Emissions at sow farms are measured at two gestation
barns and one farrowing room. Three separate barns (NC) or four rooms
of a ``quad'' barn (IN) are being monitored at swine finishing sites.
Egg laying buildings are either high-rise houses, in which manure
accumulates in the lower level, or manure belt houses with belts under
the cages that transfer manure to an external storage. Two high-rise
houses and two manure belt houses with the associated manure shed are
being monitored in Indiana (IN2). The layer sites in California (CA2)
and North Carolina (NC2) are each monitoring two high-rise houses. Two
barns monitored at a broiler ranch in California (CA1) consist of
broiler chickens raised on a concrete floor covered with litter.
Two western dairy sites have naturally-ventilated free-stall dairy
barns with outdoor exercise lots. The free-stall barns in California
(CA5) have open walls. The free-stall barns in Washington (WA5) have
open end walls and adjustable curtains on most of the sidewalls (Heber
et al., 2008). Two MV free-stall barns per site are being monitored in
Wisconsin (WI5) and Indiana (IN5). The New York (NY5) site is
monitoring one MV free-stall barn. MV milking centers are also
monitored at IN5 and NY5. Sites NY5 and IN5 have tunnel-ventilated
barns and Site WI5 uses cross-flow ventilation (Heber et al., 2008).
Methodology and Instrumentation
An on-farm instrument shelter (OFIS) houses instruments and
equipment for measuring pollutant concentrations at representative air
inlets and outlets, barn airflows, operational processes, and
environmental variables.
A multi-point gas-sampling system (GSS) inside the OFIS draws air
sequentially from various barn locations and ambient air, and
sequentially delivers selected streams to a manifold from which gas
monitors draw continuous sub-samples. The number of sampling points per
site ranges from four to forty-five. The average sampling tube length
is 77m. The sampling periods for exhaust air are typically 10 minutes
long.
Gas sensors include a photo-acoustic multi-gas analyzer (Innova
Model 1412, California Analytical Instruments, Orange, CA) for NH3
and CO2, a pulsed-fluorescence analyzer (Model 450I, Thermo
Environmental Instruments, Franklin, MA) for H2S, and a gas
chromatograph--flame ionization detector (Model 55C, Thermo
Environmental Instruments, Franklin, MA) for CH4 and non-
CH4 hydrocarbons. The Model 55C is used only at sites IN3
and CA5.
The ambient PM concentrations are measured with a beta attenuation
PM monitor (Model FH62 C-14, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, NY). Exhaust
PM concentrations are measured continuously with a tapered element
oscillating micro-balance (Model 1400a, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, NY)
at a minimum winter ventilation fan in each MV barn and in the ridge
exhaust of each NV barn. The sampling location inside MV barns is near
the fan inlet. PM10 is measured seven of eight weeks and TSP
is measured every 8th week. PM2.5 is monitored
during two-week periods during winter and summer.
Fan airflow rates are spot checked using the portable fan tester
(Gates et al., 2004), or a traverse method using a portable anemometer.
Airflow data from spot checks are correlated with continuous data from
rpm sensors and/or impeller anemometers. At least one fan per fan model
is continuously monitored using a bi-directional impeller anemometer.
The impeller anemometer accounts for the significant effects of wind
and building static pressure. Individual fans are monitored using rpm
sensors, current switches, or vibration sensors. At most sites, the
operation of fan stages is monitored via fan motor control relays.
Airflow through NV barns is measured using three-dimensional sonic
anemometers.
All measured variables are listed in Table 2. Meteorological
measurements (solar radiation, wind direction and velocity,
temperature, humidity) are needed to study the influence of weather on
emissions. Measurements such as feed composition, manure
characteristics, pit flushing, and animal activity help to determine
methods of abating emissions. The effect of weather on air emissions is
coupled with the effect of manure accumulation, animal age and growth
cycles, moisture content in manure storages, and animal live weight and
feed consumption.
Standard operating procedures were written for all measurements and
instrumentation to assure that the same methods would be used at all
sites, and to maximize data comparability. The total number of
monitored variables varies from 85 at sow site NC4 to 466 at layer site
IN2. The data acquisition system reads data at 1.0 Hz, and records 15-s
and 60-s data averages.
Milk, feed, bedding, manure, water and VOC are collected for ex-
situ analysis. VOC samples are also collected in passivated canisters
and multi-sorbent tubes, and analyzed by gas chromatography and mass
spectrometry. Manure is analyzed for pH, total solids and ash content,
and concentrations of total nitrogen (N) and ammoniacal N. Total manure
N will be used in conjunction with total feed, bedding, milk, eggs,
and/or meat nitrogen contents to generate a nitrogen mass-balance for
each barn as a whole. Ash contents will be used at some sites to
estimate manure volume (Keener and Zhao, 2008) which cannot be measured
directly at some sites. The validity of the ash-balance method will be
validated at sites where manure volume can be measured.
The final processing of NAEMS data is facilitated with CAPECAB, a
custom-written data analysis program. Data is invalidated for various
reasons including: calibration of a sensor or analyzer, low flow
through the GSS, sensor malfunction, electronic noise, DAC hardware or
software problem, condensation in sampling lines, or gas analyzer
equilibration. CAPECAB allows users to adjust gas concentration data
based on calibration, extract equilibrium data, calculate ventilation
rates, and calculate emission rates. Hourly and daily averages of
emission rates and other parameters will be provided to the EPA.
OPEN SOURCE MONITORING SITES (taken from Grant et al., 2008)
Emissions of NH3, H2S, and CH4 are
being measured throughout the year at dairy and swine farms, along with
other parameters that affect emissions such as time of year, atmosphere
stability, and farm operation (Grant et al., 2008).
Experimental Methods
Instruments used with open sources include ultrasonic (sonic)
anemometers to characterize the wind, sensors to measure the atmosphere
(temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, barometric pressure,
wetness), sensors to characterize the source (temperature, pH, and
oxidation-reduction potential for lagoons), and state-of-the-art
instruments for measuring concentrations of target gases along open
paths near the source. Manure samples from corrals and basins are
analyzed for pH, and concentrations of solids, and NH2 N.
Measurements at ten sites in seven states began in the summer of
2007, and will continue through the summer 2009. Two sites are each
measured continuously for one year. Eight sites are sequentially
measured for 10 to 20 days during each season for two years.
Scanning NH3 TDLAS
At a typical open source, TDLAS units are set up at opposite
corners and 16m towers at the other two corners. Six retro-reflectors
are mounted on each tower, with three facing each TDLAS system at
heights of about 1m, 7m, and 15m. Two additional retro-reflectors are
placed at 1m heights on tripods at one-third and two-thirds of the
distance down each side of the source. Thus, each side of the source
has three near-surface paths and two elevated paths. A computer-
controlled scanner sequentially aims a TDLAS at each retro-reflector
among two adjacent sides of the source. The advantage of scanning open-
path TDLAS for continuous long-term measurements of NH3 is
that wind direction becomes a minor factor in determining the emitted
gases because the plume location is not needed to properly measure it
(Grant et al., 2008). Quality control (QC) procedures of the TDLAS
measurements include checks for path obstruction, internal calibration
checks, spectral feature checks and single-point calibration
verifications, and multi-point calibrations. The minimum detection
limits of the TDLAS units are about 2ppm-m or less.
S-OPS/GSS
The synthetic open-path system (S-OPS) consists of a 50m section of
Teflon tubing, outfitted with 10 equally-spaced, flow-balanced inlets,
through which a blended air sample of a plume is drawn and sampled by
gas analyzers in the trailer. Two S-OPS are placed on opposite sides of
the source. Proper sample flow is verified by continuously monitoring
sample pressure, flow rate and direction. Extensive QC checks are
conducted to maintain system integrity.
A multi-gas analyzer using the photo-acoustic spectroscopy is used
to measure NH3 and CH4 for which the stated
detection limits for CH4 and NH3 are 100ppb and
200ppb, respectively. A pulsed fluorescence SO2/
H2S analyzer is used to measure H2S. The
manufacturer stated MDL is 1ppb. Interferents include methyl mercaptan
and water vapor. The difference between the upwind and downwind gas
concentration in the S-OPS air samples is used to determine gas flux
from the area source.
Weather Measurements
In a typical setup, three-dimensional sonic anemometers are mounted
at heights of 2m, 4m, and 16m and measurements in the three orthogonal
directions are made at 16 Hz. Field inter-comparisons are made at least
every 21 days by mounting the three anemometers next to each other and
measuring wind for one hour. Typically, differences between sensors are
less than 0.1m/s.
Emissions of NH3
Emissions of NH3 are determined at one-half hour
intervals from wind profiles based on the three anemometers, and
concentration profiles obtained by multiple TDLAS-measured path-
integrated concentrations (PIC) using the vertical radial plume mapping
(RPM) method. This method is limited by the need to have valid data for
all five PIC and all three wind sensors. Weather conditions such as
fog, heavy rain, high winds, and low winds (<0.2m/s) limit the
availability of both PIC and wind data, thus limiting the periods
during which emissions can be calculated.
Emissions of H2S and CH4
The gaseous emissions of H2S and CH4
are determined from one-half hour averages of concentration
measurements of the air sequentially sampled from upwind and downwind
S-OPS systems and either: 1) the bLS emission model using wind
turbulence measurements of the 2m sonic anemometer, or 2) the ratio of
the S-OPS measurement of H2S and CH4
concentrations to TDLAS PIC measurement of NH3 of the
nearest path to the S-OPS inlets multiplied by the RPM-measured
NH3 emission. Fog, heavy rain, high winds, and low winds
limit the availability of both PIC and wind measurements, thus limiting
the periods during which emissions based on the RPM emissions can be
calculated. Emissions based on the bLS model are limited by low winds,
very unstable or stable conditions, and upwind fetch.
COSTS OF ON-FARM GHG MEASUREMENTS
Costs for on-farm measurements of GHGs vary with the complexity of
the farm. Factors include the number, size and ventilation type of the
barns, and the presence, number, and type of other external or outside
sources.
The following conservative cost estimates for monitoring enclosed
building sources assume a focus on GHG emissions only, and are based on
the costs to conduct the NAEMS at various types of barn sites (two to
four buildings per site), including a ``simple'' barn site (e.g., a
small broiler operation) and a ``complex'' one (a large dairy or egg-
layer facility). Naturally-ventilated facilities (most frequently
dairies) present special challenges and additional costs, mostly due to
the need to measure barn airflow with a large array of ultrasonic
anemometers.
These estimates include a climate-controlled mobile laboratory, gas
analyzer(s) for CO2, CH4 and N2O,
calibration equipment and supplies, site-customized systems for gas
sampling and data acquisition, and sensors and equipment for monitoring
building airflow. Setup time estimates above include both the time to
design and customize these systems, and to deploy them in the field.
Maintenance time estimates include equipment maintenance and
calibration, and processing and interpretation of the data.
Monitoring of outside sources can be conducted in different ways.
If CH4 is the only gas of interest, the initial cost of
open-path spectroscopy with methane-specific lasers is approximately
$60,000 and monthly cost is approximately $14,000. This approach might
be sufficient for sources such as anaerobic manure lagoons, which may
(Monteny et al., 2001) or may not (Jones et al., 2000; Berg et al.,
2006) have minimal emissions of N2O. Expanding monitoring to
CO2 and N2O in addition to CH4 would
most likely be done by open-path Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
spectroscopy, or by deploying synthetic open-path systems (Grant et
al., 2008). The approximate cost of a fully-automated FTIR system to
measure gas concentrations on all sides of a source such as a lagoon,
feed storage pile, etc., could be as high as $300,000. A synthetic
open-path system, with its associated gas analyzer(s), can be set up
for approximately $75,000.
UTILIZING NAEMS INFRASTRUCTURE FOR GHG STUDIES
It required about one year (2006) to develop the 2000-page NAEMS
Quality Assurance Project Plan and gain EPA's approval, and another
year (2007) to set up the monitoring equipment at 20 farms across the
U.S. The two years of monitoring (2008-09) will be completed in about
eight months, at which time the monitoring sites will dismantled or
used in follow-on studies.
The NAEMS was not designed to measure baseline greenhouse gas
emissions. In the process of determining non-methane hydrocarbons,
methane was measured at five of fifteen barn sites and in less than
one-third of the open source measurements. Carbon dioxide was measured
at the barn sites but not at the open source sites. Nitrous oxide was
measured at only a sow operation and at a dairy site with local add-on
studies.
To take advantage of the existing NAEMS infrastructure and
expertise, the dairy industry funded a project to add all three major
GHG to all the dairy sites for the last few months of the NAEMS and to
extend three of the barn sites until January 31, 2010 to obtain some
baseline GHG emissions data over a limited period of time.
Federal support of follow-on GHG studies using the NAEMS
infrastructure and expertise could provide:
1. Long-term monitoring of baseline GHG emissions at existing
or other sites.
2. Tests of GHG mitigation strategies at existing or other
sites.
3. Expansion of monitoring to all sources at the farms, e.g.,
land application, feed storage, feedlots, lagoons, etc.
4. Refinement of on-farm GHG measurements.
The GAO (2008) recommended that, at a minimum, a comprehensive
study of greenhouse gas emissions from AFOs would require a study, or
combination of studies, of similar scope and size to the NAEMS.
MEASURING GHG EMISSIONS
Emissions cannot be directly measured. Emissions can only be
estimated/calculated based on concentration measurements and airflow
measurements. Accurate concentration and airflow measurements in barns
are challenging in barns because of the number of emitting locations
(i.e., fans) and/or the lack of well-defined emitting locations (i.e.,
a naturally-ventilated barn).
The comprehensive emission measurements for the NAEMS sites require
between 80 to 300 measured variables at each site (includes
concentration, temperature, weather information, fan operation, and
site operation variables), with each variable monitored on a one-minute
basis. The number of data points in the NAEMS is expected to exceed 2.4
billion (Ni et al., 2008). All data collected requires evaluation and
further processing by trained individuals to generate the required
emission data.
UNCERTAINTY OF ON-FARM GHG MONITORING
Multi-gas analyzers based on photo-acoustic infrared (PIR)
detection are commercially available, and are designed for simultaneous
detection/measurement of all the greenhouse gases relevant to
agriculture (CO2, CH4, N2O).
Preliminary CO2 concentration control chart data from three
out of fourteen sites of the NAEMS indicate that the total relative
uncertainties for the CO2 concentration were between four
and nine percent. The order of magnitude of these values are
representative of the expected uncertainty in the concentration of the
other GHG being monitored (CH4, N2O). This
determination is based on calibration with a single gas standard in dry
air.
However, besides the typical uncertainty of measurements of single
gases, there is the added uncertainty caused by interferences of other
gases including water vapor. The analyzer manufacturer has corrections
in place for those interferences but improvements are needed in the
compensations to reduce the uncertainty incurred when measuring at
livestock facilities as compared with other applications of the multi-
gas analyzer. For example, cross-compensation calibrations are
generally performed with single concentrations of gases (or a single
humidity level), but if the relationship between the interfering gas
concentration and light absorbence is not linear over the relevant
concentration/humidity range, errors will be introduced. As compared
with other applications for the multi-gas analyzer, carbon dioxide and
water vapor (major interferents) concentrations are high. The effects
of these interfering gases need to be carefully accounted for in GHG
measurements.
SUMMARY
The NAEMS consists of two components: measurement of gas and
particulate emission from barns (Heber et al., 2008) and the
measurement of gas emissions from open-air sources (Grant et al., 2008)
including dairy corrals and manure storage lagoons and basins. In the
open-source component, gaseous emissions of NH3,
H2S, and CH4 are being measured throughout the
year at four dairy and six swine operations, along with a range of
other parameters that affect emissions such as time of year, stability
of the atmosphere, and facility operation.
In the barn component, the NAEMS is collecting continuous air
emission data from 38 barns at five dairies, five pork production
sites, three egg layer operations, one layer manure shed, and one
broiler facility for a period of two years. Concentrations of
NH3, H2S, VOC, and PM (PM10,
PM2.5, and TSP), building ventilation rate, and
supporting parameters are monitored. Motion sensors monitor animal,
worker and vehicle activity. Barn ventilation rate is assessed by
monitoring fans and barn static pressure in MV barns, and air
velocities through ventilation openings in naturally-ventilated
buildings. Custom software (CAPECAB) efficiently handles large amounts
of data being generated by NAEMS, and is used to validate, and process
the data.
The costs of conducting long-term continuous emission monitoring
studies at commercial farms are significant. There is a significant
cost savings if the existing setups at farms are used to conduct needed
additional studies. While a limited number of GHG measurements were
obtained at some of the farms, a comprehensive GHG study conducted at
existing NAEMS sites or with the NAEMS equipment and expertise could
potentially answer a lot of important questions in a timely manner.
REFERENCES
Berg, W.R., R. Brunsch, and I. Pazsiczki. 2006. Greenhouse gas
emissions from covered slurry compared with uncovered during
storage. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112:129-134.
Bremner, J.M. and A.M. Blackmer. 1978. Nitrous-Oxide--Emission from
Soils During Nitrification of Fertilizer Nitrogen. Science
199(4326):295-296.
Cabaraux, J.F., F.X. Philippe, M. Laitat, B. Canart, M. Vandenheede,
and B. Nicks. 2009. Gaseous emissions from weaned pigs raised
on different floor systems. Agriculture Ecosystems and
Environment 130(3-4):86-92.
Gates, R.S., K.D. Casey, H. Xin, E.F. Wheeler, J.D. Simmons. 2004. Fan
Assessment Numeration System (FANS) design and calibration
specifications. Transaction of the ASAE 47(5): 1709-1715.
GAO. 2008. Concentrated animal feeding operations: EPA needs more
information and a clearly defined strategy to protect air and
water quality from pollutants of concern. Report GAO-08-944.
Report to Congressional Requesters, United States Government
Accountability Office.
Grant, R.H.; M.T. Boehm; A.J. Lawrence; A.J. Heber; J.M. Wolf; S.D.
Cortus; B.W. Bogan; J.C. Ramirez-Dorronsoro and C.A. Diehl.
2008. Methodologies of the National Air Emissions Measurement
Study Open Source Component. Proceedings, Symposium on Air
Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, Air Waste
Management Assn., Durham, NC (CD).
Heber, A.J., J.-Q. Ni, T.-T. Lim, A.M. Schmidt, J.A. Koziel, P.C. Tao,
D.B. Beasley, S.J. Hoff, R.E. Nicolai, L.D. Jacobson, and Y.
Zhang. 2006. Quality assured measurements of animal building
emissions: Gas concentrations. AWMA Journal 56:1472-1483.
IAEA. 1992. Manual on Measurement of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
Emissions from Agriculture. IAEA, Vienna, Austria. IAEA-TECDOC-
674. November. 91 p.
Jacobson, L.D., B.P. Hetchler, K.A., Janni, J. Linn, A.J. Heber, and
E.L. Cortus. 2008. Animal and environmental performance of a
mechanical cross ventilation system retrofitted to a naturally
ventilated free-stall dairy barn in the Midwestern U.S. Paper
presented at the Eighth International Livestock Environment
Symposium, Iguassu Falls, Brazil, Sept. 1-5.
Jacobson, L.D., B.P. Hetchler, V.J. Johnson, R.E. Nicolai, D.R.
Schmidt, P.R. Goodrich, A.J. Heber, J.-Q. Ni, T.-T. Lim, P.-C.
Tao, S.J. Hoff, D.S. Bundy, M.A. Huebner, B.C. Zelle, Y. Zhang,
J. McClure, M. Roberts, J.A. Koziel, B.H. Baek, A. Balota, J.P.
Spinhirne, J.M. Sweeten, D.B. Beasley, G.R. Baughman, and R.
Munilla. 2004. Preliminary NH3, H2S, and
PM10 data from pig and poultry buildings from six-
state project. ASAE Paper #044156. American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Jones, M.L., S.K. Liehr, J.J. Classen, and W. Robarge. 2000. Mechanisms
of dinitrogen gas formation in anaerobic lagoons. Advances in
Environmental Research 4:133-139.
Keener, H.M. and L. Zhao. 2008. A modified mass balance method for
predicting NH3 emissions from manure N for livestock and
storage facilities. Biosystems Engineering 99:81-87.
McGinn, S.M. 2006. Measuring greenhouse gas emissions from point
sources in agriculture. Canadian Journal of Soil Science
86(3):355-371.
Monteny, G.J., C.M. Groenestein, and M.A. Hilhorst. 2001. Interactions
and coupling between emissions of methane and nitrous oxide
from animal husbandry. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
60:123-132.
Mosier, A.R., J.M. Duxbury, J.R. Freney, O. Heinemeyer, and K. Minami.
1996. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural fields:
Assessment, measurement and mitigation. Plant and Soil
181(1):95-108.
Mosier, A.R., J.M. Duxbury, J.R. Freney, O. Heinemeyer, K. Minami, and
D.E. Johnson. 1998. Mitigating agricultural emissions of
methane. Climatic Change 40(1):39-80.
National Research Council. 2003. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding
Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs. National Academies
Press, Washington, DC.
Ndegwa, P.M. Ndegwa, P.M., H.S. Joo, A.J. Heber, J.C. Ramirez-
Dorronsoro, E.L. Cortus, J.-Q. Ni, W.W. Bogan. 2008. A method
for determination of pollutant emissions from naturally
ventilated free-stall dairy barns. Paper presented at the
Eighth International Livestock Environment Symposium, Iguassu
Falls, Brazil, Sept. 1-4.
Ni, J.Q., A.J. Heber, M.J. Darr, T.T. Lim, C.A. Diehl and W.W. Bogan.
2008. Air quality monitoring and data acquisition for livestock
and poultry environment studies. Paper presented at the Eighth
International Livestock Environment Symposium, Iguassu Falls,
Brazil, Sept. 1-5.
Schutz, M.M., T.J. Applegate, B.T. Richert, A.L. Sutton, D.D. Jones.
2005. Air Emissions Consent Agreement and National Air
Emissions Monitoring Study--How Do They Affect Me? ID-325W,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Tada, C., Y. Yang, T. Hanaoka, A. Sonoda, K. Ooi, and S. Sawayama.
2005. Effect of natural zeolite on methane production for
anaerobic digestion of ammonium rich organic sludge.
Bioresource Technology 96(4):459-464.
USEPA. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. EPA 430-R-09-004. April 15. 441 p.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Clean Air Act. U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 85.
[www.epa.gov/air/caa/].
U.S. EPA. 2005. Air Consent Agreement. www.epa.gov/compliance/
resources/agreements/caa/cafo-agr-050121.pdf, January 31.
VanderZaag, A.C., R.J. Gordon, V.M. Glass, and R.C. Jamieson. 2008.
Floating covers to reduce gas emissions from liquid manure
storages: A review. Applied Engineering in Agriculture
24(5):657-671.
Weiske, A., A. Vabitsch, J.E. Olesen, K. Schelde, J. Michel, R.
Friedrich, and M. Kaltschmitt. 2006. Mitigation of greenhouse
gas emissions in European conventional and organic dairy
farming. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 112(2-3):221-232.
Biography for Albert J. Heber
Dr. Albert Heber is a Professor of Agricultural and Biological
Engineering at Purdue University with degrees from South Dakota State
University and the University of Nebraska. Including his nine years at
Kansas State University, he has a total of 24 years experience in
livestock facility research, education, and consulting with emphasis on
air quality. He directs Purdue's Agricultural Air Quality Laboratory
and his primary research today is the assessment and mitigation of
particulate matter, odor and gas emissions from livestock barns, and
waste storage and treatment facilities. Since 2000, he has published 28
journal articles, given 56 invited papers and lectures, and provided
scientific expertise and information on livestock emission factors,
emission measurements, and emission controls at livestock facilities to
State and federal agencies and the livestock industry. Prior to the
National Air Emissions Monitoring Study, over 500 barn-months of air
emission data were collected under his leadership. Other research has
involved science-based separation distance guidelines for U.S. pork and
dairy production, testing of odor measurement protocols, pathogen
emission and dispersion from swine houses, and odor emission from
industrial composting operations. Since 1984, he has published 53
journal articles, 126 conference papers, three patents, and four book
chapters. In 2005, Dr. Heber received the Tony and Mary Hulman Health
Achievement Award in Environmental Health from the Indiana Public
Health Foundation and his Agricultural Air Quality Group at Purdue
received the Dean's Team Award.
Discussion
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Heber.
We will now start the questioning, and we will begin with
the Chair recognizing himself for five minutes.
Let me--well, first of all, as Mr. Hall pointed out, we
wear two hats, and we are also on the Energy and Commerce
Committee and will be a part of developing some type of a
carbon reduction program here for the United States. To be
successful, obviously, we have to monitor it, and secondly, I
think there needs to be an international component.
Climate Modeling Programs
So let me ask a couple of questions in that regard, quick
ones, and then I want to get to a more threshold-type question.
Dr. Law, you had talked about this FluxNet Program in Europe
and about how they use it in terms of modeling. Do they verify
that modeling with any type of atmospheric sensors?
Dr. Law. The ICOS, Integrated Carbon Observation System, I
think is what you are talking about, and they have very similar
components as we have in the North American Carbon Program. So
they are both top-down greenhouse gas observations in modeling
and bottom-up inventories and flux sites.
Chair Gordon. And what is the vehicle for coordination
between those agencies and the U.S.?
Dr. Law. It is primarily through, right now through the FAO
Global Terrestrial Observing System and through the FluxNet
Network of networks, flux sites particularly are covered by
that. FluxNet, the primary goal of that is to standardize data
and to be able to synthesize data.
Chair Gordon. Are you satisfied that it is doing an
adequate job?
Dr. Law. I think we need a lot more infrastructure on that.
That has been an intermittent-type project. It has been on and
off again.
Chair Gordon. Is that European infrastructure?
Dr. Law. That is the U.S.
Chair Gordon. Oh.
Dr. Law. That is U.S. Yeah.
Chair Gordon. Let me--I am just going to flip through some
things.
Dr. Law. Sure.
Remote Sensing Data and Standards Coordination
Chair Gordon. Ms. Kruger, you had mentioned the developing
countries and the obvious difficulties there. Is remote
sensing--can we--will that be adequate for us to be able to
monitor these other countries?
Ms. Kruger. Remote sensing would certainly be very helpful
for monitoring what is happening with the issue of
deforestation, which is a very important one now in the
international context. That would need to be coupled with
ground truthing and with a capacity in the country to actually
track what is happening on the ground as well.
Chair Gordon. We would have to have their cooperation to do
that.
Ms. Kruger. So we do need to have their cooperation and
more broadly, remote sensing does not apply to all the
different emission sources that we would be looking at.
Chair Gordon. And on this same theme, Dr. Gallagher, you
talked about it with NIST, having to coordinate international
standards. Is there a central coordinating body for that?
Dr. Gallagher. Well, I think that it is happening on
several fronts, and so there is a lot of coordination happening
with consensus bodies, for example, through the U.N. and the
world meteorological organizations and so forth that are
coordinating global climate measurements, but what is happening
in addition is that the international measurement system, the--
what is called the BIPM, the International Bureau of Weights of
Measures, is also beginning to be brought into these questions,
and that is the system that ties with national measurement
institutes in all of the member countries. And so that is
particularly important as measurements need to be pushed into
the market.
Chair Gordon. Well, I guess here is where I am getting to.
Clearly there is an international component, international in
the sense of undeveloped or non-cooperating countries.
Certainly there is an international component in terms of
cooperating countries. Here at this table you have demonstrated
the enormous amount of assets that we have in this, in the
country.
And so I guess my question is two-fold, is do we have
adequate assets here? Do we need a separate system? And just--I
won't say more importantly, I am a little concerned about the
coordinating aspect of all of this, bringing the information
together and then being able to have it effectively analyzed.
Do, you know, do we have an adequate coordinating system
now in the U.S. and internationally, and if not, what do we
need to do for that coordinating system, and what additional
assets do we need? And I will start with whoever wants to
start.
Okay. Yes, sir. Dr. MacDonald.
Dr. MacDonald. Congressman, we have a program where we
inter-compare our carbon measurements, and we work together
with the other countries, and you have heard sort of the----
Chair Gordon. You say a program. So what is the
coordinating body? Or what is the vehicle for that?
Dr. MacDonald. The vehicle is that the standards are all
checked against the NOAA standard that we have developed.
Chair Gordon. But who says meeting come to order, everybody
get started? What is the coordinating body?
Dr. MacDonald. I will have to get back to you on the name
of it.
Chair Gordon. Okay. So would you say that we have an
adequate coordinating national or international agency?
Dr. MacDonald. Yes. We are calibrating against each other
and----
Chair Gordon. Okay. So what is that agency?
Dr. MacDonald. Well, what we do is we bring the other
samples and test them against our NOAA standard, so they have
all agreed to do this, so that is how we have been doing it in
the past.
Chair Gordon. But is someone saying, NIST, you are not
cooperating. We need to get this over here or----
Dr. MacDonald. No. It is a voluntary----
Chair Gordon. And is that going to be, you know, if we are
going to bed billions of dollars on a system and raise people's
rates and----
Dr. MacDonald. I think we will----
Chair Gordon.--be concerned about our children's future, is
that adequate?
Dr. MacDonald. No. I think we will have to improve it, but
it has been a cooperative effort so far.
Chair Gordon. Okay. Well, that is what I am--my question
is--so is your answer then, no, it is not adequate?
Dr. MacDonald. My question [sic] is that we have the right
kinds of cooperation going on and that we will have to
basically increase it significantly.
Chair Gordon. Okay, and so does anybody disagree with that
statement, that we need to do--okay. So what--I am telling you,
we are getting ready to write some legislation here pretty
soon, and I would like a little, you know, some help in
determining do we have enough assets, how we coordinate it,
what needs to be the body to bring it together, and who needs
to coordinate that.
Ms. Kruger, you mean EPA has played a role I think in
trying to synthesize a lot of this information. What is your
view?
Ms. Kruger. Well, I would say the perspective that I bring
to this is as someone who is really thinking about it from the
standpoint of what are sources, specific sources emitting and
how are we managing that and implementing those policies. And I
would--I think that the--my impression is that the coordination
that is going on at the scientific level is very robust among
all of the agencies. It may need expansion in the policy
dimension because I don't know if the coordination between the
scientific research and the policy is as well developed or
mature as the coordination on the science side.
Chair Gordon. Okay. I am getting a little scared here
because we are getting ready to make a multi-billion-dollar
bet, and again, in our children's future and in our industry
and in our pocketbook, and so we got to sort of have a, you
know, a little more than faith here.
Yes, sir.
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. I would like to mention again the
Interagency Working Group that has done quite well at
coordinating the science side of things and----
Chair Gordon. Is this the North American Carbon----
Dr. Birdsey. Well, the North American Carbon Program was an
activity that was fostered by the Interagency Working Group,
and that program has brought together literally hundreds of
scientists from all kinds of disciplines working on methods to
bring our assets together. We do have a lot of inventories and
remote sensing and sampling and so forth.
Chair Gordon. So who chairs that?
Dr. Birdsey. Well, the Chair is rotated among agencies. It
is currently co-chaired by USDA and NOAA, I believe. Is that
right?
Voice. NASA.
Dr. Birdsey. USDA and NASA. Sorry.
Chair Gordon. Okay. Well, we are going to have to a little
more delving. I don't want to get into my time.
Monitoring Resources
The last quick question is do we have adequate resources
now, assets in terms of monitoring, or do we need to authorize
more? If you think we are okay, then you don't need to say
anything. If we need more, please tell me what it needs to be.
Yes, sir.
Dr. Freilich. Well, as you heard in the accumulation of
testimony here, within the confines of North America and the
Continental United States in particular, we have, I believe, an
excellent mix of in situ, airborne, and remote sensing. To
extend that understanding globally clearly requires additional
resources for non-cooperating countries or difficult to get to
places. And the unique vantage point of space with broad
coverage but high resolution and frequent revisit needs to play
a key role there. However, as was pointed out, those
measurements are at the limits of our technological ability. We
are succeeding at them, but they do require ground truthing
verification and validation, but that is the basis for a global
monitoring system.
Chair Gordon. So that is something that we need to keep in
mind when we go to Copenhagen.
Dr. Freilich. Definitely.
Chair Gordon. Okay. Unless--did you want to say something?
I don't want to take other people's--okay. Then this is, again,
I would hope that, I know that it is difficult for many of you
because you are within an agency and you got to get clearance,
and you can't get a free agent, but if your brother-in-law has,
with your maybe consultation, some suggestions as to how we can
set up some type of system, what we need, I would, we would
like to have that, and we would like to have that, you know,
pretty soon.
So Mr. Hall, you are recognized for five minutes.
Regulating Carbon Credit Sources
Mr. Hall. I would have yielded you more time if you needed
it.
Dr. Heber, a lot of people are looking to forestry and
agriculture as potential sources of carbon credits, planting
trees, switching to no-till farming practices, and some other
projects, what they call low-hanging fruit for some of these
folks.
If you are unable to take direct measurements, how are
these reductions verified? And what would this mean in terms of
generating offset credits in a mandatory regulatory regime?
Dr. Heber. I have not studied the methodology for
determining those offsets, but I understand that models are
used, inventorying of practices, agricultural practices and so
on. Some assumptions are made, but direct measurements can help
to refine those methodologies and make them more accurate. That
is about how I would answer that question.
Mr. Hall. Anybody else care to answer it?
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. I would like to mention that in practice
there are a number of greenhouse gas registries and markets
emerging and many of them have implemented ways to directly
measure what is going on on the land. They are usually combined
with remote sensing and models to provide a more complete
picture and a better annual tracking of what is going on. So
there is some technology available.
There is some concern about the cost of the measurement
relative to the value of the credits, and so that is an issue
of folks trying to come up with efficient ways to bring these
information systems together.
Mr. Hall. We have had--excuse me. Go ahead.
Dr. MacDonald. Congressman Hall, I would like to mention
that we have, we actually instrument tall towers like
television towers. We actually measure the amount of CO2
being sucked out of the air by things like soybean crops and so
on, so you can actually tell how much is being taken up by some
of the plant life.
Mr. Hall. Well, you know, we have gone through some
litigation and then some areas, particularly in Texas and
Oklahoma and maybe other areas of the country where cities in
the proximity of ranches or oil fields or something that the
cities felt like had invaded their lakes or their supply of
water, you all are familiar with those--some of that
litigation, I take it.
In the interest of litigation I guess I am asking this
question because their suits are still pending, and a lot of
the cities are trying to use against ranches and they track the
Superfund legislation we passed several years ago, because the
Superfund legislation has more serious consequences of
violation and increases their opportunity to get better and a
more lasting and a more punishing judgment or verdict against
the ranches or the oil fields or whatever they say pollutes the
cities.
Like Waco, Texas, for example, has litigation against the
farm bureau group that the farm bureau-supported group of
farmers and ranchers whose ranches are probably polluting some
of the waterways.
How would the use of this technology that you all have
offset or how would this affect the emissions or the profile of
the animal feeding operation industry, and how would the cost
of this technology compare with the cost of the monitoring
technologies?
I will go back to you if I might on that, Dr. Heber.
Dr. Heber. Would you repeat the question about which
technology----
Mr. Hall. I am not sure I can, but I will try.
Dr. Heber. Sorry.
Mr. Hall. There has been interest on both sides of the
Capitol the concept of poop to power or the use of--I wish you
hadn't written that, the use of anaerobic digestion to generate
pipeline quality methane. How would the use of the technology
affect the emissions profile of the animal feeding operation
industry, and how would the cost of this technology compare
with the cost of the monitoring technologies?
Dr. Heber. The anaerobic digestion process affects other
pollutants in addition to utilizing the methane and reducing
greenhouse gases. It reduces odor and so improves the
neighborhood, a nuisance issue. It reduces hydrogen sulfide,
which is also a regulated pollutant, and so it is very--it also
helps the manure handling for the farm, the solid waste
management issue. So there is a lot of benefits there and
generates electricity, so there is some revenue available
because of the heat and the electricity that can be generated
from anaerobic digestion.
There is an economy of scale. These anaerobic digesters are
typically put on large farms, and now, the monitoring of the
emissions from an anaerobic digester can be kind of, you know,
rather expensive. I can't really address how, you know, whether
that expense is really too much or not or whether, you know,
measurements--measurements need to be taken at anaerobic
digesters to determine, you know, what the emission reductions
are and then those measurements can then be used in models that
would then predict the reductions at other sites or for other
farms.
So I think models, if they are validated by measurements,
that may be sufficient rather than requiring monitoring at each
one.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, and I think my time is up.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Wu is
recognized.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Baselines and Inventories
I want to ask a couple of narrow technical questions, but
first I would just like to express my concern that we have gone
from one era where we have been in almost complete denial that
there is a problem to a period when we are charging ahead with
doing something about it and at least consensus amongst many
groups that there is a problem out there. And it makes me think
of other challenging situations such as colonial countries that
have had their political systems repressed for a very long
time, and all of a sudden they are independent, and they are
supposed to be self-governing, democratic systems.
It is not that I question the scope of the environmental
challenge in front of us. It is just that looking back on that
colonial experience it is a checkered history about success in
going from suppressing certain forms of things and then running
them well afterwards. I am very concerned that we are able to
technically manage the systems that we are proposing, and I
would like to get some assurance from you all.
Now, none of you all addressed baseline issues, and if you
could discuss the importance of baselines. My understanding is
that the Europeans, in not getting baselines quite right,
created some issues for themselves and what each of your groups
can contribute to getting accurate baselines so that we can
adequately manage what we need to.
Dr. Birdsey.
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. Thank you. I will take a--I will start
on it anyways. We do have a national forest inventory and a
national resources inventory that have been monitoring
historical trends for quite a number of years, and this
certainly gives a baseline for where we have been.
I think a lot of the greenhouse gas management systems that
are being proposed, however, try to look to the future as to
what things--what would happen without taking actions. So here
you have to merge the inventory information with very good
prognostic models, models that can pull together different
sources of information and make accurate projections. Then you
can see how well we have done compared to what was expected.
Mr. Wu. Are you confident about those forest baselines, and
is anybody else confident about any of the other baselines that
we would need for the Continental United States?
Dr. Birdsey. Well, I think the historical baseline record
is quite good. I would have less confidence in the projections
actually because there you are dealing with events that are
hard to anticipate.
Mr. Wu. Do any of the other panelists--Ms. Kruger.
Ms. Kruger. I think one of the primary reasons why we were
asked by Congress to undertake the development of the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, which we recently proposed, was
so that we could establish, have the data that we needed for
policy development and the establishment of baselines across
the economy. And in the proposal that we have got out for
comment right now, we have laid out methods for how we would
collect facility-specific information on greenhouse gas
emissions across the economy, and that is the kind of
information that we would draw on to inform future actions.
So you are right. When the Europeans tried to start--were
creating their emissions trading system, they had a good
national inventory, but they didn't have that data
disaggregated down to the facility level, and that caused some
problems for them.
With the data that we are collecting, and it is our goal to
have that data, 2010 data reported to us early in 2011, we are
looking forward to having the kinds of information that we will
need to develop the bottom-up policies.
Mr. Wu. Well, my clock is ticking down now, so perhaps I
could rephrase the question. What work do we need going forward
to more accurately hone baselines so that they are useful for a
regulatory process?
Dr. Heber.
Dr. Heber. On the animal agriculture side we think that the
field studies are needed for having more accurate reporting,
and as I indicated in my testimony, we have the technology, and
we have been measuring baseline of other air pollutants and
actually greenhouse gas emissions are being added to that
network now by the dairy industry.
Mr. Wu. Dr. Law, a FluxNet perspective, or Dr. Gallagher, a
NIST perspective on this?
Dr. Law. I think that we need more sites in the FluxNet
Network that are in managed systems. So I went through a
rundown of that, and we don't have enough sites in early stages
of forest development, for example, or after you have thinned
forests and watch them recover. We don't have enough
measurements there.
Again, the sites are used to calibrate models, and once we
get that and the remote sensing data like Landsat goes back to
1972, we can go back and retrospectively look at the trends
backwards and then go forward with estimates.
In terms of the inventory data, AmeriFlux also measures
more of the carbon budget components and ecosystems. So beyond
what the Forest Service does, it would be great if the forest
inventory grew--did add some of those measurements like soil
carbon.
Dr. Gallagher. Quickly, I guess, you know, I think you said
it very well that the, you know, in terms of policy generation
the more accurate and the more specific information you have
the better off you are, and I think some of this will be a
problem of looking at, making sure that, you know, baseline
measurements are more and more detailed and more and more
accurate.
One of the issues we see in this is an overriding trend
that we are paying attention to is that, you know, sort of
global average baselines in terms of, you know, large length
scales, in other words, averaging over large geographic areas.
That--the status of that is actually quite good.
I think one of the issues is where you start pushing to
baseline levels, local emission levels at more localized
measurements and how do those get incorporated, and that
becomes important if you are looking at points of regulation or
other things where you need specific information about
greenhouse gas emissions over a sink or over an emission
source.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Rohrabacher is
recommended for five--or recognized for five minutes.
Skeptical Arguments
Mr. Rohrabacher. Recommended for five minutes. That would
be hard to do.
First of all, let me ask how much money is being spent in
monitoring these greenhouse gases maybe over the last 10 years?
What have we spent? Are we talking about billions of dollars?
Dr. Heber.
Dr. Heber. On the animal agriculture side and pertaining to
this study that we have done I would say, well, a half a
million dollars has been put forward by the dairy industry to
add greenhouse gases to five of the sites.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Uh-huh.
Dr. Heber. And with the limited amount of greenhouse gas
measurements that were done by the National Air Emission
Monitoring Study itself, I would estimate at least another half
a million dollars. So approximately $1 million.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But, I mean, in terms of overall in our
national commitment to studying these greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. I mean, this is really a major commitment of
resources, is it not? The answer I guess is yes.
Let me then for the record just put into the record this
quote from maybe ten various resources that I have talked to
and for example, one quote here is from Dr. Yuri Izrael from
the--who is the Director of Global Climate and Ecology
Institute and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and
was the Vice President of the UNIPCC in which he suggests, and
these other quotes are suggesting that CO2 and these
greenhouse gases really do not create global warming and do not
change the, basically change the climate, which is what we are
talking about.
I would imagine that you folks disagree with these
assessments of your fellow scientific colleagues. Yes. The
answer is yes. All right.
Then maybe what we could--let me just suggest that I am
putting these in the record, Mr. Chairman, for the record of
the hearing. If I could submit this now for the record of the
hearing where we have 10 prominent scientists who are in
disagreement with the theory that greenhouse gases are----
Chair Gordon. With no objection.
[The information follows:]
Chair Gordon. And I want to get one thing clarified is
that, Mr. Rohrabacher, you are quoting a Russian scientist.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly am.
Chair Gordon. And you are betting on this Russian
scientist?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly am. Along with the other nine
who are American.
Chair Gordon. I wanted to get a clarification, because that
hasn't been consistent with some of your past actions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. In the past I have called into question
the Russians, that is correct, although----
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher.--let me just note that I do recognize that
they have a great deal of knowledge about the Arctic and about
Greenland and all the rest.
So with that said, would you concede, would this panel
concede that there are prominent members of the scientific
community that have offered alternative viewpoints to this idea
that greenhouse gases are causing a change in the climate that
deserve to be--and their arguments deserve to be addressed? Or
is it case closed, debate is over, let us spend the money? Come
on. Here is your chance. The skeptics are just totally
irrational, or yeah, maybe they have got some points that need
to be addressed.
We will start with Dr. Heber down here.
Dr. Heber. I am not an expert in this area of, you know, in
this research area but----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Uh-huh.
Dr. Heber.--I think the skeptics ought to be heard and that
their points ought to be addressed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. I would like to see a debate on the
issue actually before this committee, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to see several people just get up and have, with our
participation, a--just a back and forth, rather than simply,
which we have done, is base hearings on the premise that this
is already an accepted truism and thus what do we need to do
now to implement policy. I would suggest that this country is
about to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on policies that
are based on premises that have not been proven scientifically,
and please feel free to disagree with me and if not, I would
yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We had a skeptic
today that had an opportunity. You know, we have had those
discussions here, and again, I think it is valid that we
continue to look for skeptics to keep us honest, but the fact
of the matter is over 170 nations, including the United States,
certified by President Bush, confirmed that we do have global
warming with 100 percent certainty and within 90 or 95 percent
certainty that it is a direct result of human activity.
Clearly, we need to continue to ask the questions, but I
think that we have enough consensus that we need to move
forward. But you serve a constructive part by making us
continue to rethink.
And, let us see, Ms. Dahlkemper, I believe you are next.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Mine is not working. I will use yours.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Effects of Forest Degradation
According to an article in the October '08 issue of EOS,
deforestation and forest degradation account for about seven to
thirty percent of total anthropogenic carbon emissions. How
well do we really understand the emissions from deforestation
and degradation, and how much research is being done on the
ways that we estimate these emissions from deforestation?
I open this up to the panel. Whoever would like to answer
this.
Dr. Birdsey.
Dr. Birdsey. I will take a start at it. You are interested
globally in these estimates. Right?
Ms. Dahlkemper. Yes.
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. I think over the years the--with the
continuation of the remote sensing programs we have learned a
lot about the rate of deforestation in countries of the globe
where we didn't know much about that before. But there is quite
a bit more difficulty in monitoring and estimating the impact
of forest degradation because this is a lot more subtle
process. We are not--land is not being cleared and put into
some other use but rather some part of the growing stock or the
biomass is being removed, and when you are taking a smaller
portion of that out, it is not quite as detectable from space.
So we know part of the answer, but the degradation part I
think really needs quite a bit more work.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Does any agency have the lead in this type
of work?
Dr. Birdsey. I think, I don't think it is a U.S. agency.
Really, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations has really worked on this over the decades more than
anyone, and so they have tried to organize reporting by the
individual countries and tried to build up the capacity of
individual countries to make their own estimates. They have
done some independent work looking at remote sensing globally,
but I don't believe that has evolved into a robust system yet.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Anyone else like to address it?
Dr. Freilich.
Dr. Freilich. Yes. To put some numbers on your assertion,
if I can remember correctly from the last papers that I read,
based on satellite measurements as well as modeling and in situ
analyses over several decades, I think the estimate is that we
as a species have put about 300 billion tons of carbon into the
atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and that there have been
about another 160 billion tons of carbon excess put into the
atmosphere through land use and land use changes in the
industrial era.
So those are relatively precise numbers that come from
pretty sophisticated analyses of a whole wide range of global
data, including the remote sensing data.
Gaps in the National Observation Network
Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you. My other question really--Dr.
Birdsey, you indicated that key elements of a National
Observation Network are lacking, and I would ask you to maybe
expand on this and of the major gaps in our National
Observation Network, what two or three are particularly
important to fill.
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. Thank you. Well, on the land side our
inventories are fairly comprehensive but as Dr. Law mentioned,
we are not capturing changes in forest soils as well as we
should, and there are some parts of the country like Alaska
where our inventory systems are not as intense as they should
be. That is the sampling intensity is not as good as it should
be. So those are a couple of areas on the land side.
Our--we are concerned about the continuity of some of our
observation systems. AmeriFlux, for example, is funded on an
individual site basis, and sometimes they come and go is one
example. Our atmospheric monitoring system, I am looking at
direct measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, shows great promise, but it is a very sparse
system, so they are unable to resolve fluxes at a very small
scale.
Those are the few that come to mind.
Ms. Dahlkemper. So if you were going to prioritize the gaps
that need to be filled, number one, number two would be?
Dr. Birdsey. Well, coming from the Forest Service I would
like to see the land inventories beefed up a little bit, but I
would also associate that with FluxNet. I think that would give
us a really robust picture of what is going on on the land.
My second area would probably be in measuring atmospheric
CO2 concentrations.
Ms. Dalhkemper. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Gordon. And Dr. Broun is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
More on Skeptical Arguments
Panel, I am a scientist. I am an applied scientist. I am a
physician, and I believe in science. I believe in scientific
integrity, and I believe when Mr. Rohrabacher asked you all a
question the answer of silence was deafening except for from
one individual, and that is Dr. Heber.
And I must say that I am extremely disappointed. I think
you all have absolutely zero scientific integrity, because you
all have drank the Kool-Aid and have decided absolutely this
belief process of human-induced global warming is absolutely a
fact. And I disagree with the Chair, respectfully so, that--and
our former President, he was misled, he was wrong, you are
wrong, there is a tremendous panel, a thousand or more
scientists around the world that disagree with human-induced
global warming.
My question to each of you all, are you all absolutely
bound and determined to shut down the economy, create massive
job losses, create a huge increase in the cost of food,
medicine, all goods and services in this country to pursue an
agenda, a political agenda that has absolutely no scientific
consensus that there is human-induced global warming? And I
would like each of you to answer just yes or no. Are you bound
and determined to pursue this human-induced global warming idea
that has no scientific consensus. Yes or no?
We will start with Dr. Heber.
Dr. Heber. I would say no, and I applaud EPA for
negotiating with the livestock industries to get the science
before regulation on the Clean Air Act pollutants and also the
CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act) and (Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-
Know Act) of pollutants. Get--make sure the science is there
first before proceeding with regulations. Regulations can get
ahead of the science, and I think it is important to get the
science and even if we have to wait.
Mr. Broun. Dr. Gallagher, just vote yes or no.
Dr. Gallagher. I, you know, our position in this is we are
ready to carry out the policies that are needed and to support
them with good measurements. We are really not a climate change
agency, and as a scientist I have to say that there is a strong
preponderance of evidence that there are climatic affects
associated with the gases, and that seems to be what we see in
the policy.
Mr. Broun. Well, there are a lot of other theories about
that. In fact, that have just as much data as human-induced
global warming. In fact, we have had global cooling over the
last almost decade now, and we--a volcano creates as much
CO2 emissions as every human being in the world. Yes
or no?
Ms. Kruger. Yes. I believe that we do need to act to deal
with the threat of climate change, but I don't believe that we,
that doing that needs to jeopardize our economic growth.
Mr. Broun. It is going to. Yes or no?
Dr. Freilich. I agree that we do need to act. The data are
clear, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of human-
induced global warming. I agree with Ms. Kruger that getting
ahead of this issue will, in fact, be good for this country as
opposed to shutting down the economy.
Mr. Broun. Well, I am out of my time, but I want to
reiterate. You all have shown me you have no scientific
integrity, because you do not consider the skeptics and the
other folks. You have just--you have drank the Kool-Aid, and I
just ask you, in fact, the Secretary of Energy was here, and I
asked him the same question about shutting down the economy.
This Administration seems bent on shutting down our economy to
pursue something that has no scientific consensus and no
scientific, really no scientific basis. It is a theory, it is a
belief system, it is a religion with you guys, and you are
totally wrong.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Baird. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman. I would just
encourage the panelists to be respectful of our panel and to
avoid concluding that because someone disagrees with you that
they have no integrity and you do. This is a committee that
respects diversity of opinion, and in this case it is not just
opinion, it is also scientific evidence. And questions of
integrity we try to refrain from impugning the integrity of our
colleagues here. I would just urge the panel members to show
the similar respect for our witnesses.
With that I will recognize Ms. Dahlkemper. Sorry. Mr.
Lipinski.
Greenhouse Gas Measurement
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to get back to
the issue at hand in terms of measurement. There are a lot of
debates going on right now about what to do about global
climate change, and the two general categories of ways of
addressing it right now that are being discussed here in
Congress are going with a cap and--some type of cap-and-trade
system or some type of tax or user fee, whatever you would like
to call it.
Is there--does either one of these require a greater degree
of certainty on--in terms of measurement than the other one
does? That is, what we know, what we can measure right now,
what we have available. Does either of those two systems in
general require more or less? Can we get away with less
measurement accuracy with one rather than another? I just
wanted to throw that general question out there.
Ms. Kruger.
Ms. Kruger. I think you are asking a very good question,
and I think that the--that actually whether one were to do a
cap-and-trade program or a tax, you would still need to measure
the emissions accurately from the facilities or the entities
that you are placing that tax on. So from the standpoint of the
facility level of those bottom-up measurements, you are going
to need, you would need a very similar type of measurement
approach, whether that is continuous emission monitors or other
means of measuring the emissions.
In a cap-and-trade system you may have other types of
policies that come along with it like offset policies that
might not be part of a tax, and so there might be some things
that wouldn't be done under a tax. But the fundamental
measurement to determine what the amount of the tax is going to
be is very similar to what you would need to do to determine
compliance with a cap.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else have--would agree with that then?
Dr. MacDonald.
Dr. MacDonald. Yes. I agree. Fundamentally from the top-
down viewpoint both of these would require a very similar
monitoring system.
Mr. Lipinski. Dr. Birdsey.
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. I would like to mention just that the
details of the program are not independent of the monitoring
system, or maybe I should say vice versa. I completely agree
that considering the cost of monitoring needs to be part of the
consideration of the program and, some of those details may or
may not increase the cost.
For example, if you are looking at estimating a change in
emissions or sequestration in forests and you want to separate
out the effect of a human action from some natural variability
in climate or a wildfire and so forth, it may cost more to do
that separation than simply to look at the total change.
So there are ways the rules--the way the rules are written
may affect the cost of the monitoring. So it is important to
keep that in mind.
Mr. Lipinski. I want to ask, following up, Ms. Kruger, the
Reporting Rule as you say in your testimony does not establish
protocols for offset projects. What would have to be--what kind
of research projects would be needed to address that, the
monitoring challenges of the offsets?
Ms. Kruger. Well, I think if we were developing an approach
like this for offsets, we would approach it the way that we did
when we did, when we looked at, when we started working on the
reporting rule. That is there are a number of monitoring
protocols that have been developed in voluntary markets dealing
with a wide range of possible offset sources. We have done that
at EPA under our Climate Leaders Program, but there are many
others, and you would basically want to look at what has been
done out there, take the lessons from that, and use that to
establish the types of monitoring protocols that would be
needed.
This would need to be supplemented, I think particularly in
the agriculture and forestry area, with some additional policy
considerations around whether the actions are additional and
what happens if there is leakage or reversals. But broadly we
could, we would draw on the--on a lot of good information that
has been developed already.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, and I want to thank all of you for
your testimony. It is a difficult position because we are here
today--you are here today to talk about measurement in the
bigger question of what we are going to do about global climate
change. It is sort of a separate issue, those policies, but it
all comes down to the ability to measure as accurately as
possible emissions, offsets, and so it is critical that we get
that right in order to be able to have a policy that can work.
So I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Bilbray for five
minutes.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Measuring in Second and Third World Nations
My question is, traditionally we have used air indexing as
an indication of traditional emissions, basically a paper chase
in the United States, in North America, and Europe. What is the
credibility of our emissions measurement at this time in the
Third World? Anybody want to talk about how you go down into
Nicaragua right now and determine what is the emissions coming
off of Nicaragua right now?
Go ahead.
Dr. MacDonald. Congressman, one thing we can do is with
both our satellite assets and our aircraft assets, you can
actually get estimates of the total amount of greenhouse gases
coming off of a country by measurements that you take offshore
and around it and that are observatory. So you get some
estimate of what the source is.
Mr. Bilbray. Because in the Third World right now this is
the season where they are burning off half the forest right
now. Anybody flies over Latin America right now will see the
fires going off.
My biggest concern is that traditionally we have always
based it on the paper chase, because it is like if it isn't
filed, it isn't there. China, you know, when we are facing
areas like China and India, in fact, I--last report I saw
China's increase last year was more than the total emissions of
India.
How do we monitor that kind where you end up having not
only the massive industrial but also the urban practices that
may have a massive increase in emissions, everything from the
way they raise their poultry to the fact of the way they handle
their lifestyle totally to their ag uses? How do we monitor it
in places like China and India?
Dr. MacDonald. Congressman, there is a similar answer. You
know, we had this problem in the '50s where we tried to monitor
if there were nuclear bombs, and we would actually measure the
flow of various carbon isotopes. When we make measurements,
both with our satellite assets and out over the ocean, we can
actually determine how much the gases are in these quantities
and at our observatories, and I think you are right that it is
not a very precise measurement, but it does give us an estimate
of what they are doing.
Mr. Bilbray. Yeah. Anybody comment about that challenge?
Because let me tell you something. I worked with cap-and-trade
in California, and I know the Committee gets sick and tired of
hearing about my air resources background, but I was a big
supporter of cap-and-trade when it was, when it could be
actually monitored. What scares me to death, and I see a huge
potential for corruption, when we start going overseas with the
cap-and-trade to where the monitoring and accountability, that
there will be a teak forest that was grown anyways, it was
going to be cut down, all at once becomes part of a sink
program, and the ability to account for this scares me to
death. I just think there are people out there looking to make
a fortune off of this, and I will say this to the Chairman.
Mark my words. We go into an international cap-and-trade, the
scandal of what the diversion of funds and the way this is
being hit is going to be a big one.
So I will raise that. And let me just say to my colleagues
that are frustrated at some of our colleagues attacking you
guys about the whole concept of the climate change issue, my
real concern is based on ice core samples. I am just looking at
historical levels from ice core samples. I work with my scripps
guys on that, but the problem is the credibility of the whole
climate change issue was really hurt when the same people that
are screaming that the world is coming to an end and that we
must do extraordinary things to save the planet will not even
stand up and say that the Federal Government's subsidy of corn
ethanol is not only not solving the problem, in fact, the
latest report from Duke University is it would be better to
burn regular gasoline than to do what we are doing with corn
ethanol. You know, that is the kind of thing that comes down.
When the State Air Resources Board--Duke said it is better
never to plant the crop. The California Air Resources
scientists, the best in the world, said that it is better to
burn regular gasoline than ethanol, but this town continues to
subsidize it, under what justification? That we care about the
planet? Our whole credibility is being destroyed. So when you
see someone like Dana Rohrabacher throwing a fit, his argument
is if you really cared about the planet, you would be taking on
the corn industry, you would be willing to stand up for next
generation nuclear, but you are not willing to take the heat to
do what needs to address the problem that you are claiming
around.
And so actions do not reflect the concerns, and that is the
credibility problem we have here.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but every chance to be able to
rattle a cage, you know, I will do it. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. We do know that, and I would only point out that
articles in Science Magazine and Nature and others have
addressed precisely the gentleman's point. So it is not at all
that the science community has been silent on this. They
actually have spoken about it.
Mr. Broun. I am talking about this----
Mr. Baird. Oh, well, then don't take it out on these folks.
Take it out on our folks.
I will recognize myself for five minutes.
Forestry and Ocean Acidification Issues
I thank the panel. Two major issues for me are forests and
oceans. Dr. Birdsey, when you were asked earlier by Ms.
Dalhkemper about the lack of monitoring, I would added to that
the CO2 in the oceans. While the skeptics can talk
about climate change, to be skeptical about ocean acidification
is to skeptical about chemistry. This is an abstract computer
modeling. This is CO2, goes in water, makes carbonic
acid, carbonic acid makes the minerals less available, less
available minerals means coral die. You can do that. It has
been done. It has been replicated. It has been tested in a
number of ways, and I hope you can talk a little bit about
monitoring the oceans. I have the belief that that satellite
that went into the oceans instead of the atmosphere was trying
to tell us something.
The second issue is forestry. So I am going to put that out
there and ask the panel in a second to talk about the second
issue, forestry. The renewable fuel standard and the new
legislation being debated elsewhere in this building at this
moment proscribes, prohibits the use of fuels from federal
forests as part of biomass that would be subsidized. I think
that is a terrible mistake. The dead trees and dying trees, we
have a million acres of forests that need treatment in the
pacific northwest. If you don't take those trees out, they are
going to become carbon because they are going to burn or going
to be eaten by insects, and yet we have in the name of the
environment prescribed using this wood for a fuel source. I
don't get it. If somebody can tell me scientifically why that
is the case, I would sure welcome that.
So let me put those two things on the table and open it up.
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. First I will respond a little bit about
the question about monitoring oceans. I am not an expert on the
oceans. I work with trees, so I am a little bit outside my area
here, but as Chair of the Carbon Cycle Science Steering Group I
do hear about oceans, and I can report a little bit about what
that community has said.
Everything we have said about continuity of satellites and
the need to continue to improve the spectral resolution of
those sensors applies to the oceans as well as the land, and so
I hear a lot about the need to do a better job of sensing ocean
color, for example, which indicates a lot about the biological
activity there.
I think the other part on the ocean side is there is not a
very coordinated or sustained I should say system of direct
observations. It is just a little harder to get out there. You
know, there is no roads and so forth, and so to actually
confirm the satellite observations with direct measurements is
much more difficult in the oceans. And so I believe that is an
important component that needs to be added.
Mr. Baird. Given that they take up 25 percent of the carbon
and the----
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah.
Mr. Baird.--a great portion of our oxygen is produced by
the oceans, we got problems here with that lack of data.
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. I agree.
Mr. Baird. Dr. MacDonald.
Dr. MacDonald. I would like to agree with your comment. The
CO2 going in the ocean is a simple process. It does
create acid, and we do go out on the ocean in NOAA with our
ships and have made literally thousands of measurements, and it
is very clear. The ocean is becoming more acidic, and it really
is almost a completely independent problem associated with the
release of CO2.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Would someone like to address the
forest issue, because this is a critical--Dr. Freilich, if you
wanted to talk about the ocean some more, that is fine, too,
but I would sure like the forest issue addressed as well.
Dr. Freilich. I will just say one word as an oceanographer
by training, I don't know much about forests, and I do a little
bit about the ocean, you mentioned some of the direct
measurements and the validation. And in fact, there was a joint
NASA, NOAA field campaign to the Southern Ocean, which is a
huge expanse, which is very difficult to get to, has very high
winds, and large gas transfer rates, and it was a very
successful experiment about a year, about--just about a year
ago, which actually pinned down some of the key transfer rates.
And this coupled with satellite measurements such as we hope to
get will actually open up those huge areas to calculation.
Mr. Baird. Okay. Someone address the forest issue, please.
Dr. Birdsey. I will get started on that. Obviously there
are a lot of natural disturbances taking place in the forest;
wildfire, insects, and so forth. If you go into the Rocky
Mountains, vast areas of dead trees are visible.
Mr. Baird. Go in the Cascades it is the same.
Dr. Birdsey. Yeah. And so we--it would essential, I think,
I didn't mention this in my previous response about some of the
things that are needed, but some more direct measurement of
impacts of these disturbances as they occur or right after they
occur would be very useful to providing a much more accurate
annual estimate of emissions from forests from these
disturbances.
But perhaps more important would be to understand a little
bit more what is going to happen to these lands in the future.
How fast are those dead, standing dead trees, for example, how
fast are they going to decompose, what happens when they hit
the ground, what is going to regenerate on those lands, how
fast will it re-grow?
Mr. Baird. Let me ask you a simple question, because I am
out of time. Would it be better to let them burn in a forest
fire or to use them as--succinct them in a form of a house or
to use them at least, if you are going to burn them, to create
energy as an alternative to coal?
Dr. Birdsey. It is clearly better to make some use of that
dead material rather than let it simply decompose and add
CO2 to the atmosphere.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Yes. Just briefly.
Mr. Baird. Actually, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. I--thank you. I wasn't here for the start
of the interaction with the panel and the Committee, so forgive
me if it has been asked, but I think for clarification sake it
is important. First, let me thank you for your professionalism
and for your willingness to contribute to what is a very
important dialogue.
Coordinating Data Collection
There are a number of groups independently from the
scientific community and federal agencies that get into data
collection, and the ground-based and space-based information
feed, the data that are collected are important, I think, to
developing policy.
Is there this structural concept that consolidates and
coordinates all of the work done, the data collection, in a way
that can drive the most meaningful policy response? I think
that is critical to a sound outcome.
Dr. Birdsey. We talked earlier that there is an interagency
working group that tries to coordinate the activities of ten or
so different federal agencies, all of which collect data in
some fashion or manage the data and so forth.
But in the end a lot of that goes back to the individual
agencies and departments to manage those programs. In fact,
many of those programs like the forest inventory that I am most
familiar with is there anyways. It is not--it wasn't set up for
a climate change type of program. It was set up for a lot of
other purposes to assess the status of the forests in our
country, to keep track of the changes, and so forth.
But that data has become essential as a baseline for
understanding what has happened for--beginning to take a look
into the future as to where these forests are going, and you
need that information to design the policies.
Mr. Tonko. And is it, is there a connection to the
scientific community, or is it just work done within an agency
or a group of agencies that is feeding that system?
Dr. Birdsey. I think it is really very well integrated
among the scientific community. Many of the users, if not the
majority of the users, are from universities or private
institutions.
Mr. Tonko. Uh-huh.
Dr. Birdsey. Companies, and so forth. So these data systems
are very widely used.
Mr. Tonko. Are there improvements any of you could cite in
terms of data collection and consolidation?
Yes, sir. Dr. MacDonald.
Dr. MacDonald. I think that our existing systems, a lot
were designed for scientific reasons to, you know, understand
what was happening. I think a mitigation regulatory regime will
require probably a denser resolution. It will require more
surface ops and actual measurements.
So we are using them for a more extensive purpose, and it
will probably require additional capabilities.
Mr. Tonko. Uh-huh. Dr. Law, were you going to comment on
it?
Dr. Law. Yeah. I was going to say the same thing, is there
will need to be more of a density of measurements and more
comprehensive data system. Right now we have several databases,
and we need a good connection between data streams and final
product.
Mr. Tonko. Is there like an example, a dynamic that you
could cite for us that would reinforce that thinking?
Dr. Law. I guess I would say with the North American Carbon
Program a lot of the activity that is going on there right now
is bringing all of this information together to feed into the
models.
Mr. Tonko. Yes. Ms. Kruger.
Ms. Kruger. I think from the perspective of implementing a
policy, we do have the measuring and monitoring technologies
that we need to be confident in what we see happening, say, at
a power plant or at an industrial facility. The new dimension
to this discussion is to connect this now up to the scientific
verification that is being done through the atmospheric
measurements. I guess the scientists talk about ground
truthing, and I sort of think about it as sky truthing. So is
our, you know, is our policy, our policies in an aggregate way
having the intended result, and if we see things that surprise
us or we don't see the results that we were expecting, then we
need to dig in and figure out why. Is it something that needs
to happen in terms of the monitoring technologies we are using?
Is there some interaction that we are missing that needs to be
dealt with?
And so I agree with the comments of the others on the panel
that more monitoring stations, more spatial dis-aggregation,
more frequent monitoring so that we can get a better picture
from the atmospheric side to be able to reconcile with what we
are seeing at the very bottom-up, but the facility side will be
helpful to this process that we need to engage in going
forward.
Mr. Baird. We have been asked for a second round of
questions, and I will now thank the gentleman from New York.
We will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Yeah. I will be very brief because I am supposed
to be somewhere right now. All of us have about four committees
that we are trying to attend.
Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Baird. You are somewhere right now.
Economic Considerations
Mr. Hall. I am somewhere right now. I want to just, I want
to ask you a question and ask you for a yes or no answer,
because that is very difficult, and I know that you are here
and were asked to beef your memories up on that that you are
knowledgeable about, and that is monitoring and measuring and
verifying greenhouse gases, and that is what we asked you to
come here and testify to, and that is what you have testified
to, and I appreciate that.
But what I--and I am going to make a presumption here that
all of you have either been in a store, a Sears, a Wal-Mart, a
Kmart, Walgreens, any of you that haven't been in some of those
stores? Almost all of you have, haven't you? And I don't know
much about forests or oceans, and Mr. Chairman, I know a story
about an old man about my age that had applied for a job
cutting timber with a company, and they asked him for a
background, and he said, well, he worked for the Sahara Forest
Company. And they said, well, Sahara is a desert. He said,
yeah. It is now. That's not----
Mr. Baird. We don't get our fire policy right----
Mr. Hall. So I know nothing about forest or oceans, but I
do know about----
Mr. Baird. Texas has neither I noticed.
Mr. Hall.--cash registers, and I want to ask you about a
cash register, because that is very important. Each of you are
probably pretty huge taxpayers, and as such you know that the
government has a tax, has a cash register, and you send in the
15th of April every year, and we are all affected by that.
I just wanted to ask you if you will do this. As you go
down through your testimony, as you go down making a decision
on the future direction that we ought to go in the global
warming thrust, is that you remember that there is a cash
register and that somebody has got to pay, and remember that
there are costs involved in it, and remember that there are
taxes involved in it. That is the way the government extracts
its money to pursue something like this. That you will
certainly know that if we don't have help from China, Russia,
Mexico, India, and I could go on and on, that we can't clean
the world.
And I just ask you to take all that into consideration and
remember that there is a giant thing there as you can't get out
of any of those stores without going by that cash register. And
that is what this Nation has got to do, not to endanger the
economy or have generational theft from youngsters not even
born yet by putting taxes upon them. That you consider that.
And that is all I ask. You are good Americans, and you care
about this country, and you cared enough to come give your time
today. I just want to ask you to remember that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Baird. I thank the gentleman.
I will recognize myself for five minutes.
Could you talk briefly about the percentage--very briefly.
What is the percentage of CO2 put out, global
CO2 put out by the United States of America at
present?
Ms. Kruger. I don't have the exact percentage for you, but
it is on the order of 20 percent.
Mr. Baird. And we are about what percentage of the world's
population? Three.
Ms. Kruger. Three.
Mr. Baird. I think. Three to five. I mean, you can quibble
a little but--so we are a small percentage of the population,
we produce a large percentage of the greenhouse gases. So
follow up on Mr. Hall's observations. If there is accuracy that
ocean acidification, overheating of the climate are occurring,
what are the economic costs to the next generation of that if
we don't keep that in check?
Any thoughts about that? We got to get some economists. My
wife is an economist. She will whack me over the head and say,
get an economist there. They will talk about that.
Ms. Kruger.
Ms. Kruger. I am not an economist. I am not a scientist
either, so I am not going to----
Mr. Baird. You are perfect. I am not getting much from the
scientists here so----
Ms. Kruger. Yeah. Yeah. What I would say is there is an
enormous amount of work under way in the economic community
coordinating with the scientific community to try to understand
the costs of various climate change impacts, including the
impacts of ocean acidification on coral reefs and in terms of
both the ecosystems and the--and tourism and the like and--but
looking across the broad range.
And I think it is a very complicated and challenging topic
because some of these costs can be readily monetized and other
things are much more difficult to put a value on. But there is
a major effort underway in the economic community to tackle
that.
Mr. Baird. Given the topic of the hearing about monitoring
anthropogenic CO2 or not just anthropogenic really,
but in your scientific judgment do we have sufficient evidence
of a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 and increase
in CO2 in the atmosphere? Let us take that first.
Let us set the temperature change aside and the acidification
change aside. Is there a link between anthropogenic CO2
and global atmosphere? Just quick yes or no around, down the
line.
Dr. MacDonald. Yes.
Dr. Law. Yes.
Dr. Birdsey. Yes.
Dr. Freilich. Yes.
Ms. Kruger. Yes.
Dr. Heber. I am--this is not my area, but I am skeptical as
I indicated earlier.
Mr. Baird. Meaning you don't think that the historical
measurements of CO2, atmospheric CO2
concentration suggests that there is any relationship to all
this fossil fuel we have been burning and the concentration of
CO2 in the atmosphere change? Let us set aside the
temperature change. Just CO2.
Dr. Heber. Right. I am skeptical that there is sufficient
evidence to absolutely conclude that CO2 production
from human activities has created that significant amount of
increase in CO2. There are other effects such as
volcanoes, et cetera, and natural cycles.
Mr. Baird. Okay. Do you believe that there has been an
increase in CO2 based on historical monitoring?
Dr. Heber. I am not an expert in studying ice cores and
that sort of thing, but I understand that there has been an
increase in CO2 in recent years, since it has been
measured.
Mr. Baird. Yes. Do you believe that the burning of fossil
fuels creates CO2?
Dr. Heber. Yes.
Mr. Baird. Do you believe we burn a lot of fossil fuels?
Dr. Heber. Yes.
Mr. Baird. Do you believe that produces a lot of
CO2?
Dr. Heber. Yes.
Mr. Baird. And do you--where do you think it goes?
Dr. Heber. It goes into the atmosphere.
Mr. Baird. Okay. And the ocean. Apparently 25 percent
roughly.
Dr. Heber. And some of it is used by plants, too.
Mr. Baird. Yes. No question about that. If we look at the
monitoring process, we actually had a hearing a few weeks back
that suggested there was enough ambiguity that might make a
cap-and-trade system somewhat difficult to monitor, even
domestically. Certainly the non-point source. If you look at,
you know, we have got some mechanisms to monitor coal plants,
for example, but it is much more difficult to track at the pump
or the tailpipe, those.
Is there any reason--well, I am going to--I will defer. The
question would run us into far more than--the question I was
going to ask is there is a lot of folks in this town wedded to
cap-and-trade. I think there is a legitimate argument that the
complexities of a cap-and-trade system along the lines of what
Mr. Bilbray presented might cause us to suggest that a carbon
tax is more elegant, more efficient, more defensible in many
ways economically, but I will leave that.
Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Human Contribution of Greenhouse Gases
What percentage of the atmosphere, of the air, what
percentage of that is CO2? Come on. We got the
experts here. What percentage of the air is CO2?
Dr. Gallagher. Approximately 21 percent.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Twenty-one percent of the air is
CO2?
Dr. Gallagher. No, no. That is----
Dr. Heber. CO2 is approximately, around 400 PPM,
which is around----
Dr. Gallagher. Point 03 percent.
Dr. Heber. Point 03?
Mr. Rohrabacher. So it is not 21 percent. It is .0--what
was that? Three? Point 03 percent of the--what we are studying
is CO2.
Dr. Heber. Dr. Gallagher, you were talking about oxygen,
weren't you? Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Now----
Dr. Gallagher. O2.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. CO2. Of that CO2
how much of that--now, we have--we keep hearing this other 20
percent figure that the United States is responsible for 20
percent of the CO2. Well, that really isn't the
case, is it? Of the CO2 that is 20 percent of the
man-made CO2. Correct? And how much of that .03
percent of that, how much of that is man made?
Dr. MacDonald. The--about a third of it, Congressman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. MacDonald. So we started----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we agree? Is that agreed with the
panel? That is a lot higher than anything--I have been through
many hearings like this. The biggest thing I have ever heard is
five to 10 percent. Now you are saying it has gone up to 30
percent. Is that right?
Dr. MacDonald. Congressman, we started at 280 when we
started putting industrial gases in, and we are now at 385, so
it is approximately a third.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the panel agrees with that? A third of
all the CO2 that is being put into the atmosphere
comes from human sources. Is that agreed? Agree with that?
Okay. I don't hear any--what about you? Do you agree with that?
Okay.
That is contrary, let me just note that that is contrary to
what has been testified before this committee on several
occasions by other scientists. But--so it is one-third of the
.03, so you say .01 is what human beings are contributing to
this. Is that what you are saying? Is that right?
Dr. MacDonald. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, and .01 and of that 20 percent of
that is America's contribution of that. That would be--I am
not--it is miniscule, ultra miniscule, and the changes the you
would expect that we can actually change the amount of CO2
through severe regulation or whatever cap-and-trade or
whatever, what percentage of that human contribution to
CO2 could we expect to see without destroying the
economy, et cetera, which we have heard about? What is the
percentage would you expect that we would be able to eliminate?
Are we talking about just setting the cap on where it is now?
Are we talking about actually decreasing it? How much could we
decrease it without hurting our economy? Maybe 10 percent or 20
percent of what we are currently contributing? Would that be
fair?
In other words, are we expecting a 10 to 20 percent
decrease of what we are currently contributing? Would that be
something that would not be so catastrophic to our economy that
it would damage the standard of living of our people? And then
what percentage of that, what percentage of that is the
percentage that we are talking about in the air? What kind of
contribution would that make?
I think what we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, is a
massive effect on the lives of our people and a miniscule, if
not even recordable, impact on the amount of CO2
going into the air. It is very easy to say, oh, the United
States put 20 percent of the CO2 into the air, as if
that is a huge impact on the air, but what we are now seeing
that just represents a very tiny, insignificant part of what is
going on on this planet in terms of air.
Were there other times before humankind even existed when
the CO2 was a lot higher than that? How much higher
was it in the past even before human beings existed?
Dr. MacDonald. Congressman, in the last several hundred
thousand years we are well above what we were in----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
Dr. MacDonald.--very ancient times----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Uh-huh.
Dr. MacDonald.--say 100 million years ago. There were
higher amount than there are now.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Right. And in terms of the history
of the planet, you know, we are talking about the last 5,000
years as being, you know, a very miniscule part of the history
of the planet. In the history of the planet there have been
times when say 100 million years ago what level of CO2
was in the air at that time?
Dr. MacDonald. Congressman, in ancient history like 100
million years ago there was significantly higher than there is
now.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. I have heard, you know, perhaps
four or five times the amount, maybe even ten times the amount.
During that time period did plants--oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Baird. That is all right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could I ask one last-minute--did plants
and animal life thrive during that time period, or was there
some huge problem that plagued humankind so the plants were
less abundant and the animals were less healthy?
By the way, I am sorry I have used my time. Obviously the
answer is----
Mr. Baird. It is a dangerous thing----
Mr. Rohrabacher.--there were abundance of dinosaurs and
other animals and an abundance of plant life, and that is why
this issue is a threat.
Mr. Baird. It is a dangerous thing when someone has already
exceeded their time limit by a minute and a half and they begin
to ask you about the Mesozoic Era.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Bilbray for five minutes and beyond.
Mr. Bilbray. For the record it was extra-terrestrial
intervention that eliminated that dinosaur, not the CO2
level. Okay. So, we can agree on that.
My question, Dr. MacDonald, is your baseline. You assume
that everything above our baseline when we start testing is man
induced. Right?
Dr. MacDonald. The predominance of the CO2 added
is man induced.
Mr. Bilbray. Okay. So that assumption sort of really moves
towards the one extreme of an assumption rather than mostly
because it is hard to quantify how much of the natural
fluctuation is going on because we haven't had measurements.
Right? We don't have a history of measurements prior to the
baseline.
Dr. MacDonald. We really have quite a good history in the
ice cores, Congressman.
Mr. Bilbray. Okay. The--and it is the ice cores that we are
looking at. I am just looking at two issues that really kind of
frustrate me with our policy is that we keep talking about the
28 percent of mobile sources and developing technology to
address those as the Chairman pointed out, at the same time
that we have the technology to eliminate 38 percent of just the
stationary sources at the same time, you know, I guess what is
it, black fuel they were talking about, Mr. Chairman? Trying to
eliminate the credit for it?
Mr. Baird. They have already kept it out of the bill. The
current bill would say that forest biomass from federal
forests----
Mr. Bilbray. Yeah.
Mr. Baird.--does not count towards renewable fuel.
Mr. Bilbray. And the term black fuel or whatever they call
it.
Mr. Baird. Well, it is a--it could be that. It depends on
how you process it.
Mr. Bilbray. That is one of the things.
Mr. Baird. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray. But it is that kind of winners and losers we
get into rather than looking at outcome.
Closing
One of the things that I really encourage with your science
and let me just tell you this from practical knowledge, a huge
mistake we made in California was assuming that our modeling,
that our original assumptions were right. We were operating off
of tailpipe emissions when we were working on automobile
industry, and I think you will agree we are light years ahead
of a lot of other people. I think there is over a third of the
states are following our new emission standards.
But one of the things that really helped us get back on
track that we were totally off, the so-called experts were dead
wrong about was we grossly underestimated evaporation of
emissions with automobiles, and the only reason why we were
able to detect that failure is that we had remote sensing that
detected that our emission reductions did not reflect our
modeling standards. That is something that the experts were
wrong, and the ability to go back and be able to do a reality
check is why your industry or your science is so important.
Because so often we love to make these assumptions and then--
and not go back to make sure that, as good scientists would,
that our assumptions can be proven not just in the laboratory
but in real-world applications.
And there was a great example where the evaporative
emission issue was so grossly underestimated, it was like 85
percent, that the air quality was not improving in the LA area
basin, even though we had done extraordinary improvements with
the tailpipe emissions.
And I would just like to point that out, Mr. Chairman,
because I think a lot of people--I do not want to see us
spending millions, if not billions of dollars about arguing the
climate change issue. I want us to get--use that money to
research what is and isn't working, where it is working, and
continue to talk about the issue of what can be done to reduce
it.
And I will say it again and again and again. I really
resent the fact that this town is into winners, picking winners
and losers on this issue rather than going with the good
science. And the Chairman has been very cooperative with me,
being brave enough for us to talk about the outcome is what
matters, not who contributes to it and who is supposedly a good
guy and who is a bad guy. And that is the frustration I have
working again and again on this issue is everybody is looking--
the bill that is being proposed on this Floor as pointed out by
the Chairman is picking winners and losers based on some
assumption that to me does not reflect the science that you
are--you have presented to us on a lot of things and other
scientists have presented to us.
And what I hate is it is being done under the guise of
science, under the guise of saving the planet, and frankly--I
will use the term I am sick of a town full of environmental
Jimmy Swaggerts who wrap themselves in green blankets and claim
that God demands that we give their money to them because they
will save the earth, when, in fact, the science doesn't reflect
that. And I think a lot of us got to be brave enough--and the
challenge to you as scientists being willing to stand up and
say what is not politically correct at the moment or acceptable
among certain groups, being able to say here is the science,
and that science leads me to an assumption that the system or
those who are trying to say they are addressing the problem are
not working with that.
And I appreciate the chance to jump into this again, Mr.
Chairman, but I just think we got to stand up and say the
emperor has no clothes on this issue. This is a crisis we need
to address. We need to address it with real answers, not
manufactured ones that reflect some agenda that has been
sitting around for 30 years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.
I think at this point we will thank our witnesses and thank
those others in attendance, thank the colleagues on the panel,
and I appreciate very much your insightful and informative
testimony. The hearing will stand adjourned. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Alexander E. ``Sandy'' MacDonald, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes,
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Dr. MacDonald, in your testimony, you state that the only way to
prove that any greenhouse gas reduction policies are actually working
is through reporting and measurement of human-caused emissions.
Q1a. Do you consider emissions as a result of land-use change as
human-caused? How are the indirect emissions associated with land-use
change measured?
A1a. Land-use change as referred to in my testimony and in discussions
of climate change is human-caused. Emissions from land-use change
usually result from conversion of forests or other natural systems into
agricultural land, or conversion of agricultural land into cities and
suburbs. Other phenomena, such as desertification (i.e., the extreme
deterioration of land in arid and dry sub-humid areas due to loss of
vegetation and soil moisture), include a significant human-caused
component. Human-caused land-use change can also reduce emissions. For
example, carbon sequestration through reforestation is one strategy for
reducing the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
There are a number of ways emissions associated with land-use are
measured and understood. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Assessment Report (IPCC-AR4) evaluated a multitude of
published, peer-reviewed, scientific reports and determined that about
20% of the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the
1990s could be traced to land-use change; the remainder could be
attributed to fossil-fuel emissions and cement production. Making such
a determination requires information from individual ecosystems (e.g.,
forest and soil carbon inventories), chemical/isotopic information on
emissions, and comprehensive measurements of atmospheric components. It
is the combination of these approaches that allows such assessments to
be made with a high degree of confidence. Without such a comprehensive
approach, it is difficult to assess with certainty the influence of the
locations, types, and distributions of emissions on the global
atmosphere.
Measurements are typically classified by the scientific community
as ``top-down'' or ``bottom-up.'' Common ``bottom-up'' measurements
include source-specific emissions measurements, inventory-based
reporting and accounting processes, which measure the amount and
estimate relative contributions of different emissions on local-to
regional-scales. ``Top down'' measurements calculate emissions from
measured global burdens, atmospheric gradients, and atmospheric
lifetimes. Bottom-up approaches generally provide more accurate
measurements of individual and aggregate emissions sources. Top-down
approaches typically provide a more robust estimate of total, global
emissions or uptake because they look at the overall picture, whereas
bottom-up approaches typically provide more robust estimates of the
contribution of specific sources and sinks within countries and other
political jurisdictions. To fully understand the impact of emissions
and the effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, a
combination of top-down and bottom-up measurements should be utilized.
For example, recent advances in measurement technology and modeling
techniques have allowed regional estimates of emissions from top-down
analyses to verify regional or national bottom-up inventories.
Q1b. What about from agricultural by-products such as livestock
manure?
A1b. Besides CO2, the other two major long-lived greenhouse
gases emitted as a results of land use change and agricultural
activity--are methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide. The IPCC-AR4
notes that while ``the global increases in carbon dioxide concentration
are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change . . . those of
methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.'' Livestock
manure management, fertilizer application, tilling and growing
practices are all human activities that lead to the emission of
greenhouse gases.
Emissions produced by agricultural activities and by-products are
measured through both bottom-up and top-down approaches. The IPCC
conclusions are derived from an abundance of published studies,
particularly those including isotopes, which allow scientists to
identify and quantify the sources of these emissions. These studies
involve from measurements associated with the atmosphere, ecosystem
types, and specific human activities.
Q1c. Forest fires can be generated through either natural or human-
induced means. How would these be counted?
A1c. For the purpose of national GHG reporting, emissions from forest
wildfire, no matter whether of natural or man-caused origins, are
currently included if they occur/are on ``managed lands'' and are not
included otherwise. (Managed forest lands include all forests in the
lower contiguous 48 States). Annual wildfire emissions are area-based,
derived from estimates of area burned and estimates of average
emissions per area from fire. These two numbers are multiplied together
to arrive at an emissions due to fires estimate. Wildfire emissions
from interior Alaska and rangelands have not historically been included
in the estimates because it has only been in the last few years the
entire land-base has been considered as good practice. Prescribed fire
emissions are included also in the national inventories based on the
same approach and data sources.
Q2. You state that NOAA maintains a ``dense observation system in
North America.'' Please describe what you mean by dense.
Q2a. What types of monitoring and observational sensors are currently
deployed in North America?
A2a. The NOAA observation system in North America is ``dense'' in that
there are many more sites per unit area over North America than there
are in the rest of NOAA's network. NOAA's sites constitute over half of
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)'s network for long-term
global monitoring of greenhouse gases.
As part of its global monitoring network across North America, NOAA
deploys tall tower systems, routinely deploys monitoring aircraft, and
maintains surface sampling sites. Each tall tower system continuously
monitors CO2 and carbon monoxide (CO) at several heights
from the ground up to 1,500 feet. Additionally, flasks are collected
twice daily at these sites to obtain measures of other greenhouse gases
and tracers and are subsequently analyzed for as many as 50 atmospheric
gases and isotopic tracers. Aircraft fly every two weeks at each of our
aircraft sites, filling flasks at 12 heights from take off up to
25,000-30,000 ft. These flasks are similarly analyzed for the full
suite of greenhouse gases and tracers. NOAA also maintains one baseline
observatory in North America in Barrow, Alaska.
In addition to these atmospheric observing sites maintained by
NOAA, the Ameriflux program, primarily funded by the Department of
Energy, operates a number of sites for measuring CO2 fluxes
from ecosystems. These measurements, though very useful, are not
currently configured in such a way as to achieve the high quality,
large footprint, and measurement continuity of the NOAA atmospheric
observing network. NOAA is working with its Ameriflux partners to
modify their sites to contribute measurements that also could be of use
for top down inversions. NOAA also conducts flux measurements at some
of these sites.
Q2b. How many sensors are there? How many per square mile?
A2b. Currently there are about 30 independent NOAA sampling sites in
North America, which would represent about 300,000 square miles per
sampling site, on average, if the sites were evenly spaced. Due to the
scientific sampling design described in Question 2c that is used to
site these sensors based on numerous factors including geography, the
spacing of sensors on a per square mile basis is not evenly distributed
across North America. A ``per square mile'' average, therefore, is not
a useful descriptor of system coverage.
Q2c. What protocols were used to determine their placement?
A4c. The overall sampling design for North America, including the
approximate number and location of air sampling sites, was developed
with the U.S. scientific community and reported in the U.S. Carbon
Cycle Science Plan (1999), the Report on the North American Carbon
Program (2002), and the Science Implementation Strategy for the North
American Carbon Program (2005). These reports were prepared by an
interagency and multi-university group under the authority of the U.S.
Global Change Research Program. As sites are added and models improved,
however, site locations are adjusted to ensure maximum representation
of each monitoring site in a comprehensive analysis. This is done with
several considerations, but observing system simulation experiments are
part of that process.
Q2d. Is the observation system complete enough to be considered an
operational asset? What type of upgrades would be needed to make the
system operational? How long would that take to implement? How much
would it cost? Does your observation system interact, complement or
easily integrate with observation systems built by other Federal
Agencies? What is needed to make that happen?
A2d. While still considered a research and development, rather than a
operational asset due to its low density, NOAA's observation system has
provided a half century of highly accurate, globally distributed
measurements that are routine, well calibrated, compared through a
strong quality assurance program, and interconnected with and driving
the course of the international observational network for greenhouse
gases through the WMO. Up-to-date data from the network are available
on the internet and dozens of publications using these data have been
produced each year for decades. NOAA's CO2 and CH4
measurements are considered the ``gold standard'' for global
measurements; its network is unparalleled. However, the network must be
expanded and strengthened if it is to serve in an operational capacity.
For NOAA's observation system to be transitioned from research and
development to an operational system that can discern the effectiveness
of individual greenhouse gas mitigation strategies or the relative
success of such efforts in specific regions, the network would need to
be roughly 10 times denser than that of today. More broadly, at an
interagency level, an operational system would also require higher
resolution global emission transport models, better measurements of
boundary layer meteorology, and higher resolution integrated land
models. Finally, satellite measurements of greenhouse gases today are
in their infancy and need to address issues of accuracy, precision,
atmospheric interference, and regional bias. These improvements could
enhance spatial coverage of CO2, CH4, and
possibly other greenhouse gases. Validating satellite measurements
properly will require a globally coherent observation and analysis
system of surface- and aircraft-based measurements. Satellite
measurements, once sufficiently precise and stable, could be
particularly valuable for covering areas where ground-based or aircraft
measurements are limited, but they will need to work together with a
surface-based network, as is done for other satellite observations.
Existing information and measurement capabilities are adequate to
support the initiation of national climate policies. The comprehensive
interagency effort described above to improve our understanding of and
ability to measure stocks and flows of carbon and nitrogen at global,
regional and local scales will be important for building confidence
among decision-makers and the public that we can assess whether our
emission reduction and sequestration programs are effective towards
mitigating climate change. We envision these tools ultimately being
integrated into a comprehensive operational system of measurements.
This must be an interagency effort, as capabilities are spread
among US agencies.
Q2e. Does your observation system duplicate observation or monitoring
activities in other Federal agencies?
A2e. No, NOAA's observation system does not duplicate observation or
monitoring activities in other Federal agencies. Observation and
monitoring activities in other Federal agencies are generally
complimentary to NOAA's observation system. In addition, we continue to
work and collaborate with other Federal agencies engaged in greenhouse
gas observation or monitoring to enhance our nation's greenhouse gas
monitoring and observation network. For example, part of the NOAA
greenhouse gas observation system's quality control requires comparison
of results from independent measurement systems to ensure we are all on
the right track. The National Science Foundation's program funds
research involving longer-term greenhouse gas measurements of CO2
at several sites, which is critical to that quality assurance effort
for CO2.
Similarly, the Department of Energy (DOE)'s Ameriflux system
measures fluxes of CO2 to improve ``bottom-up'' estimates;
it does not duplicate NOAA's measurements, but rather is complementary.
Ameriflux measurements, although extremely useful, are not currently
configured in comparable quality, large footprint, and measurement
continuity as the NOAA atmospheric observing network. NOAA is working
with its Ameriflux partners to modify their sites to contribute
measurements that also could be of use for top down inversions, thus
improving the overall network.
Q3. The level of investment necessary to achieve significant emission
reductions will be enormous. If the only verification of reduction
policies is the fact that they are being complied with and not that
they are actually helping to mitigate climate change, how can we be
assured that the investments we make are the right ones?
A3. The IPCC-AR4 determined that costs for addressing climate change
through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2050
range from an increase of 1% to a decrease of 5.5% of the global GDP,
depending upon region, approaches taken, and the target value for
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Models deriving these costs,
however, do not consider the value of climate and economic benefits of
mitigation measures, which could be significant.
The scientific evidence is very strong that the pronounced warming
of the last part of the 20th century, continuing into the 21St, has
been and is being driven primarily by the build-up in the atmosphere of
CO2 and other heat-trapping gases and particles caused by
human activities.
There is however a distinction that needs to be made between
ensuring that reduction policies are working (i.e., reductions are in
fact taking place), and that the impacts of these policies are having
their intended impact on the global climate system. On the first
question, the federal government has a number of existing systems in
place to accomplish much of the first task, including the national
inventory and facility-level reporting, although there are improvements
that will be needed, particularly with respect to land-use and
agriculture. These improvements can be achieved through a thoughtful
combination of bottom-up and top-down techniques that will necessarily
vary depending on the nature of the sources and types of policies in
place.
On the second question, how we detect changes in the climate as a
result of emissions reductions will be addressed by numerous, diverse
studies as has been done for the past several decades. Climate change
is made evident not only by an overall temperature increase, but by
melting of glaciers around the world, larger and more sustained extreme
weather events, disrupted ecosystems, reduced water supplies,
agricultural impacts, sea level rise, etc., as summarized and evaluated
in the IPCC and national assessments. These assessments, driven by
thousands of peer-reviewed publications, are typically performed every
four years, although capturing sustained changes in climate trends due
to human influences would likely require a longer term record of
observations. Tackling human-caused climate change is a process that
will require decades, at a minimum, so quadrennial evaluations of
emission reduction strategies and climate change will be immensely
valuable to society during the coming century.
Q4. Dr. MacDonald, in your testimony you state that objective,
credible and specific information about the effectiveness of mitigation
efforts is necessary to guide national policies. However, you also
state that we cannot expect to see the effects of reduced emissions
immediately on the rate of climate change. How do you reconcile these
two concepts?
A4. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change has a
built-in time delay--analogous to the time lag between when you turn up
the dial on your electric blanket versus the time when the blanket
actually reaches the selected temperature. In the Earth System, the
amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is the setting on the dial,
whereas climate change represents the ultimate temperature of the
blanket. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are an attempt to
stop turning up the dial. Effective greenhouse gas monitoring and
information are critical to determining whether those efforts are
succeeding, in other words,--is the dial continuing to be turned up and
if so, what is causing it and how fast is it turning? This verification
system does not verify the final temperature of the blanket (i.e., the
ultimate climate change effects), but rather helps us determine what is
working to stop the dial from turning up. Other information systems can
provide the information on climate change effects, although this one
would help in parts of those efforts as well.
Between now and roughly 2020, we have the opportunity to enhance
our current observation and analysis capability and our understanding
of tradeoffs and offsets to a level that will be needed over the
subsequent decades. We also will establish baselines and gain
information along the way that will help inform the relative success of
early efforts. The myriad efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and the skill with which we will be able to verify those successes will
evolve and improve together with time.
Q5. Dr. MacDonald, you state that NOAA's science-based effort for
monitoring greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere requires
sustained, comparable measurements at an accuracy level of 0.05% or
better. If this is the level of accuracy that NOAA has achieved for
monitoring greenhouse gas emissions for scientific reasons, could the
same level of accuracy be attained in monitoring greenhouse gas
emissions in the bottom-up, individual source level that would form the
basis for any mandatory emission reduction policy?
A5. The accuracies referred to in the question are for measurements of
atmospheric concentrations, not source-specific emissions. Fortunately,
bottom-up measurements of individual sources of CO2. for
example, do not require the high degree of accuracy required by
atmospheric top down measurements of concentrations. The amount of
CO2 in a given volume of emissions from a power plant is
proportionately huge compared to the amount of CO2 that
resides in the same volume of the atmosphere, on average. Because
CO2 readily disperses in the atmosphere after it is emitted,
a much higher degree of accuracy is required to measure its atmospheric
concentration, relative to the accuracy required to measure its
emission at the source. A limitation of bottom-up measurements,
however, is the accuracy of global estimates that are derived by
extrapolating with bottom-up measurements.
For example, some greenhouse gas inventory estimates (e.g.,
transportation) do not require actual measurements, but rather are
based on aggregate motor vehicle fuel consumption statistics. Others,
such as estimates of forest carbon uptake, require considerable
assumption about trunk and root storage. Further, emissions from soils
are broadly dispersed and not readily suited to simple bottom-up
measurements, and are typically addressed in greenhouse gas inventories
using soil process models. Finally, as noted in the answer to question
lb, methane and nitrous oxide emissions derive mainly from wetlands and
agriculture. Bottom-up measurements of these emissions, while immensely
valuable for understanding processes, have significant limitations with
respect to capturing regional-scale or even global scale information.
Despite their limitations, these bottom-up measurements are
extremely valuable and provide information at source-specific and local
to regional scales that are not attainable with top-down measurements.
It is only through a combination of top-down and bottom-up
measurements; however, that we will be able to attain the accurate
measures from source to regional to global scales that decision-makers
and the public will ultimately want.
Q6. If there is currently no greenhouse gas monitoring network large
enough for CarbonTracker to provide fine scale resolution with low
uncertainty, what would it take to get such a network in place? How
long would it take and much would it cost?
A6. Please also see response to questions 2d and 3.
As I noted in my written testimony, NOAA's CarbonTracker tool is
widely acknowledged as the most open and effective approach to date for
estimating CO2 emissions and uptake, particularly at large
spatial scales. When fully developed, CarbonTracker will make it
possible to track regional emissions of CO2 over long
periods of time and to determine which areas are absorbing CO2
from the atmosphere. Under its current configuration, CarbonTracker is
effective in capturing large-scale, North American phenomena. A ``top
down'' system like CarbonTracker helps independently validate the
combined fluxes calculated from ``bottom up'' efforts such as estimated
and measured fossil fuel emissions and biological sources. If estimates
of sources and sinks do not agree with measured atmospheric
concentrations, the ``top down'' approach provides the information
needed to continually improve our understanding of the carbon cycle.
This must be an interagency effort, as the capabilities are spread
among US agencies.
Q7. With the reduced functionality of the GOES-R satellite series, the
never-ending problems with NPOESS that have jeopardized the ability of
the program to succeed and the loss of NASA's Orbiting Carbon
Observatory, how do these setbacks affect NOAA's ability to rely on
space-based observations? How does this affect your assessment about
NOAA's ability to assist in the development of an accurate baseline and
maintaining of data continuity?
A7. Despite the challenges that NOAA, NASA and the Department of
Defense are facing with the National Polar-Orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program, the data that will
result from the NPOESS instruments will significantly advance the
ability to monitor global weather and climate. Similarly, NOAA and NASA
are developing the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites-R
series (GOES-R) program which will advance weather forecasting
capabilities beyond what current geostationary weather satellites
provide. NASA is currently assessing the next steps regarding the
Orbiting Carbon Observatory and NOAA awaits its decision.
NOAA currently monitors the climate from a variety of ground-based,
space-based, and airborne platforms. Existing platforms contribute
significantly to an accurate greenhouse gas baselines. In fact, data
continuity over time is guaranteed by the ground-based network, rather
than the spacebased network. The GOES-R and NPOESS operational
satellites and NASA's research satellites will provide advancements
over the current monitoring platforms by providing enhanced data in
areas that are remote and sparsely sampled. These new data sources will
complement and improve NOAA's existing global observing capabilities.
As such, NOAA will continue to use existing platforms to monitor
climate changes and as data from the NPOESS, GOES-R, and NASA research
satellite become available, NOAA will incorporate these data into its
existing monitoring systems.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Q1. If the rate of climate change is such that we will not see the
effects of emission reductions except through monitoring and
verification of anthropogenic emissions, how will science determine
that the actions taken are actually effective? What type of time lag
are we talking about here?
A1. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change has a
built-in time delay--analogous to the time lag between when you turn up
the dial on your electric blanket versus the time when the blanket
actually reaches the selected temperature. In the Earth System, the
amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is the setting on the dial,
whereas climate change represents the ultimate temperature of the
blanket. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are an attempt to
stop turning up the dial. Effective greenhouse gas monitoring and
information are critical to determining whether those efforts are
succeeding, in other words,--is the dial continuing to be turned up and
if so, what is causing it and how fast is it turning? This verification
system does not verify the final temperature of the blanket (i.e., the
ultimate climate change effects), but rather helps us determine what is
working to stop the dial from turning up.
How fast climate itself is changing and how we detect it will be
addressed by numerous, diverse studies as has been done for the past
several decades. Climate change is expressed not only by an overall
temperature increase, but by melting of glaciers around the world,
larger and more sustained extremes in weather and climate, disrupted
ecosystems, reduced water supplies, agricultural impacts, sea level
rise, etc., as summarized and evaluated in the IPCC and national
assessments. These assessments, driven by thousands of peer-reviewed
publications, are typically performed every four years, although
capturing sustained changes in climate trends due to human influences
would likely require a longer term record of observations. It is
important to keep in mind, however, that tackling human-caused climate
change is a process that will require decades, at a minimum, so
quadrennial evaluations of emission reduction strategies and climate
change will be immensely valuable to society during the coming century.
The top-down and bottom up approach discussed in my testimony is
that which will be needed to validate, on regional scales, the
effectiveness of emission reduction and sequestration strategies of
society's choosing. NOAA is in a unique position to contribute to this
need, in addition to analyzing and monitoring the complex reactions of
the climate system to increased greenhouse gases over time. Both
efforts will further inform society's decisions regarding greenhouse
gas emissions and climate change. By monitoring tracers of emissions as
well as greenhouse gases, scientists will be able to determine not only
how greenhouse gas emissions are changing, but what those changes can
be attributed to with respect to changes in the climate.
Q2. What type of research is being conducted that ensures the
investment on the scale of billions and trillions of dollars is
actually in the areas that will have the most impact on mitigating
climate change?
A2. There is little doubt that direct and indirect human emissions of
greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change. Three fundamental
IPCC-AR4 statements together support this: (1) ``warming of the climate
system is unequivocal'', (2) ``most of the observed increase in
globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations,'' and (3) ``carbon dioxide is the most important
anthropogenic greenhouse gas''. Thus, the ``area that will have the
most impact on mitigating climate change'' is that of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, with an emphasis on carbon dioxide.
Considerable research is being conducted, and has been for decades, to
understand the causes and consequences of climate change, leading in
part to the three statements above. In the U.S., much of this research
has been conducted under the authority of the U.S. Global Change
Research Act of 1990 and the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1990. This research
has involved understanding the interactions among atmospheric
greenhouse gases, the ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere and the
relative contribution of human emissions to the current and evolving
atmospheric amounts of these gases. Research to date shows that
CO2 emissions, owing to fossil fuel burning and land use
change, have accelerated over the past 200 years, doubling the rate of
emission three times per century. If society begins making efforts to
change this trend and reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas
emissions, it will be well served by an enhanced monitoring system to
ensure its efforts lead to success.
Q3. In years past we have frequently heard some measure of frustration
from members of the research community about the challenge of
transitioning NASA-developed technologies to an operational user.
Researchers often find immense value in a new NASA-developed sensor,
but then become discouraged when NASA chooses not to develop a serial
mission to ensure a long-term data record. With specific regard to
climate monitoring, measurement and verification, how would you
describe the cooperation between NASA and NOAA on the issue of research
to operations?
A3. NOAA and NASA have had a long history of cooperation and
collaboration pursuing the United States' goal of providing sustained
space-based monitoring of the global environment. NOAA scientists
frequently evaluate the measurements from relevant NASA research
satellites to determine if these research missions could provide
improvements to NOAA's operational products and services. Research
measurements are introduced into NOAA's operational product generation
process as the first stage of a research-to-operations transition. When
research measurements prove to add value to NOAA's operational
services, efforts are initiated to sustain the measurements after
termination of the research mission. When appropriate, NOAA's National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service develops plans
to bring these measurements into an operational mode either on a NOAA
platform, through partnerships with other space agencies, or through a
data buy from the aerospace industry. The process of transitioning NASA
research satellites to NOAA operations programs involves joint
planning, mitigation, collaboration, and the development of scientific
studies and approaches for coordinating Earth science and operational
Earth monitoring programs.
NOAA works with the research community to ensure that its science
needs are considered in the joint NASA-NOAA planning efforts. NOAA and
NASA have developed and are implementing plans to transition the
following climate measurements, which represent sensors demanifested
from the NPOESS platform, from research to operational space missions:
- Altimetry measurements
- Total Solar Irradiance measurements
- Earth radiation budget measurements
- Ozone measurements
NOAA and NASA are doing collaborative planning that could support a
transition of other measurements to operations platforms in the future.
NOAA and NASA agree that the current research to operations
transition planning is exploratory. Institutionalizing a robust and
routine transition process requires additional work. Both agencies have
benefited from clear recommendations provided by the National Academies
of Science and the research community to improve this process. An
example of a successful NOAA-NASA-Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
collaboration is the monitoring of depletion of stratospheric ozone
over Antarctica. Title VI of the Clean Air Act of 1990 required U.S.
agencies to marshal their resources and bring their capabilities to
bear on the problem of stratospheric ozone depletion. This section was
placed in the Act in support of the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete Ozone, an international agreement to which the United
States is a party. Scientific analysis has shown that human emissions
of chlorofluorocarbons and a few other gases were primarily responsible
for changing the chemistry of the stratosphere in such a way as to
rapidly and deleteriously deplete Earth's protective ozone layer.
Congress authorized EPA to regulate emissions and, in Section 603 of
the Clean Air Act, NOAA and NASA to monitor and report on ozone and
ozone depleting substances in the atmosphere. A combination of EPA's
regulation and bottom-up inventories with NOAA and NASA's satellite
monitoring and assessments was necessary for success. Today, the long-
lived, ozone-depleting compounds are decreasing in the atmosphere, the
ozone hole has virtually stabilized, and we anticipate complete
recovery in several decades.
Part of the complex space-based and in-situ monitoring effort to
address atmospheric ozone depletion involved using NOAA's operational
satellites and NASA research satellites, in conjunction with NOAA's
world-wide network of ground-based spectrometers and its World
Calibration Center for ozone to ensure consistency and enable
improvement of satellite ozone measurements over the years. We
anticipate a similar arrangement with greenhouse gases and look forward
to working with NASA in this effort. NOAA will continue to provide
space-based ozone monitoring capabilities on its next generation polar-
orbiting satellites.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Beverly Law, Professor, Department of Forest
Ecosystems and Society; Science Chair, AmeriFlux Network,
Oregon State University
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Many people look to forestry and agriculture as potential sources
of carbon credits. Planting trees, switching to no-till farming
practices and other projects are seen as a low-hanging fruit for
greenhouse gas reductions. If you are unable to take direct
measurements, how are these reductions verified? What would this mean
in terms of generating offset credits in a mandatory regulatory regime?
A1. Because direct measurements do not cover 100% of the land surface,
inventories and eddy covariance data need to be supplemented with
moderate and high resolution remote sensing data and models to map
carbon stocks and fluxes. The change in carbon flux say five years
after planting a forest would be based on the same methods used for the
baseline, thus the uncertainty would be related to change in area (from
remote sensing data) that has been treated for the project. That
uncertainty is estimated to be 10-25%. It would require annual to bi-
annual monitoring with remote sensing data that are used to determine
area afforested or deforested as input to modeling that produces the
carbon stocks and flux estimates. In terms of generating offset
credits, monitoring and audits of carbon sequestration will be
necessary to determine status of carbon uptake, insurance will be
necessary to protect past carbon sequestration from destruction by fire
or windstorms, and penalty payments will be necessary if the forest is
eventually cut. Such efforts will be costly to administer, diminishing
the value of the rather modest carbon credits expected from forestry
(Schlesinger 2006).
Q2. In your testimony, you indicate your organization monitors and
evaluates the effects of changes in land use on carbon dioxide levels.
To what extent is such monitoring being done in developing countries
and how confident are you in the accuracy of such measurements?
A2. The distribution of flux sites is determined by national scientific
research programs, with a relatively large number in many developed
countries, but few or none in developing countries. China and India
recently started their own networks. Over the past 10 years, the number
of sites in the global network has increased to over 400 sites
worldwide with 103 in the AmeriFlux network. The regional networks
operate independently, but protocols exist or are being developed to
coordinate or standardize measurements across networks for various
purposes. Evaluation of the current global dataset indicates that
annual errors in eddy covariance tower data typically range from 30 to
100 grams carbon per square meter ground per year (Baldocchi 2008). The
AmeriFlux network has a quality assurance group to help reduce
measurement and analysis error, but many developing countries do not
have this, so I would think the accuracy of measurements at recently
installed sites in developing countries would not be as good as in the
U.S. if they do not have a QA program. Currently, uncertainties in
national inventories for the net CO2 emissions from
agriculture, forestry, and other land use often range from 50% to more
than 100% using inventory data for the estimates and this could be
reduced by incorporating eddy covariance data and remote sensing data
in ecosystem modeling, as noted earlier.
Q3. Dr. Gallagher indicated that we have not yet developed
quantification systems for continuous monitoring of emissions of
extended geographical areas. How large an area is generally evaluated
by your measurements? To what extent do you think your methods could be
applied to provide measurements on a larger scale?
A3. The spatial scale of observations from one eddy covariance tower is
about one kilometer. However, the information produced at each tower
reaches far beyond its proximate geographical region due to its wider
scale representativeness (Hargrove et al. 2003). The towers provide
valuable information on trends in ecosystem responses to management and
climate, and a subset could be maintained to support verification
research at relatively low cost ($100,000 per station per year). The
greatest value of eddy covariance flux data for global carbon cycle
modeling is evaluating process representation in the models or
assimilation of the data into the models (which is an active area of
research). The integrated methods of combining eddy covariance data,
inventories and modeling could be applied over the U.S. This requires
sustained observations over the long-term for the remote sensing data
such as Landsat (extending beyond the Landsat Data Continuity Mission),
the eddy covariance data, and improvements in the forest inventories
for better carbon accounting.
Citations
Baldocchi, D.D. 2008. `Breathing' of the Terrestrial Biosphere:
Lessons Learned from a Global Network of Carbon Dioxide Flux
Measurement Systems. Australian Journal of Botany 56:1-26.
Hargrove, W.W., F.M. Hoffman, B.E. Law. 2003. New Analysis Reveals
Representativeness of AmeriFlux Network. EOS Transactions 84:529.
Schlesinger, W.H. 2006. Carbon Trading. Science 314:1217.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Richard A. Birdsey, Project Leader and Scientist, USDA
Forest Service; Chair, Carbon Cycle Scientific Steering Group
Questions submitted by Chair Bart Gordon
Q1. Many people look to forestry and agriculture as potential sources
of carbon credits. Planting trees, switching to no-till farming
practices and other projects are seen as low-hanging fruit for
greenhouse gas reductions. If you are unable to take direct
measurements, how are these reductions verified? What would this mean
in terms of generating off-set credits in a mandatory regulatory
regime?
A1. To estimate greenhouse gas reductions from forestry or agriculture
without taking direct measurements, it is feasible and practical to use
estimated reductions from validated models or default conversion
factors, which are applied to the area of land that is treated. Such
models and conversion factors are widely available for most of the
common practices applied to farms and forests in the U.S., and are
continuously updated as additional measurements and research studies
are implemented. Default conversation factors are available for
afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation. Carbon yield models
would be needed to estimate effects of changes in specific management
practices such as thinning or rotation lengths. As with any estimation
approach, using models or default factors may require verification.
Verification may focus on whether the practice has been appropriately
implemented and the technical greenhouse gas calculation methods
applied correctly, although actual measurement of reductions or
sequestration may be required. Examples of these approaches are
available. The Department of Energy greenhouse gas registry (known as
``1605b) allows reporters to use 3 estimation approaches: direct
measurement, modeling, and default factors. Variations on these 3
approaches are used by California's Climate Action Reserve and the
Chicago Climate Exchange. Generally, uncertainty is likely to be lower
for estimates generated from direct measurements compared against
models or default conversion factors. However, when many projects are
aggregated together, the uncertainty associated with models or default
factors is often less than that of a single project. The value of
offset credits will be quantified using methods consistent with the
rules as stated in the guidelines that are adopted during the rule-
making process, and they will receive credit if the rules and
guidelines are followed.
Complementary to these verification approaches, measurements of
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations can also shed valuable
insight into the effectiveness of greenhouse gas management strategies.
Regional-scale atmospheric greenhouse gas observations can further aid
in the evaluation of how a reduction or offset approach or conglomerate
of approaches is working. Such information can be provided through a
comprehensive, integrated, interagency greenhouse gas observation and
analysis system that can reliably test estimates and models against
long-term atmospheric observations, be they the result of offsets or
emission reductions.
A2. Since the passage of the Renewable Fuel Standard, the numbers of
acres of land that participate in the Conservation Resource Program at
USDA have decreased. How has this changed the amount of carbon that is
able to be stored in America's farmlands?
A2. There are several factors that influence the amount of carbon
stored in farmland vegetation and soil. These include the land use,
tillage practice, crop rotation, and conservation management system
employed. Your question refers to the farmland land use, and in
particular the land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve program (CRP).
Enrollment in the CRP has declined from 36.8 million acres at the
close of fiscal year 2007 to 31.1 million acres in October, 2009 (Table
1), a 5.7 million acre decline. This decline is a net of the contract
expiration for 6.5 million acres plus new enrollment of 0.8 million
acres. There are several factors that contribute to this decline. First
although 26 million acres were set to expire between FY 2007 and FY
2009, these acres were all given an opportunity to re-enroll or extend
their contracts, so any expirations during this time were due to
contract holders choosing to opt out of CRP. Second, in late 2006 crop
prices began to increase, peaking in the summer of 2008, so there was
less demand for CRP enrollment. Third, the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 reduced the maximum enrollment in the CRP to 32
million acres as of October 1, 2009.
However, an offer to extend contracts on 1.5 million expiring acres
in FY 2009 resulted in the extension of contracts on 1.1 million acres.
These are included in the October 2009 figure of 31.1 million acres.
When considering the potential for CRP to sequester carbon, it is
important to remember that CRP contracts are not permanent--they last
10-15 years, and after the contract expires, farmers may always choose
to put their land back in production. So CRP per se does not ensure
permanent carbon sequestration. However, the carbon sequestered by CRP
has decreased as the acres enrolled decreased. Between September 2007
and September 2009 annual carbon sequestration on CRP land decreased
3.5 million metric tons, from 50.4 mmt to 46.9 mmt. Another 2.8 million
acres expired on September 30, 2009, reducing estimated carbon
sequestration by an estimated 2.6 mmt to 44.3 mmt.
Q3. Dr. Birdsey, you state ``steps should be taken to better integrate
monitoring programs and close current data gaps'' while discussing
several of NASA's ongoing and future satellite systems. Could you
elaborate on what steps should be taken? Are they specific to NASA, or
are you speaking more broadly?
A3. A recently published paper in Eos (Birdsey et al. 2009) summarizes
the required steps to integrate monitoring programs and close current
data gaps: ``Three major observation systems need improvements and must
be well-coordinated to support climate policy and management for the
remainder of this century: (1) an Earth observing satellite system that
provides continuous measurements of key carbon-related characteristics
of the Earth's atmosphere, ocean, and lands; (2) an integrated
terrestrial observation system of inventories coupled with a
coordinated, permanent network of intensive land and atmosphere
monitoring sites; and (3) a long-term, continuous, in situ ocean
observation system with appropriate sensors and density of monitoring
sites.'' These steps are not specific to NASA, but rather, require
interagency coordination to implement efficiently. The USGS Climate
Effects Network, the NOAA climate services, and integration initiatives
within the Forest Service are examples of agency efforts underway to
build collaborations and fill these data gaps. Additional detail about
each of these steps may be found in the following paper:
Birdsey, Richard, Nick Bates, Mike Behrenfeld, Kenneth Davis, Scott
Doney, Richard Feely, Dennis Hansell, Linda Heath, Eric Kasischke,
Haroon Kheshgi, Beverly Law, Cindy Lee, A. David McGuire, Peter
Raymond, Compton J. Tucker. 2009. Carbon Cycle Observations: Gaps
Threaten Climate Mitigation Policies Eos, Vol. 90, No. 34 p. 292.
Q4. In your testimony, you mention the need to improve data from
forest inventories, carbon in soil, dead wood, and down woody debris.
You also mention that large wildfires and tornadoes present a need for
additional sampling to assess impacts. To what extent has the Forest
Service been able to observe specific changes in greenhouse gas levels
after these events? In your estimation, what are the most important
steps we can take to try to prevent wildfires in order to preserve
these ecosystems and their ability to reduce emissions?
A4. After large disturbance events, the Forest Service Forest Inventory
and Analysis (FLA) program often conducts a special damage assessment
that involves remeasuring permanent monitoring sample plots in the
disturbed area. These are traditional forest inventory remeasurements,
augmented to provide specific information about damage that can be used
to estimate the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases
emitted to the atmosphere during and after the event. Examples include
special inventories conducted after hurricanes Hugo and Katrina, and
after the large blow down event in the Boundary Waters wilderness area.
After large fires on National Forest lands, damage intensity and
restoration needs are assessed. Greenhouse gas emissions from
individual fires are not usually estimated, although some individual
fires have been studied intensively with regard to greenhouse gas
impacts, and a national estimate of greenhouse gas emissions from all
forest fires combined is reported annually in EPA's U.S. greenhouse gas
inventory report. Note that even very large individual disturbance
events will not have a measurable effect on globally averaged
greenhouse gas concentrations, though the emissions from each event may
be estimated. This is because the effect of a single event on the
average concentration of global greenhouse gases is below the detection
threshold of about 1 part per million (for CO2).
Many ecosystems are naturally dependent on fire, so their viability
may be best served by facilitating fires of a frequency and intensity
that are consistent with these dependencies. Because fire has been
suppressed for a long time in many areas, fuels (and carbon stock) have
built up to very high levels. It may be impossible to return these
ecosystems to a more natural state without releasing some stored carbon
to the atmosphere. This effect can be minimized to some extent when
removed carbon stocks can be substituted for energy from fossil fuels
without requiring large inputs of fossil fuel for transportation of the
wood to the site where it is used.
Regarding steps that can be taken to prevent wildfires, there are 3
major factors that govern the probability of a wildfire: weather, fuel,
and ignition. Since we cannot control the weather, prevention is
focused on managing fuels and human-caused ignitions. Of these,
strategic management of fuels areas is probably the best approach.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Director, Earth Science Division,
Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. What is notional time and cost required to re-fly OCO, and how
would it compare with other similar sensors, such as the ASCENDS or the
LDCM missions?
A1. Following the loss of OCO in February 2009, the mission's science
team concluded that an OCO reflight or a functionally equivalent
mission was necessary to advance carbon cycle science and to provide
the basis for thoughtful policy decisions and societal benefits, In
response, NASA evaluated a range of options to develop and launch a
replacement instrument or acquire data from international missions. Of
the options under consideration, the most mature and best-understood
option is to rebuild an OCO mission with as few changes as possible and
launch the so-called ``Carbon Copy'' into its planned orbit as an
element of the ``A-Train.'' Such a mission would have a development
time of 28 months and cost approximately $331M. NASA also evaluated
either co-manifesting an OCO standalone mission on a shared launch
vehicle with LDCM or flying an OCO-Thermal Infrared Sensor (TMRS)
mission, but concluded that such options would have higher costs,
increased technical risk, and would likely delay the launch of LDCM;
these mission scenarios are no longer under consideration.
ASCENDS has a different mission concept and uses a different
technology (i.e. lasers) to measure concentrations of CO2
than OCO. When the ASCENDS mission was proposed in the 2007 Earth
Science Decadal Survey, the NRC estimated that the mission would cost
on the order of $400M and should launch in the 2013-2016 timeframe.
Further study by NASA has estimated the rough life cycle cost estimate
of ASCENDS to be $470M. The technology development advances required
for the lasers on the ASCENDS mission preclude its early flight within
the next several years, until at least 2015, although budget
constraints could further delay the mission. It is important to note
that NASA does not formally commit to a mission's cost and schedule
until Key Decision Point (KDP)-C.
Q2. The Earth Sciences Decadal Survey recommended the ASCENDS mission
to fly in the 2013-2016 timeframe. What are NASA's plans with respect
to ASCENDS? Is the agency committed to flying the mission?
A2. NASA is committed to the Decadal Survey priorities and mission
sequence. Thus, as a Tier 2 recommended mission, NASA is committed to
developing ASCENDS for flight after the Tier 1 missions.
To lay the foundation for the ASCENDS mission, NASA sponsored an
open science workshop in June 2008 in order to solicit feedback on the
science goals, technology needs, and mission design options associated
with the mission. In April 2009, NASA sponsored an observing system
simulation experiment coordination meeting. Through NASA Earth
Science's technology programs, NASA is investing in technology
development efforts for the CO2 column LIDAR, the corrugated
mirror telescope, and the optical receiver. In summer 2009, NASA
conducted airborne flights over the Total Carbon Column Observing
Network (TCCON) in-situ CO2 profile measurement site in
Oklahoma to examine different measurement techniques. Future flights
are planned in summer 2010 to test other measurement technologies. NASA
is funding all Tier II mission early pre-formulation studies at $2M/
year for each mission in FY 2010. A workshop will be held in FY 2010 to
prepare draft Level I requirements for ASCENDS, examine pathways for
further technology development, and initiate further studies.
Q3. In years past we have frequently heard some measure of frustration
from members of the research community about the challenge of
transitioning NASA-developed technologies to an operational user.
Researchers often find immense value in a new NASA-developed sensor,
but then become discouraged when NASA chooses not to develop a serial
mission to ensure a long-term data record. With specific regard to
climate monitoring, measurement and verification, how would you
describe the cooperation between NASA and NOAA on the issue of research
to operations?
A3. NASA and NOAA actively cooperate through the NASA-NOAA Joint
Working Ground (JWG) on Research and Operations to transition advances
from NASA's research satellites to NOAA. The JWG meets quarterly to
prioritize NASA measurement capabilities for transition to NOAA,
evaluate process, improve the transition process, and examine other
coordination activities. In the area of climate monitoring,
measurement, and verification, NASA and NOAA are working together to
transition sea surface topography measurements, ocean surface vector
wind measurements, ocean color radiometry measurements, and ozone.
Measurements of global sea level variations are an essential
component of any climate change monitoring system. NASA, in
collaboration with the French Space Agency (CNES) pioneered the
measurement of sea surface topography with the Topography Experiment
(TOPEX)/Poseidon mission, launched in 1992, and the Jason mission,
launched in 2001, The follow-on Ocean Surface Topography Mission
(OSTM)/Jason-2 provided the opportunity for NOAA and the European
Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites
(EUMETSAT) to actively partner with NASA and CNES to provide
operational data products to the world's meteorological and
oceanographic forecast agencies. In FY 2009, NOAA concluded that a
follow-on Jason-3 was the optimal platform to measure global sea level
variations. NASA and NOAA agreed that NOAA will assume the lead for the
United States' portion of the mission.
Ocean surface vector winds play a key role in regulating the
Earth's water and energy cycles, which establishes and maintains both
global and regionsl climate. NASA pioneered measurements of ocean
surface vector winds with the Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT), which was
launched in 1999 and recently ceased functioning. Since NOAA routinely
used QuikSCAT data as an intrinsic part of its weather forecasting, the
two agencies closely collaborated as the satellite's antenna began to
show signs of age and failed to rotate properly. In the near-term,
NOAA, in collaboration with NASA, has engaged in discussions with the
Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to fly a NOAA
scatterometer on the Global Climate Observing Mission--Water (GCOM-W2)
mission. The NRC's Decadal Survey recommended that NOAA take the lead
on the Extended Ocean Vector Winds Mission (XOVWM) and NASA has been
providing its technical expertise to NOAA in support of this mission.
Ocean color measurements provide information on climate change
effects on ocean plankton and the carbon cycle. The Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Instrument on NASA's Terra and Aqua
satellites are currently used to provide this data. The National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
Preparatory Project (NPP) will fly the Integrated Program Office
provided VIIRS instrument, which may continue these measurements.
Beginning in FY 2009, NOAA began to look at alternative means of
acquiring future ocean color measurements. In addition, NASA, NOAA, and
other Federal agencies are supporting the NRC in its assessment of
options to sustain global color measurements that enable continuity
with previous observations and support climate research and operational
requirements.
NASA and NOAA have also collaborated extensively to add
capabilities to NASA's NPP mission in order to maintain data continuity
and advance scientific understanding. For example, when the ozone limb
profiling capability was removed from NPOESS during the Nunn-McCurdy
recertification process, NASA and NOAA collaborated to provide core
funding to allow the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS)-Limb
instrument to be added back. Similarly, NASA and NOAA manifested the
Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) radiation
measurements instrument first demonstrated by NASA on the Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), Terra, and Aqua onto the NPP
mission.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Q1. Dr. Freilich, just last month, a co-chair of the Earth Sciences
Decadal Survey, appearing before another House Committee
(Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies) testified that OCO should not be rebuilt. His rationale was
that new technologies developed since OCO's design would allow for more
precise and broader day/night measurements. Your statement seems to
contradict this advice. How would you respond? Is OCO's sensor
obsolete? What is the trade with using a LIDAR sensor instead of OCO's
passive sensor?
A1. Following the loss of OCO in February 2009, the mission's science
team concluded that an OCO reflight or a functionally equivalent
mission was necessary to advance carbon cycle science and to provide
the basis for thoughtful policy decisions and societal benefits--The
technology development advances required for the lasers on the ASCENDS
mission preclude its flight within the next several years, whereas an
OCO replacement mission could be ready in 28 months. Further, in
preparing the Decadal Survey, the National Research Council correctly
assessed that significant technology development was required for
ASCENDS and thus it would not be ready to fly early in the program.
When compared to OCO, ASCENDS has a different mission concept and
uses a different technology to measure concentrations of
CO2. OCO uses a passive approach to measure the intensity of
reflected sunlight off of the Earth's surface, which correlates to the
concentration of CO2 near the Earth's surface. OCO was
designed to fly in the A-Train formation, which would have enabled
coordinated carbon cycle measurements with instruments aboard the Aqua
and Aura spacecraft. The ASCENDS active measurement approach uses
lasers as the light source instead of the Sun. Such a technique enables
both daytime and nighttime measurements and measurements at high
latitudes in the winter. Rather than being obsolete, the smaller and
simpler OCO-like instrument is attractive for long-term monitoring of
near-surface CO2 levels and offset processes owing to the
fundamental lifetime limitations of laser instruments.
Q2. How would the OCO compare to similar satellites flown by Canada
and Japan? What were the cost differences between those countries'
programs and the US. program? From a researcher's perspective, would
obtaining data from Canada or Japan be an acceptable alternative to
trying to re-fly OCO?
A2. While both Canada and Japan have recently launched greenhouse gas-
monitoring missions, neither the Canadian Advanced Nanospace experiment
(CanX)-2 mission nor the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT,
also named Ibuki) have the sensitivity or accuracy of OCO. CanX-2 also
fails to provide the same level of coverage that would have been
achievable with OCO. For cost comparison purposes, OCO's mission cost
was $240M plus an. additional $30M had been budgeted for mission
operations.
The CanX-2 nanosatellite, launched in April 2008 at a cost of
approximately $300K, only records greenhouse data over Toronto where
the data downlink occurs. The spectral resolution of the CanX-2
spectrometer is about 100 times less than that of OCO's spectrometer
and is far too coarse to yield the sensitivity required for high-
precision CO2 measurements. Unlike OCO, CanX-2 does not
measure oxygen to quantify the air mass, which is required to
accurately calculate CO2 concentrations from the
spectrometer data and eliminates significant errors caused by
uncertainties in the surface air pressure and by scattering by thin
clouds and aerosols. To date, no CanX-2 greenhouse gas data have been
distributed to the scientific community and no publications have
resulted from data recorded by the satellite.
GOSAT was launched by Japan in January 2009 at a cost of
approximately $206M. Both OCO and GOSAT were designed to measure the
absorption of sunlight reflected from the Earth's surface. However,
while OCO was designed to detect both sources and sinks of
CO2, GOSAT is designed to only detect localized strong
emissions of greenhouse gases rather than to quantify natural,
spatially extensive CO2 sinks. Since CO2 emission
sources tend to be more intense and spatially localized than CO2
sinks, GOSAT was designed with less stringent signal-to-noise
requirements than OCO. While both GOSAT and OCO were designed to orbit
the Earth 15 times each day, OCO was designed to collect up to 1
million high spatial resolution (3km2) measurements each day
while GOSAT is capable of yielding approximately 18,700 measurements
each day with a 85km2 footprint. OCO would therefore have
provided many more measurements and each measurement would have
represented a much smaller ground size compared with GOSAT.
Q3. What new capabilities does NASA's fleet of UAVs offer to the
monitoring and measurement community? Will UAVs help advance the
science in any meaningful way, and if so, how?
A3. NASA uses a number of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), including
the Global Hawk, the Ikhana, and the Sensor Integrated Environmental
Remote Research Aircraft (SIERRA), for Earth Science research given
their ability to stay aloft over a small geographic region for a long
period of time, to fly in dangerous (for humans) atmospheric
conditions, and to fly close to the Earth's surface or in the
stratosphere. UASs are used to participate in calibration and
validation tests of instruments flying on satellites, test concepts for
satellite instruments, and participate in field campaigns designed to
discover small-scale phenomena that satellites cannot.
Of the current field campaigns scheduled for NASA's UASs, the
winter 2010 Global Hawk Pacific mission (GloPac) will study trace
gases, including greenhouse gases, aerosols, and dynamics of the Upper
Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere in association with NASA's Aura
satellite. GloPac will be the first NASA mission using the Global Hawk,
which is capable of carrying 1,500 pounds of instruments to an altitude
of 65,000 feet. The Global Hawk can operate for 31 hours and has a
range of 11,000 nautical miles. Future missions using the Global Hawk
include the Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes (GRIP) airborne
campaign in Summer 2010 to study the formation of tropical storms and
their evolution into hurricanes.
The Ikhana, which has an instrument payload capability of 2000
pounds and can operate up to 40,000 feet, has an endurance of 24 hours
and a range of 3,500 nautical miles. NASA instruments on board the
Ikhana have been used to detect wildfire outbreaks in the western
United States over the past several years and this information has been
transmitted in near-real time to fire incident commanders in the field.
The SIERRA, which has an instrument payload capability of 100
pounds and can operate at up the 12,000 feet, has an endurance of 10
hours and a range of 500 nautical miles. In June and July 2009, the
SIERRA participated in the Characterization of Arctic Sea Ice
Experiment (CASTE) by measuring sea ice roughness, sea ice thickness,
and sea ice edge. Such information helps understand the loss or
maintenance of perennial sea ice cover.
Q4. How well does the Earth Sciences Decadal Survey align with efforts
to better model, monitor, and measure greenhouse gas emissions? Are
there missions or sensors being contemplated for greenhouse gas
monitoring that does not appear within the set of missions recommended
by the decadal survey?
A4. In developing its Earth Science and Applications from Space.
National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, the NRC assumed
the sl3ccessful flight of 000, as well as the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission (LDCM) and the National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP),
which will observe carbon sources and sinks on the land and in the
ocean. The Decadal Survey missions recommended by the NRC are designed
to not only further measurements of atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases, but to also study land and ocean processes related to
CO2 release, transport, and absorption, and how they will
change in a changing climate.
Within the NRC's recommended near-term missions, the Deformation,
Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) mission, and to a
lesser extent the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-II (ICESat-
II), will contribute to improved estimates of above-ground.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ms. Dina Kruger, Director, Climate Change Division, Office
of Atmospheric Programs, Environmental Protection Agency
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. NOAA has stated that it is not responsible for (or capable of)
verification at the individual source level or a ``bottom-up''
reporting scheme and only has a monitoring system in place for
aggregate data. The ``bottom-up'' reporting and individual source
monitoring would be EPA's job.
Q1a. Does EPA have a national monitoring system for all 6 greenhouse
gases at the source level?
A1a. EPA has a national monitoring system for all 6 greenhouse gases at
the source level. Under the Acid Rain Trading Program, EPA has been
collecting hourly CO2 emissions data from electricity
generating facilities for many years. Electricity power plants emitted
34 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2007. On September
22, 2009 EPA finalized a mandatory source-level reporting rule for
greenhouse gas emissions. The Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR) increases
coverage of source-level monitoring to approximately 85% of national-
level U.S. emissions through the inclusion of additional industrial
sectors (e.g., refineries, cement plants, landfills etc.) and
``upstream'' suppliers of transportation fuels. Monitoring by
approximately 10,000 facilities will commence in 2010, and monitored
data will begin to be reported in 2011. The approximately 15% of
emissions not covered at the source level come primarily from widely
dispersed area sources such as agricultural soils and livestock, which
do not lend themselves well to source-level reporting.
Q1b. Specifically, what types of instruments are currently deployed?
How many are there?
A1b. The measurement instruments currently deployed varies according to
the emissions process and the type of facility. Continuous measurement
instruments (such as continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS))
are appropriate tools in some but not all situations. For CO2
emissions that result from the combustion of fossil fuel (80% of all
GHG emissions), total emissions are directly linked to the amount of
carbon content in the fossil fuel (i.e., carbon in = carbon out). For
sources that burn natural gas, distillate fuel oil, and other
homogenous fuels, EPA's reporting system requires measured fuel flow
and periodic fuel sampling for large sources to establish the total
amount of carbon and CO2 emissions. For sources that bum
coal, solid waste and other more variable fuels, EPA's reporting system
requires direct emissions measurement for the largest sources.
Facilities reporting other types of emissions to EPA (i.e., not fossil-
fuel related) use a combination of direct measurement and verified
plant-specific emission factors.
Qc. What upgrades to this system are required in order to implement a
national emission reduction policy? How long will it take to implement
the necessary upgrades or deploy the necessary instruments?
Ac. Monitoring requirements should serve the specific needs of specific
emission reduction policies. EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks is already well suited to assess overall national'
trends in greenhouse gas emissions and the contributions of aggregated
sources and sectors. EPA's facility-level Mandatory Reporting Rule will
provide more detailed information about specific sources, industries
and regions that are needed to inform and implement a national emission
reduction policy. Congress directed EPA to create a reporting program
that could serve a broad variety of potential policies. Should Congress
decide to create a cap and trade program, EPA may need to make
incremental improvements to the facility-level reporting program, such
as moving from annual to quarterly reporting, and upgrading monitoring
equipment for some sources.
Qd. Are monitoring sensors currently in existence for all sectors of
the economy? What research is currently being conducted to develop
these types of instruments? How long will it take to get this
technology from the research phase to the deployment and implementation
phase?
Ad. Accurate monitoring sensors for fossil fuel consumption are in
wide-spread use because of the importance of tracking fuel for economic
reasons. CEMS for CO2 emissions are in place for over \1/3\
of national emissions and over 95% of coal related CO2
emissions. Off-the-shelf measurement technologies are available for
many types of non-fossil fuel related greenhouse gas emissions,
particularly when the emissions go through a central stack or vent.
Advanced monitoring and measurement techniques for vented and fugitive
leaks show great promise and are starting to be used in a variety of
situations, such as oil and gas production fields. EPA sees a need for
more work on applying monitoring sensors to emissions and sequestration
in forests and agricultural soils, and for tracking deforestation in
tropical countries.
Q2. Other than the electric utility industry, what other industries
and sectors of the economy are currently being monitored for greenhouse
gas emissions with deployed monitoring instruments? What percentage of
U.S. emissions is currently being monitored real-time? If this
percentage is less than 100%, then how can you verify that this
percentage is accurate if you are unable to verify the total amount of
greenhouse gases the U.S. emits as a whole?
A2. It is not necessary to have real-time monitoring of emissions from
all sources in order to obtain an accurate assessment of total U.S. GHG
emissions. EPA and the Department of Energy use the national energy
accounts to calculate total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-
fuel consumption (80% of national emissions). Both agencies have a high
level of confidence in our national level energy accounts because DOE
gets close agreement between the bottom-up reporting of energy use and
the top-down tracking of aggregate energy production and imports. EPA's
Inventory of US. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks estimates that our
national level estimate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
combustion are accurate to within +/^5%. Given this highly accurate
national level assessment, installing real-time monitoring sensors
across the entire economy (including motor vehicles) to monitor fossil
fuel related emissions would involve a high cost and not necessarily
lead to improved national-level information. As noted above, real-time
monitoring is in place for approximately 34% of all GHG emissions, and
approximately 45% of non-transportation related GHG emissions.
Approximately 20% of total national GHG, emissions come from other
types of sources, many of which are more difficult to monitor than
fossil fuel combustion, e.g., fugitive methane leaks from oil and gas
systems, methane from landfills, nitrous oxide form soils, and methane
from rice paddies and livestock. In accordance with Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines, EPA uses a combination of
peer reviewed modeling and emission factor approaches to estimate GHG
emissions for these sources.
More direct measurement of these sources, including the use of
remote observation technologies, could help improve the accuracy of
this part of the national emissions inventory.
Q3. Several weeks ago, EPA submitted a national inventory of human-
caused greenhouse gas emissions as part of our on-going commitment to
fulfill our obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. In your testimony, you admit that EPA only monitors
greenhouse gas emissions emanating from electric utilities, which is
estimated to be about one-third of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Q3a. If EPA does not currently monitor all of the human-caused
emissions, what is the inventory based on? How accurate is it? How can
you verify its accuracy?
A3a. Overall, the national-level Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks has a calculated range of uncertainty of +5% to ^1%
(when compared to total gross emissions), which is based on
internationally accepted and comparable procedures for uncertainty
assessments of national inventories. The underlying data used to
prepare the national inventory come from long-established statistical
gathering services of many federal agencies, particularly the
Department of Energy and USDA. For the 80% of emissions resulting from
fossil fuel combustion, DOE's energy consumption statistics match up
closely with top-down accounts of energy production imports, and gives
the U.S. government a high degree of confidence in the inventory. As
noted above, direct emissions monitoring on each source of emissions is
neither practical nor would it necessarily lead to improvements in
accuracy.
Qb. What is EPA's definition of human-caused emissions? Do they
include indirect emissions resulting from land-use change? Or from
livestock emissions? Do forest fires that are set by people count as
human-caused emissions, while forest fires started by natural causes
are not?
Ab. The U.S. government, as a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has adopted the IPCC's definition of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals: ``Anthropogenic
emissions and removals means that greenhouse gas emissions and removals
included in national inventories are a result of human activities. The
distinction between natural and anthropogenic emissions and removals
follows straightforwardly from the data used to quanta human activity.
In the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Sector,
emissions and removals on managed land are taken as a proxy for
anthropogenic emissions and removals, and interannual variations in
natural background emissions and removals, though these can be
significant, are assumed to average out over time.'' \1\ This
definition has also been adopted by each of the 193 other member
countries of the IPCC. Regarding the specific issue of forest fires,
all fires occurring on managed land are assumed to be anthropogenic.
Consistent with the IPCC Guidelines, the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks includes direct emissions and carbon stock
changes from land-use change. Emissions from domesticated livestock are
considered anthropogenic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, ``The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (2006 Guidelines)'', Volume 1, Chapter 1, page 4. http://
www.ipcc.nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006g1/pdf/1_Volume1/V1_1
Ch1_Introduction.pdf.
Q4. I'm curious about the difference between the National Greenhouse
Gas Inventory and EPA's proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule. When
describing the data collection and methodologies associated with that
collection for the Inventory, you freely admit that the quality of the
data used varies across source categories. At the same time, you state
that EPA is confident that its ESTIMATES of emissions for smaller
sources are both manageable and accurate. Aren't some of the data
collection methods used in the Inventory going to be used for the
reporting rule? If so, how can you state that the estimates provided
for compliance with the reporting rule are accurate and potentially
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
verifiable?
A4. EPA's Mandatory Reporting Rule uses a combination of direct
measurement and facility-specific calculation approaches. The
calculation approaches required site-specific emission factors based on
periodic process and emissions measurement, and thus reflect the
conditions onsite at specific facilities. The top-down emission factors
used for some sources in the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks are broadly representative of conditions across the
country but may not be directly applicable to individual facilities.
The source categories with the highest uncertainty in the Inventory of
US. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks represent a small share of
national emissions and most of them are not included in EPA's Mandatory
Reporting Rule: e.g., agricultural soils, rice paddies, livestock,
surface coal mines, etc.
All data submitted to EPA through the Mandatory Reporting Rule will
be verified. EPA envisions a two step verification process with a view
to ensuring the collection and dissemination of high quality data.
First, EPA will conduct an initial centralized review of the data which
will be largely automated. EPA intends to build into the data system an
electronic data QA program to help assure the completeness and accuracy
of data. In addition, to verify reported data and ensure consistency,
EPA may review facility-level monitoring plans and procedures, and will
perform detailed, automated checks on data utilizing recent and
historical data submittals, comparison against like facilities and/or
other electronic audit tools where appropriate. Second, EPA intends to
follow-up with facilities should potential errors, discrepancies, or
questions arise through the review of reported data and conduct on-site
audits of selected facilities.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Deputy Director, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. How much does NIST currently spend on the measurement science
activities you outlined in your testimony, and how do you determine
funding priorities in this area? How much additional funding would be
needed and how long would it take to perform the research necessary to
ensure confidence in a Cap-and-Trade monitoring and enforcement regime?
A1. In FY 2009, NIST spent $18.2 million on all climate change related
activities, which includes the $7.5 million in increases provided by FY
2009 appropriations for Climate Change Science and Climate Change
Technology programs. NIST's role in this area is to:
(1) work closely with other federal agencies (the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Department of Energy, the United States Geological
Survey, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the
Department of Interior) to ensure the accuracy, comparability,
and quality of their measurements, and
(2) assist industry, and state and local agencies that will
need new measurement capabilities to meet the requirements of
any enacted greenhouse-gas accounting and mitigation program.
Currently, the NIST Climate Change Program is focused in two areas:
(1) Provide the fundamental measurement science and standards
to accurately quantify sources and sinks of greenhouse gases at
various spatial scales; and
(2) Develop the critical metrology necessary to ensure that
ground, air, ocean, and space-based climate measurements are
accurate and comparable through traceability to the
International System of Units (SI).
Predicting future funding needs for this area is complicated by the
fact that the details for the proposed Cap-and-Trade monitoring program
for carbon emissions are still being debated. I believe the existing
information and measurement capabilities are adequate to support the
initiation of national climate policies. Until an agreement is reached
on the accuracy requirements for greenhouse gas monitoring and
reporting; however, it is difficult to fully ascertain the measurement
tools and standards that will be required by government agencies as
well as industry. However, regardless of the climate-related
legislation that is enacted, accurate measurements of greenhouse gas
sources and sinks and their effects on the climate, will be necessary.
NIST is organizing an external needs assessment workshop, to be
held in FY 2010, to help identify the major measurement priorities in
greenhouse gas emission measurements, which will assist NIST in
identifying the future priorities and resources necessary to support
any proposed greenhouse gas accounting and mitigation program.
Q2. You note in your testimony that traceability of measurements is
``critical for assessing accuracy and quality'' of climate change data.
What is the status of traceability for the sensors and measurements
that are currently deployed in space? Do they all take SI-traceable
measurements? If not, how are scientists accounting for the lack of
confidence in their data when reporting results?
A2. Satellite sensors generally report SI (International System of
Units)-traceable measurements. NIST has collaborated with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Geological Survey, to
help ensure the SI traceability of satellite sensor measurements for
operational and research environmental satellites. The robustness of
the traceability, as established through the quality of the prelaunch
and onboard calibration and extent of validation against ground, air,
and other satellite sensors, determines measurement accuracy and
confidence in this claimed measurement accuracy. Satellite sensors that
target the lowest measurement uncertainties require the most extensive
effort at prelaunch and onboard calibration and post-launch validation.
In making conclusions about a climatic trend from a set of satellite
measurements, i.e., from a satellite data record, scientists consider
the robustness of the SI traceability, which varies with satellite
sensor and type of measurement made.
Scientists recognize the advantages for strengthening the SI-
traceability of some satellite climate measurements. The recognition
has led NASA to consider the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity
Observation (CLARREO) satellite mission in its Decadal Mission
planning. CLARREO's mission includes the establishment of benchmark SI-
traceable climate measurements with extremely low uncertainties.
Q3. In your testimony you indicate that some emission quantification
systems, such as continuous monitoring of geographical areas are
currently not available. Do you have any estimate on when such
monitoring capabilities could be possible?
A3. Continuous monitoring of geographical areas poses significant
emissions quantification challenges that are driven by the range of
source and sink types and spatial scales found in most geographical
areas. Both industry and federal, state and local government agencies
will be involved. Some, but not all, of the emissions quantification
tools are available to the industrial community that must use them for
emission inventory determination. The initial attempts to achieve area
and regional emission quantification may not meet the requirements that
may be set in potential future regulatory programs. However, putting
the mechanisms in place for area or regional emissions quantifications
should be started early in such an ambitious program to better
identify:
Improvements to the accuracy of the wide range of
measurement technologies used in emissions quantification;
Refinements to the methodologies used to develop the
total emission profile for both individual areas and for the
range of areas found in the U.S.; and
Practical metrics by which to evaluate area and
regional emission profiles and to judge the performance of the
monitoring program for the U.S.
A successful continuous monitoring program will require the
coordination of efforts by all parties involved, including those who
own the sources or sinks in an area, federal, state and local
governmental agencies, the global monitoring community (e.g., World
Meteorological Organization, the NOAA global network with tall towers
and aircraft profiles, NASA remote sensing), and those concerned with
ensuring that emissions measurements perform with sufficient accuracy.
The committee should consider the need to complete the development of
an area emission quantification system profile in the first 3 to 5
years of any program which required it.
Questions from Representative Pete Olson
Q1. If the Cap-and-Trade legislation were to pass and go into effect,
would we be capable of ensuring accurate and fair monitoring of
greenhouse gas emissions from individuals and businesses? If not,
wouldn't monitoring and enforcement be possible?
A1. If a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions is enacted,
NIST's capabilities focused on measurement accuracy, in cooperation
with the work of other federal agencies, would enable accurate
emissions determinations that promote reliable monitoring and
verification of emissions at covered facilities. Furthermore, NIST
efforts to ensure accurate quantification of emissions from multiple
sources (such as coal combustion for electricity generation, process-
related emissions from industrial facilities, and refining operations
for vehicle fuels) would contribute to market confidence in the
quantities of traded emission allowances.
NIST already has some experience in this role through its
involvement in the Acid Rain Program, which was enacted as part of the
1990 Clean Air Act and includes a cap-and-trade program to reduce
sulfur dioxide emissions from electrical power generation plants. To
support the ability of the electrical power generation sector to comply
with new environmental regulations, NIST, working with the specialty
gas industry, established, in collaboration with the EPA, the NIST-
Traceable Reference Materials (NTRM) program to supply industry with
accurate gas-mixture reference standards necessary to calibrate
pollution monitoring equipment. The NTRM program has been instrumental
to the success of the Acid Rain program.
Q2. How confident are you in the quality of the measurement standards
established in developing countries such as China and India?
A2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), as well
as the National Measurement Institutes (NMIs) of both the Peoples
Republic of China (NIM-National Institute of Measurements) and India
(NPLI-National Physical Laboratory of India) are members of the
International Committee of Weights and Measures (CIPM), which helps to
ensure the world-wide uniformity of measurements and standards through
their traceability to the International System of Units (SI).
Participation of these NMIs in CIPM-sponsored comparisons of national
measurement standards, as well as NMIsponsored round robins, helps to
promote the quality and consistency of measurement standards throughout
the world.
Q3. Could National Measurement Institutes in other countries be
subjected to political pressures to falsify measurement data or
standards to produce better outcomes?
A3. The integrity of climate measurements is critical to the success of
any new environmental policies and regulations that are enacted. The
primary method of ensuring the integrity and comparability of climate
measurements from around the world is to require traceability to the
International System of Units (SI). Traceability requires the
establishment of an unbroken chain of comparisons to stated references
that are agreed to through the International Committee of Weights and
Measures (CIPM). The National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), as well as National Measurement Institutes (NMIs) from 53
countries, are members of the CIPM and work together to improve the
accuracy and comparability of measurements and standards through
SItraceability. Falsification of measurement data and standards would
most likely be detected by a number of NMIs through key CIPM-sponsored
measurement comparisons. The results and levels of comparability
established through these rigorous comparison procedures are publically
available on the CIPM website.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Albert J. Heber, Professor, Agricultural and
Biological Engineering Department, Purdue University
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. You state that emissions from animal feeding operations cannot be
directly measured but can only be estimated or calculated through other
measurements. Such estimations are a source of uncertainty in the
monitoring results. How would these uncertainties affect the ability of
these farms to comply with a mandatory reduction policy?
A1. I stated that while direct on-farm measurements are difficult and
costly, they are needed to validate scientific emission models, and
they allow us to test mitigation strategies. For example, direct
measurements were made in the National Air Emission Monitoring Study
and the data is being used to develop and validate process-based
emission models.
Direct measurements, like all measurements, have an associated
uncertainty as clearly explained by Dr. Gallagher in his testimony.
Higher uncertainties can limit the ability of the farms to comply with
mandatory reduction policies, but the uncertainties of direct
measurements of emissions at confined animal feeding operations are
reasonable.
Q2. Many people look to forestry and agriculture as potential sources
of carbon credits. Planting trees, switching to no-till farming
practices and other projects are seen as a low-hanging fruit for
greenhouse gas reductions. If you are unable to take direct
measurements, how are these reductions verified? What would this mean
in terms of generating off-set credits in a mandatory. regulatory
regime?
A2. As indicated above, direct measurements can be conducted at
livestock farms, but they are relatively expensive.
Q3. Dr. Gallagher's testimony emphasizes the importance of
measurements science research to ensuring the accuracy and
comparability of quantitative measurements of climate change data. With
respect to measurement confidence, what is the quality of the data that
we currently collect? Are our sensors and data collection systems
backed by the necessary measurement science noted by Dr. Gallagher? If
not, how do scientists quantify and account for the lack of confidence
in their data when reporting results?
A3. The measurements conducted by the National Air Emissions Monitoring
Study were governed by an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan
which included NIST traceability. Scientists can determine the
uncertainty of their measurements and this is being done for the
national study.