[Senate Hearing 111-499]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-499
DROUGHT, FLOODING AND REFUGEES: ADDRESSING THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN THE WORLD'S MOST VULNERABLE NATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN
ASSISTANCE, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 15, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-665 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 FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin Republican Leader designee
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
David McKean, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,
AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire Republican Leader designee
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Ball, Rev. Jim, Ph.D., senior director, Climate Campaign,
Evangelical Environmental Network, Washington, DC.............. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 3
Green, Dr. Kenneth P., resident scholar, American Enterprise
Institute, Washington, DC...................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 1
O'Driscoll, Peter, executive director, Actionaid USA, Washington,
DC............................................................. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Wald, General Charles F., (USAF, Ret.), former Deputy Commander
of United States European Command; director and senior advisor,
Aerospace and Defense Industry, Deloitte; Washington, DC....... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Waskow, David, Climate Change Program Director, Oxfam America,
Washington, DC................................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
(iii)
DROUGHT, FLOODING AND REFUGEES: ADDRESSING THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN THE WORLD'S MOST VULNERABLE NATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2009
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on International
Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic
Affairs, and International Environmental
Protection, Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room SD-419 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Corker, and Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Good morning. This hearing now comes to
order. Let me thank my colleagues who are here, particularly
Senator Corker, who is the ranking Republican on the committee,
and for his help in making today's hearing possible.
This is a hearing that has literally been in the works for
almost a year, but it seemed like every time we were ready to
pull the trigger, one thing or another got in the way. So I
want to thank Chairman Kerry and Senator Corker for their help
in finally putting this hearing together.
Senator Menendez. Before I begin, I want to say that I was
amazed to see yesterday that in the context of climate change
negotiations, Saudi Arabia is asking to be compensated for the
resulting decrease in oil demand. Truly shocking that a country
that as the head of OPEC, an organization designed to
artificially raise the price of oil, would actually ask for
compensation for reduced demand for that product. So just to be
absolutely clear, this hearing is not about that. [Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. This hearing is about helping vulnerable
developing nations adapt to the worst effects of climate
change, not helping oil-wealthy nations get a windfall.
Both the House climate bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill have
funds designed to provide resources for nations who are most
vulnerable to climate impacts. Such a fund is important for
many reasons. The most obvious is that it is simply the right
thing to do. Developed nations have created a planetary problem
and we have a duty to help those who are being impacted. But it
is also essential to our national security, and it is essential
if we expect to achieve
an international climate treaty. Unfortunately, it is an issue
that
I do not think has received enough attention in the United
States Senate.
To help us today discuss this issue, we have a whole host
of very significant witnesses. Let me in my comments reference
them.
Reverend Jim Ball is an evangelical Christian who is part
of a coalition of faith leaders committed to this issue. He
will describe the human suffering from climate change and how
unjust it is for nations that have not contributed to the
problem to bear so much of the hardship.
Peter O'Driscoll from ActionAid USA will also be exploring
the dire human impacts we can expect from climate change and
will be telling stories of real people's lives. It is easy to
get caught up in the numbers. So I hope Mr. O'Driscoll can help
us remain focused on the human scale of this problem.
As dire and as emotional as this issue can be, having a
strong fund for international climate change adaptation is
fundamentally important because it is in the national interest.
A couple of years ago, the CNA Corporation published a
report cataloging how climate change is an important national
security issue. General Wald, who is also on CNA's Military
Advisory Board, will testify about how unchecked climate change
will lead to flooding, drought, and food security concerns.
This could lead to tens of millions of climate refugees that
will be competing for scarce resources. Which, in turn, this
could lead to unstable governments, conflict, increased
humanitarian missions, and increased migration.
The example that most commentators point to show the kinds
of impact climate change can have is Darfur. Severe drought led
to the loss of grazing and farmland. This led to nomadic
herders migrating in search of water. This migration led to
conflict with the farming tribes occupying those lands. Climate
change means that droughts like this will happen more
frequently, and unless funding is found to plan for these
changes in advance, it is inevitable we will also see increased
conflict.
Whether we like it or not, the world is becoming a smaller
place, and threat multipliers happening anywhere in the world
will likely have impacts here. Having a strong adaptation fund
to manage climate change impacts could, therefore, help us
avoid much more serious security engagements down the road, and
that is certainly in the national interest.
Another reason why a strong adaptation fund is in our
national interest is because it will greatly strengthen our
negotiating position for an international climate treaty. David
Waskow from Oxfam America will be testifying about how such a
fund will be an important aspect of climate negotiations.
We can all agree that this is a planetary problem that will
need almost all nations to come together and commit to solving
this issue. The domestic legislation working its way through
Congress is essential to reduce worldwide emissions to the
levels we need, but it is also a powerful statement to the rest
of the world that we are ready to make a strong commitment and
willing to work with other nations who are also willing to be
bold in their actions. For many nations, a strong commitment to
international adaptation is an essential piece of the puzzle.
So if we think preventing billions of dollars worth of
damage to our own shorelines is in the national interest, then
we will need an international adaptation fund to accomplish
that. Or if we think preventing drought in our nation's bread
basket is in the national interest, then we will need an
international adaptation fund to accomplish that.
I am very pleased to see that the climate debate is finally
advancing. I hope this hearing can help the Senate appreciate
just how important it is to our own national security and
economic interests to address the impacts of climate change in
the world's most vulnerable nations.
Now let me recognize the distinguished ranking member for
any comments he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
your desire to have this hearing and all that you have done to
make it possible. I do enjoy working with you and I know we
have been able to accomplish numbers of things together.
I want to welcome the panelists. I am typically very short
on opening comments, and I look forward to the questioning
after your testimony.
I do want to say that there is no question that there are
adaptation issues that need to be dealt with. I know that we
have funding within existing budgets that do some of that. Some
of that certainly is not done in the most effective way.
And in no way to cast judgment at all on the testimony that
you are going to give today, this is a more broad statement.
One of the things that has troubled me about climate change
legislation is, at the end of day, it ends up being all about
money. The fact is, as Senator Menendez mentioned, Saudi Arabia
now wanting money for this and that. It seems like that much of
the climate change legislation that we look at here in
Washington ends up being all about sending money out to either
corporations or people that want various special things done
within their States.
I want to come back, though, and say there is no question
that we have adaptation issues to deal with, and there are some
things that merit taxpayer monies. There are some things that
do not. I witnessed firsthand in Sudan in Darfur the issues
relating to the very thing Senator Menendez was referring to.
Again, I look forward to your testimony. I really do think
this is going to be enlightening, and I do look forward to
working with each of you and others to figure out a way to, in
a more streamlined way, focus on this issue that I think is
very important to our country.
So thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator Corker.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. I do not have an opening statement.
Senator Menendez. Okay.
So let me formally introduce our panel to the committee.
Rev. Jim Ball. Since 2000, Rev. Ball has served as Executive
Director of the Evangelical Environmental Network and, before
that, was the Climate Change Policy Coordinator for the Union
of Concerned Scientists. And I am proud to say that Dr. Ball
received his Ph.D. in theological ethics from Drew University
in New Jersey and also taught for a number of years at
Montclair State University. Welcome.
David Waskow is the Climate Change Program Director at
Oxfam America. Oxfam America is an international development
and humanitarian organization that works with communities and
partner organizations in more than 120 countries, including the
United States itself, to create lasting solutions to poverty,
hunger, and injustice. Thank you.
Dr. Kenneth Green is an environmental scientist by
training, studied environmental policy for more than 10 years
at think tanks in California and Canada prior to joining the
American Enterprise Institute where he is a resident scholar.
He has authored numerous articles, newspaper columns and book
chapters on global warming. Welcome.
Peter O'Driscoll became ActionAid USA's Executive Director
in May of 2006. ActionAid is an international anti-poverty
agency working in 50 countries taking the sides of poor people
to end poverty and injustice together.
And General Charles F. Wald is the Former Deputy Commander
of the United States European Command. With more than 35 years
of service, General Wald was a command pilot with more than
3,600 flying hours, 430 combat hours, flying missions over
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, and Bosnia. He is currently
Director and Senior Advisor to the Aerospace and Defense
Industry Practice at Deloitte and a member of the CNA Military
Advisory Board.
Thank you all very, very much.
We will ask you to try to keep your testimony to about 5
minutes or so. We are going to include your entire statements
for the record, and this will give us enough time to have some
good Q&A sessions after that. Let us start with you, Rev. Ball.
STATEMENT OF REV. JIM BALL, PH.D., SENIOR DIRECTOR, CLIMATE
CAMPAIGN, EVANGELICAL ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Rev. Ball. Thank you, Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member
Corker, for having this hearing on international adaptation. I
am the Reverend Jim Ball with the Evangelical Environmental
Network, and it is an honor to be here.
My testimony will offer an evangelical Christian
perspective on the need for significant funding for
international adaptation. So, yes, we are talking about money
here, Senator Corker. The views expressed here are my own.
However, over 270 senior evangelical Christian leaders like
Rick Warren who are part of the Evangelical Climate Initiative
support strong action on international adaptation, as do 89
percent of evangelicals, according to a recent poll.
Climate change is a natural disaster intensifier. It makes
floods fiercer, hurricanes harsher, droughts dryer. The one
thing the world does not need are more victims of natural
disasters like the father and his family during the 2005 Niger
famine found hundreds of miles from the nearest feeding
station. ``I'm wandering like a madman. I'm afraid we'll all
starve.''
The reason such stories should not simply touch us as
compassionate individuals but rouse us as a country is because
of the scale of the impacts which have important implications
for our economic and national security.
Given that these impacts will fall hardest on the poor in
poor countries, those who have done the least and yet will
suffer most, it should not surprise you that the Bible speaks
to our responsibility to help them. When asked what is the most
important thing in life, Jesus said it is to love God and love
our neighbors as ourselves. These two commandments are what the
church has called The Great Commandments, and from a Christian
perspective, they are what our lives should be about.
In Luke's version, an expert asks Jesus a follow-up
question, and Senators, you should be familiar with follow-up
questions. Who is my neighbor? This sets up the parable of the
Good Samaritan about a man who was robbed, beaten, and left for
dead. A priest and a Levite passed by on the other side. But
one of the hated Samaritans helps him. By having the Samaritan
be the one who demonstrated love through his actions, Jesus in
effect says that everyone is our neighbor, even or especially
others we hold in contempt.
Here is the connection to climate change. The priest and
the Levite were not the ones who robbed the man, just like in
our time we did not create the poverty of the poor, a situation
that makes them much more vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change. But the priest and the Levite did pass by on the other
side. Righteousness and love are the presence of good acts, not
simply the absence of bad ones. By not helping the man in the
ditch, the priest and the Levite made his plight worse and
failed to love God.
Today, collectively, we are in fact making the plight of
the poor worse through our contribution to climate change. And
knowing their plight and not doing what we can to help to
overcome it is like passing by on the other side, something no
morally mature individual or nation can do. We must be Good
Samaritans.
Let me provide a few examples of adaptation. Climate-
intensified flooding will impact the ability to grow crops. A
simple practical solution made from resources readily at hand
are floating gardens, which have been successfully demonstrated
in one of the poorest areas of Bangladesh. One of the moms
helped, named Tara Begum, states, ``This has made a great
difference to my life. Now I have enough food in the floods,
and I can give some to help my relatives as well.''
As for drought, simple rainwater harvesting techniques can
be highly effective. A widow in a Sri Lankan village,
Nandawathie, has capitalized on the opportunities provided by
increased water, by growing and selling vegetables at her
doorstep. With this additional revenue stream, she applied for
a loan to install solar power in her house. Nandawathie also
feels safer not having to fetch water. Her children have less
diarrhea, and her daughter has more time for school work.
And now for funding. Many in the religious community have
called for there to be, in comprehensive legislation, an
allocation equivalent to $3.5 billion annually, starting in
2012, which moves rapidly toward $7 billion annually by 2020.
Unfortunately, the allocation or funding in Waxman-Markey is
woefully inadequate. Such funding levels must be increased
significantly to capture the full support of the religious
community. We have the means. Let us now summon the will.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Ball follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Reverend Jim Ball, Ph.D, Senior Director,
Climate Campaign, Evangelical Environmental Network\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The purpose of the Evangelical Environmental Network is ``to
declare the Lordship of Christ over all creation.'' For more
information, go to: www.creationcare.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a christian perspective on international adaptation
Preamble
Thank you, Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker, and thank
you to the subcommittee members, for having this hearing on
international adaptation, or addressing the impacts of climate change
in the world's most vulnerable nations. I am the Rev. Jim Ball, Senior
Director of the Evangelical Environmental Network's Climate Campaign,
and it is an honor to testify before you today. My testimony will offer
an evangelical Christian perspective on the need for significant
funding for international adaptation.
The views expressed here are my own. However, over 270 senior
evangelical Christian leaders who are part of the Evangelical Climate
Initiative have stated that ``as a society and as individuals we must
also help the poor adapt to the significant harm that global warming
will cause.'' \2\ In addition, a recent poll by Public Religion
Research found that 89% of evangelicals support the U.S. helping the
poor adapt to climate-intensified natural disasters, and 79% support
helping with food and water shortages caused by climate change.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the Evangelical Climate Initiative's statement at http://
christiansandclimate.org.
\3\ See http://www.faithinpubliclife.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
For many who have cared for the poor in poor countries by
supporting relief and development organizations in their efforts to
fight hunger, disease, natural disasters, and poverty, it may be
disconcerting to discover that the pollution coming out of our vehicles
and from our factories and power plants will lead to an insidious
reversal of such efforts due to the impacts of climate change. Most of
us have grown up thinking of pollution as a local or perhaps regional
problem, not a global one. How could pollution coming out of cars in
Chattanooga, for example, help cause hunger in Africa? But when such
pollution is added to millions of vehicles and smokestacks around the
world releasing heat-trapping global warming pollution, it results in
climate change, a natural disaster intensifier. It makes floods
fiercer, hurricanes harsher, and droughts dryer. The one thing the
world certainly doesn't need are more victims of natural disasters,
like the father and his family during the 2005 Niger famine found
hundreds of miles from the nearest feeding station. ``I'm wandering
like a madman. I'm afraid we'll all starve.'' \4\ At one of the feeding
stations, a mother lamented as she watched her young daughter die. ``As
far as I'm concerned, God did not make us all equal. I mean, look at us
all here. None of us has enough food.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Hilary Anderson, BBC, ``Niger Children Starving to Death,''
July 20, 2005; http://news.bbc. co.uk.
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scale of the impacts
The reason such stories should not simply touch us as compassionate
individuals but rouse us as a country is because of the scale of the
impacts of climate change. These impacts have important implications
for our economic and national security and therefore addressing them is
in our national interest. As Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Graham (R-SC)
have recently stated in a New York Times op-ed: ``many scientists warn
that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global
instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.'' \6\ My
thanks to both of these Senators for their leadership on this issue
(and for speaking at the launch of the Evangelical Climate Initiative
in 2006). Here are some of the projected consequences for the poor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Lindsey Graham, ``Yes We Can (Pass
Climate Change Legislation),'' New York Times (Oct 10, 2009): http://
www.nytimes.com.
40-170 million at risk of hunger and malnutrition.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ IPCC, 4th Assessment Report (AR4), Working Group Two (WG2), pp.
298-300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-2 billion people already in a water stressed situation could see
a further reduction in water availability.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Nigel Arnell, ``Climate Change and Water Resources: a Global
Perspective,'' Ch. 17 in Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, H.J.
Schellnhuber, et al. eds., p. 167. Arnell's projections are utilized
heavily by the IPCC.
100 million impacted by coastal flooding; millions more by inland
flooding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ IPCC, AR4, WG2, p. 334.
90-200 million could become more vulnerable to malaria,\10\ 1.4
billion could become at increased risk of dengue fever,\11\ and
the number of children vulnerable to diarrheal diseases--the
number one killer of children--will increase significantly.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ M. van Lieshout et al., ``Climate Change and Malaria: Analysis
of the SRES Climateand Socio-economic Scenarios,'' Global Environmental
Change 14 (2004): 87-99; IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch 8, pp. 408-410.
\11\ S. Hales, et al., ``Potential effect of population and climate
changes on global distribution of dengue fever: an empirical model,''
Lancet, 360 (2002): 830-834. The IPCC utilizes the work of Hales et al.
See IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch 8, pp. 408, 410.
\12\ World Health Organization (WHO), A. J. McMichaels, et al.,
eds., Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses (WHO:
Geneva, 2003): p. 85; http://www.who.int. See also IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch 8,
p. 401.
Approximately 20-30% of God's creatures could be committed to
extinction by 2050, making climate change the largest single
threat to biodiversity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ IPCC, AR4, WG2 p. 213.
The creation of 200 million ``climate refugees'' by 2050.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Human Development
Report Office, Oli Brown, Human Development Report 2007/2008 Fighting
climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world Human Development
Report Office, Occasional Paper, Climate change and forced migration:
Observations, projections and implications (Geneva, 2007): p. 20;
http://hdr.undp.org. See also National Intelligence Council (NIC) and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Global Trends
2025:A Transformed World (Washington, DC, Nov 2008): p. 53; http://
www.dni.gov.
Billions could be at increased risk for violent conflicts,
including in areas sensitive to energy security and the growth
of terrorism.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ International Alert, Dan Smith and Janani Vivekananda, A
Climate of Conflict: The Links Between Climate Change, Peace, and War
(International Alert, Nov 2007): p. 3; http://www.international-
alert.org. See also CNA, National Security and Climate Change.
Important Christian teachings
Given that climate impacts will fall hardest on the poor in poor
countries, those who have done least to cause this problem and yet will
suffer the most, it should not surprise you that the heart of the moral
teaching of the Bible speaks to our responsibility to overcome climate
change.
In several accounts in the Gospels people ask Jesus what is the
greatest commandment in the Law. In effect, they were asking: if there
is one thing our lives should be about, what is it? What is the most
important thing in life? \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Mt 22:34-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:25-37. See also Rom 13:9-
10; Gal 5:13-14; James 2:8; Dt 6:4-5; Lev 19:18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus quotes Dt 6:4-5, something that observant Jews of his time
recited in the morning and in the evening: ``Hear, O Israel, the Lord
our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your
strength'' (Mk 12:29-30). Jesus immediately says, ``And the second is
like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself,' '' (Mt 22:39, quoting Lev
19:18). To make things perfectly clear, Jesus adds: ``All the Law and
the Prophets hang on these two commandments'' (Mt 22:40).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Here is a nice quotation from Augustine where he states that
the Great Commandments are an interpretative key to understanding
Scripture: ``Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy
Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon
them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our
neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.'' See On Christian
Doctrine, Book One, Chapter 36.40. You can find it online at: http://
personal2.stthomas.edu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does Jesus add the second commandment to love our neighbors as
ourselves? He does so because you can't love God unless you love your
neighbor, because while God loves you, He loves your neighbor, too.
These two commandments joined together by Jesus are what the Church has
called The Great Commandments, and from a Christian perspective they
are what our lives should be all about.
In the Gospel of Luke's version of Jesus' teaching of the Great
Commandments, one of the experts in the law asks Jesus a follow up
question: ``And who is my neighbor?'' This sets up one of the most
memorable and loved of Jesus' stories, the parable of the Good
Samaritan.
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell
into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes,
beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest
happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the
man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he
came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But
a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when
he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged
his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his
own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next
day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the
innkeeper. ``Look after him,'' he said, ``and when I return, I
will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'' (Lk
10:30-35).
During Jesus' time Samaritans were considered by Jews to be
heretical, traitorous, half-breeds and were regarded with utter
contempt. By having the Samaritan be the one who demonstrated love by
his actions, Jesus in effect says that everyone is our neighbor--even
or especially others we hold in contempt. And furthermore, those of us
who think of ourselves as religious, as doing the right things to
appease God and look righteous to others better think again.
Here is where this parable intersects with climate change.
The priest and the Levite were not the ones who robbed the man,
just like in our time we didn't create the poverty of the poor, a
situation that makes them much more vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change. But the priest and the Levite did pass by on the other
side. Righteousness and love are the presence of good and loving acts,
not simply the absence of bad ones. By not helping the man in the
ditch, the priest and the Levite made his plight worse and failed to
love God and be who God created them to be.
Today, collectively, we are in fact making the plight of the poor
worse through our contribution to climate change. And knowing their
plight and not doing what we can to help to overcome climate change is
like passing by on the other side.
We may be highly observant of the outward signs of what it means to
be religious or moral in our community. So, too, I'm sure, were the
priest and the Levite. That's exactly why Jesus chose them to be
characters in his parable. But if we don't help the poor who through no
fault of their own find themselves victims in the ditch of climate
change's impacts, then we have failed to completely fulfill the Great
Commandments, to be morally mature persons, and our nation will not
have lived up to its character as a compassionate country.
Matthew 25 lets us in on a little secret about the parable of the
Good Samaritan. While the Good Samaritan is Christ-like in his
behavior, it is Jesus Himself who is the man in the ditch. For Jesus
says that whatever we do for ``the least of these'' we do for him (Mt
25:40).
In terms of the problem of climate change, right now it is as if
you are approaching a victim of climate change in the ditch. You are
just within sight of the person. You don't yet quite know what is going
on. Is it risky to go over to this person? You can't quite yet tell
anything about who it is--just that there is a lump in the ditch that
looks human. Whoever it is could be drunk you think to yourself--maybe
not a victim at all! But as you venture closer you come to find that it
is a child, not a man. It is a young girl.
She is in distress. Is she sick? Weak from hunger? Both? Maybe she
has an infectious disease. Where are her parents? Who is responsible
for this young girl? How did she get in this situation? Suddenly you
notice that someone else is in the ditch with her. It is Jesus, and he
and the girl need our help.
When it comes to helping the poor adapt to climate impacts, what is
true for Christians is also true for others. No morally mature
individual or nation can pass by on the other side and leave the
victims in the ditch of global warming's impacts. We must be Good
Samaritans.
Adaptation in poor countries
Is it possible to overcome the consequences of climate change
through adaptation? The short answer is YES. But it is only yes if we
do two basic things: (1) sufficiently address the causes through
mitigation, and; (2) making the necessary investments of time and
treasure.
If we don't address the causes as we should, then at some point we
will not be able to adapt to the consequences in a meaningful way. The
impacts will overwhelm our capacity to adapt. This is especially true
for the poor in poor countries, who would be the first to face such a
situation.
Even if we mitigate or address the causes, could those of us in the
rich countries invest enough in the adaptation efforts of the poor in
poor countries so that they had the resources necessary to adapt?
Of course, the poor have been adapting to such things a floods and
droughts for years with varying degrees of success. However, in many
cases such coping strategies have been and will be completely
overwhelmed by climate change.
A poor family in a slum in Ghana serves as an example. Their home
and their furniture were made to withstand a certain amount of
flooding. The mother explains that ``When the rain starts falling
abruptly, we turn off the electricity meter in the house. We climb on
top of our wardrobes and stay awake till morning . . . our tables are
very high and so also are our wardrobes, they are made in such a way
that we can climb and sit on top of them.'' Unfortunately, these
adaptive strategies have reached their limits due to more frequent and
more intense flooding, leading to a partial break-up of the family. ``I
have two children, but because of the floods my first child has been
taken to Kumasi to live with my sister in-law.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED), Sheridan Bartlett, Climate Change and Urban Children: Impacts
and Implications for Adaptation in Low- and Middle-income Countries
(IIED, August 2008); http://www.iied.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While what has helped in the past may simply need to be modified
over time, relying just on past strategies could in fact prove
dangerous, could become what experts call maladaptive, given that some
of the impacts of climate change will fall outside of historical
experience.
A similar situation occurs in the biblical story of Joseph found in
the 41st chapter of Genesis, where an unusually severe and prolonged
drought required a massive response outside of normal practice in order
to avoid dire consequences. Like so much of what will be needed to
successfully adapt to climate change, Joseph's story is an example of
planning for hard times to come.
Because Joseph accurately predicted the dreams of others, the
Pharaoh believed Joseph's interpretation of his dreams that there would
be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine, a famine so
severe that ``the abundance in the land will not be remembered . . . ''
(v. 31). Then Joseph recommended a plan of action:
(34) Let Pharaoh appoint commissioners over the land to take
a fifth of the harvest of Egypt during the seven years of
abundance. (35) They should collect all the food of these good
years that are coming and store up the grain under the
authority of Pharaoh, to be kept in the cities for food. (36)
This food should be held in reserve for the country, to be used
during the seven years of famine that will come upon Egypt, so
that the country may not be ruined by the famine (vv. 34-36).
Planning in the present to survive major problems in the future--
this is a vital part of what climate change adaptation is all about.
Under Joseph's direction and authority the government took steps in
the present to invest in the future, a time when ``the abundance in the
land will not be remembered.'' This required a great deal of
organization, from the appointment of commissioners to the storage of
grain to its proper distribution when conditions called for it.
Additional storage facilities probably had to be built, distribution
centers created, people trained, the populace educated.
I'm sure there were some doubters. I'm sure a good number didn't
like a fifth of their grain being taken by the government for some
future threat they didn't understand or believe in. But I bet they were
glad when the famine came that they had food to eat because of Joseph's
leadership.
Today, in light of climate change, we see Joseph in a new light. He
is the Patriarch of adaptation; he is adaptation's ``patron Saint,'' if
you will.
Before going further, it will be helpful to have a working
definition of adaptation. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change or IPCC, adaptation actions are those that ``enhance
resilience or reduce vulnerability to observed or expected changes in
climate.'' \19\ This is exactly what Joseph did: he enhanced resilience
in order to reduce vulnerability from expected changes in climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IPCC, AR4, WG2, Ch 17, p. 720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two complementary and sometimes overlapping ways to
achieve adaptation, to enhance resilience and reduce vulnerability. One
is broader, the other more targeted. The first is achieved by realizing
the poverty-reducing and democracy-increasing dimensions of freedom,
something as a country that our standard overseas development
assistance (ODA) should be helping to foster. The second is achieved
through projects, processes, and mechanisms designed in whole or in
part to address climate impacts. Both are needed. Neither can be
neglected. Federal funding for international adaptation in
comprehensive climate change legislation, which needs to be new and
additional in comparison to ODA, should go towards addressing the
additional burdens created by climate impacts. In other words, such
funding should go towards targeted adaptation based on what the likely
major impacts of climate change will be in a particular area. Is there
going to be more flooding? More drought? Higher temperatures? How do we
prepare?
Targeted actions to enhance resilience or reduce vulnerability
could take a variety of forms, including concrete projects like
switching to more drought-resistant food crops. Just as in the
Patriarch Joseph's case, this sounds rather straightforward. But when
you go to apply it in a particular situation it can become quite
complex. For example, sorghum is more drought-resistant than other
crops. But it also brings in less revenue. If you switch, how, then, do
you make up that revenue? Or, instead of simply switching to a crop
already at hand you create one. The thing is, creating more drought-
resistant crops can take decades. It has taken 30 years to achieve
drought-tolerant beans for Latin America, for example. And that is the
norm.\20\ Furthermore, changing to such a drought resistant crop is not
simply a matter of providing new seeds. Their acceptance by a family or
community also depends upon such factors as their taste and how they
can be prepared, storage requirements, and the availability and
affordability of other inputs like fertilizers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ International Livestock Research Institute, P. K. Thornton, et
al., ``The livestock-climate-poverty nexus: A discussion paper on ILRI
research in relation to climate change,'' Discussion Paper No. 11.
ILRI: Nairobi, Kenya, (May 2008). p.41; http://www.ilri.org.
\21\ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), Technical Paper, Investment and financial flows to address
climate change: an update (UNFCCC, Nov 2008): p. 30; http://unfccc.int.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As anyone who has managed a major project before knows, they are
usually much more complicated than meets the eye and are just as much
about process as they are about product. Furthermore, when the project
means major changes in the way people do things, part of that process
includes education and persuasion and buy-in of those who need to
approve and participate in the changes. In many if not most cases,
adaptation projects will need to involve both the private and the
public sector. Governments, businesses, non-profits, community groups,
churches, families, and individuals will have to participate and play
their respective roles.
Examples of Adaptation
As briefly mentioned earlier, climate change will increase both the
frequency and intensity of inland flooding. One consequence will be a
diminishment of the ability of poor people living on increasingly
flood-prone lands to grow crops. A simple, practical solution made from
resources readily at hand is a floating garden. Water hyacinth (a free-
floating perennial aquatic plant) is collected and formed into a raft,
upon which soil and cow dung is placed. Seeds of suitable crops are
then planted in the soil.
Such floating gardens have been successfully demonstrated in one of
the poorest, most remote and flood-prone areas of Bangladesh, the
Gaibandha district, located at the confluence of two major rivers, the
Tista and the Brahmaputra. The local populations live below the
subsistence level, and out of necessity many fathers leave the area in
search of work, leaving behind their families.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ United Nations, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction,
Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Poverty Reduction: Good Practices
and Lessons Learned (UNISDR, 2008):
pp. 2-5; http://www.unisdr.org. See also the website of a non-profit
relief and development
organization in Great Britain called Practical Action, http://
practicalaction.org/?id=climate change_floatinggardens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, however, some of the wives and mothers who have been trained
on how to create and keep floating gardens are planting them to see
them through the lean times. One such mother is Tara Begum, who was
able to grow such crops as red onion, pumpkin, and okra. ``This has
made a great difference to my life. Now I have enough food in the
floods and I can give some to help my relatives as well.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Practical Action website, http://practicalaction.org/
?id=climatechange_floatinggardens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another consequence of flooding is the damage or destruction of
housing. One successful formula being implemented in Bangladesh,
utilizing locally available resources, involves creating a two-foot
high foundation upon which to erect one's home. This simple foundation
is made of earth with an outer protective layer of cement and stones.
The walls of the home are constructed of easily replaceable panels made
of jute (a readily available plant in the area). Water-thirsty plants,
such as bamboo and banana, are planted around the structure to soak up
water and retain the soil. As one father said, ``Before, when the rain
came, we wouldn't sleep. We were terrified. But now at last we can live
our lives in peace.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Practical Action website, http://practicalaction.org/
?id=flood-resistant_housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From flooding to drought
As the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. For
thousands of years, when people have needed to they have found various
ways to capture rainwater, called in the literature ``rainwater
harvesting.'' Because of increased water scarcity brought on by climate
change, many will need to discover anew how to do it in their local
area.
One way to capture rainwater for crops in a time of drought is by
constructing ridges of soil along the contours of fields so that the
rainwater doesn't simply run off the hard-baked soils. Before utilizing
this technique, Tias Sibanda, a local farmer from the Humbane village
of Gwanda, Zimbabwe, frequently harvested nothing during times of
drought and would then have to sell some of his livestock to survive.
But utilizing this rain harvesting technique has made a tremendous
difference for Tias Sibanda and his family. In the first year he had
two crops, which he calculates saved him from having to sell 12 goats
(worth about $320). Tias states: ``I am confident of further
improvements in the future and, if the drought eases, would soon be
able to sell some of my maize crop.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Practical Action website, http://practicalaction.org/
?id=climatechange_rainwater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another rainwater harvesting technique is to capture rainwater that
flows off of rooftops by a system of gutters and pipes that channel the
water into a storage tank. Efforts in Muthukandiya, a drought-stricken
village in Sri Lanka, serve as an example, not only of effective use of
this technology, but of how intentional efforts at community
involvement increased the success rate.
Previous top-down efforts in Muthukandiya by the government proved
ineffective. So a relief and development group working in the area,
Practical Action, called a meeting of the village where they asked
their views. As a result, this particular rooftop-to-tank storage
system of rainwater harvesting was chosen and a plan was developed to
make it a reality. A village committee was set up to run the project.
Nearly forty families agreed to participate. Two local masons were
trained in how to construct the 1,300 gallon storage tanks.
Participating households were trained in how to maintain the system.
The entire system cost $195 (equal to a month's income for a family),
but over half of the cost was covered by the community in the form of
materials and unskilled labor.
The results? During the driest times participating households have
nearly twice as much water as non-participating ones--and such water is
much cleaner, too.
A widow in the village, Nandawathie, has capitalized on the
opportunities provided by increased water by growing and selling
vegetables at her doorstep. With this additional revenue stream she
applied for a loan to install solar power in her house, and she is
thinking of building another storage tank to grow more produce.
Nandawathie also feels safer not having to fetch water. Her children
have less diarrhea, and her daughter Sandamalee has more time for
school work.
The benefits from this project are clear and compelling. However,
Practical Action reminds us that ``a lot of effort and patience are
needed to generate the interest, develop the skills, and organize the
management structures needed to implement sustainable community-based
projects'' like this one.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Practical Action website, http://practicalaction.org/
?id=rainwater_case_study
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A final rainwater harvesting example involves a community-based
project in a poor village in the drought-stricken Kitui district of
eastern Kenya. Such rainwater harvesting projects are desperately
needed in the country, given that only 4% of its rainwater collection
potential is being tapped even though it is chronically water-
scarce.\27\ The particular technique utilized for this project was a
``rock catchment,'' which requires a rock outcrop of sufficient size
and with impermeable rock. In the area where the rock slopes down a
wall is built, essentially creating a dam. This particular project
provided nearly a gallon of clean water within walking distance for
each village resident during the dry season.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ UN, ISDR, Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Poverty
Reduction: Good Practices and Lessons Learned, p. 36.
\28\ UN, ISDR, Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Poverty
Reduction: Good Practices and Lessons Learned, pp. 33-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Successive natural disasters can create a downward spiral that
thwarts the efforts of the poor to try to create a better life for
themselves, and climate-intensified disasters could make this dynamic
even worse. I call this ``the downward disaster spiral.'' But recent
efforts in Malawi, one of the world's poorest, most densely populated
countries, demonstrate that concerted efforts can thwart this downward
disaster spiral. Because of successive floods and droughts, the 2005
harvest was one of the worst ever recorded, declining 29 percent.\29\
Given that 85% of the country lives in rural areas and one third of GDP
comes from agriculture,\30\ such impacts are particularly devastating.
Over 5 million people faced food shortages. But just as the biblical
Patriarch Joseph planned for hard times to come, the government of
Malawi worked with relief and development organizations and development
financing institutions to help ensure that the population was better
positioned to withstand the next round of natural disasters. Because
the resources of many families had been depleted by successive
calamities, leaving them unable to buy fertilizers and other inputs,
these items were heavily subsidized and distributed by both government
and non-government entities in order to raise production. The result
was an additional 600,000 tons of maize worth at least $100 million
from an investment of $70 million.\31\ So not only did this effort
thwart the downward disaster spiral, allowing millions to continue
creating a better life, it made money for the entire economy in the
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ UNDP, Watkins, Fighting Climate Change, Box 4.4, p. 182.
\30\ Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book, https://
www.cia.gov.
\31\ UNDP, Watkins, Fighting Climate Change, Box 4.4, p. 182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example involves the recent efforts in Mozambique, the
sixth poorest country in the world and one that will be hit hard by
climate change. Both coastal and inland flooding are constant threats
with tropical cyclones (hurricanes) roaring in from the Indian Ocean
and nine major rivers flowing through the country to the ocean. Heavy
rains in 1999 had swollen the rivers and in February and March of 2000
Mozambique was hit with two major cyclones. Seven hundred people died
and 650,000 were displaced. But when a similar situation occurred in
2007 only 80 died, an 89% reduction.
What made this dramatic difference? The government worked with
relief and development organizations to conduct a detailed analysis
identifying the 40 most vulnerable areas, home to nearly 6 million. At
the community level disaster plans were developed and training
exercises conducted. Early warning systems were created. In 2007 the
activation of these plans and systems helped with the evacuation of
those most at risk.\32\ Even though they are poor, these concerted
efforts by the government, relief and development organizations, and
their local communities made them less vulnerable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ UNDP, Watkins, Fighting Climate Change, p. Box 4.6, p. 184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If success can be achieved in two of the poorest countries in the
world, Malawi and Mozambique, then success can be achieved anywhere.
And such successes not only save lives, they can be highly cost-
effective economically, with benefits exceeding costs anywhere from 1
to 38 times, depending upon the project.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ United Nations, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(ISDR), Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Risk and
Poverty in a Changing Climate (United Nations: Geneva, 2009): p. 134;
http://www.preventionweb.net. The IPCC also states that ``there is high
confidence that there are viable adaptation options that can be
implemented in some of these sectors at low cost and/or with high
benefit- cost ratios. Empirical research also suggests that higher
benefit-cost ratios can be achieved by implementing some adaptation
measures at an early stage compared to retrofitting long-lived
infrastructure at a later date.'' See IPCC, AR4, Synthesis, p. 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhancing Freedom by Helping with Adaptation
For a freedom-loving people like ourselves, climate change
represents a worldwide scourge. It is a freedom denier, a freedom
destroyer, not only in terms of denying opportunities for individuals,
but potentially for the cause of freedom in entire countries.
A recent study has demonstrated that it is poor countries that lack
a literate population that are more vulnerable to climate impacts. Why?
``A literate population will be better able to lobby for political and
civil rights, which in turn will allow it to demand accountable and
effective government. Where such rights exist, governments are more
likely to become accountable for reducing the impact of successive high
mortality disasters, and are thus more likely to address
vulnerability.''\34\ The history of our own freedom proves the point.
If our Founding Fathers had not been literate there would have been no
American Revolution, no Declaration of Independence, no Constitution,
no Bill of Rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Brooks, N., W.N. Adger and P.M. Kelly, ``The determinants of
vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the
implications for adaptation,'' Global Environmental Change, vol 15
(2005): p. 161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As climate change helps to keep the poor, poor, it could also help
rob them of their chance to become free in this democratic sense of
being able to petition and influence one's government. More
malnutrition, more stunted children, more maternal mortality, more loss
of educational opportunities, and increasing conflicts over scarce
resources--these consequences of climate change and others could either
erode the democratic dimension of freedom or strangle it in its cradle.
The point is this: climate change will help to keep them poor and
will strengthen the possible stifling of the democratic dimension of
freedom--one of the very things that are needed to make them less
vulnerable.
Given all of this, to be on the right side of history, to be on the
right side of the cause of freedom today means overcoming the tyranny
of climate change. This is one of the great causes of freedom in the
21st Century.
Christians believe that we don't simply have freedom for freedom's
sake. We have it for God's sake. We have it for the sake of doing God's
will. We have the gift of freedom so we can freely become the ever
increasingly glorious images of Christ as we love God and love our
neighbors as ourselves and care for the least of these we find in the
ditch as if they were the LORD Himself.
As the Apostle Paul said to the Galatians: ``It is for freedom that
Christ has set us free. You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be
free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather,
serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single
command: `Love your neighbor as yourself' '' (5:1, 13-14).
In America's best moments we have been the harbingers of freedom
around the world. So too can we be in helping the poor adapt to climate
change. We can and we must rise to this occasion. We must not pass by
on the other side and ignore those with Christ in the ditch of global
warming's impacts. As a compassionate country, we must fulfill the
content of our character to maintain our moral strength, which is the
backbone of our nation.
Funding
Like we have done with AIDS and malaria and in times of major
natural disasters, the U.S. should lead the world with our generosity
in helping poor people adapt to consequences they did not cause. And
while we may not have understood that our actions in burning fossil
fuels would contribute to harmful impacts being visited upon them, that
is in fact the case. Our country has a strong value of fairness, and it
is only fair that we help those we have unintentionally harmed.
Recent contributions from the rich countries, unfortunately, have
been woefully inadequate. One estimate for targeted adaptation puts it
at less than 0.2% of what is required.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ UN, ISDR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction:
Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate, p. 143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This of course begs the question: what amount of financial
resources will be required? \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ For a very helpful Table summarizing the major reports
estimating the investments needed for both mitigation and adaptation in
developing countries, see the World Bank's World Development Report
2010: Development and Climate Change (World Bank, 2009),Table 6.2 [p.
270 of the embargoed draft pdf]: http://siteresources.worldbank.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An estimate from the United Nations Development Program concludes
that it will cost approximately $86 billion per year, which would
represent a mere 0.2% of developed country GDP, or roughly one tenth
what developed countries spend on their militaries.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ UNDP, Watkins, Fighting Climate Change, p. 194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study just released by the World Bank estimated targeted
adaptation to cost between $75-100 billion a year between 2010-
2050.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ World Bank, The Costs to Developing Countries of Adapting to
Climate Change: New Methods and Estimates: The Global Report of the
Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change Study, Consultation Draft,
(World Bank 2009) pp. 4-6; http://siteresources.worldbank.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another estimate by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) of some of the major areas that will require targeted
adaptation provides a range of $28-67 billion, with the upper and lower
ranges based upon how severe one assumes the impacts will be.\39\ Other
respected experts have collectively criticized the UNFCCC funding
levels as underestimating the costs ``by a factor of between 2 and 3''
for the areas estimated. A key sector not included by the UNFCCC, the
protection of ecosystems, ``could add a further $65-300 billion per
year in costs.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ UNFCCC, Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate
Change, (October 2007): p. 8; http://www.preventionweb.net. When
determining its estimate of how much adaptation funding will be
required, the UNFCCC adheres to the concept of ``additionality.'' As
they explain in their Nov 2008 update, ``the financing of adaptation
needs to reflect the fact that adaptation is responding to the
additional burden posed by climate change; quite distinct from the
aggregate flow of resources towards overall socio-economic development
goals.'' See UNFCCC, Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate
Change: An Update, p. 26.
\40\ Martin Parry et al., Accessing the Costs of Adaptation to
Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates
(International Institute for Environment and Development and the
Grantham Institute on Climate Change: London, Aug 2009): p.14; http://
www.iied.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What should be the contribution from the U.S. Government for
targeted adaptation? Given that historically our generous spirit as a
country has led the U.S. to contribute 20-30% of the funds for major
natural disasters and for such health problems like AIDS, let's assume
25 percent.\41\ If we make a further assumption that the needs will be
on the low end--$28 billion per year--then the minimum contribution
from the U.S. Government would be $7 billion annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The U.S. has contributed nearly 30% to the Global Fund for
AIDS. See U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR),
2009 Annual Report to Congress, p. 31; http://www.pepfar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the level of federal funding within comprehensive climate
change legislation that the partner organizations of the National
Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE) have called for. The
NRPE includes the Evangelical Environmental Network (the organization I
work for), the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, the National
Council of Churches of Christ, and the Coalition on the Environment and
Jewish Life. Together, in a joint letter to Senators (see attached
example addressed to Sen. Kerry), we have called for there to be in
comprehensive cap-and-trade climate change legislation ``an allocation
equivalent to $3.5 billion annually, starting in 2012, which moves
rapidly toward $7 billion annually by 2020.''
Unfortunately, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security
bill passed by the House of Representatives only provided a 1%
allocation for international adaptation, which would be the equivalent
of approximately $700 million--an amount that is woefully inadequate.
Such funding levels must be increased significantly to capture the full
support of the religious community.
While such funding can be justified in a variety of ways, one
important way for our country to understand financing for targeted
adaptation is as a strategic investment.
First, investments in targeted adaptation will in most cases
generate a healthy rate of return (assuming the money is spent as
intended). As mentioned previously, studies have shown that in the area
of disaster risk reduction benefits can exceed costs anywhere from 1 to
38 times depending upon the project. As a recent major report on
adaptation puts it: ``well-targeted, early investment to improve
climate resilience--whether in infrastructure development, technology
advances, capacity improvement, shifts in systems and behaviors, or
risk transfer measures--is likely to be cheaper and more effective for
the world community than complex disaster relief efforts after the
event.'' \42\ In other words, much better to avoid a big mess than have
to clean one up. Much better to do things right the first time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Economics of Climate Adaptation Working Group, Shaping Climate
Resilient Development: A Framework for Decision-making, p. 12; http://
www.mckinsey.com. This Working Group is a partnership of McKinsey and
Co., the Global Environmental Facility, Climate Works Foundation,
Rockefeller Foundation, Standard Charter Bank, Swiss Re, and the
European Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, a stable world is in our national interest (as Gen. Wald
will testify to much more authoritatively than I). Diminishing the ways
climate change functions as a ``threat multiplier'' helps to keep our
military personnel out of harm's way and forestalls situations that can
become breeding grounds for terrorists. A stable world also enhances
our economic security by facilitating the free flow of commerce.
Former Senator John Warner has reminded us all--most recently at
the July 30 hearing by the Environment and Public Works Committee on
Climate Change and National Security--that America's military policy,
energy policy and climate policies are interrelated and that, as he
quotes Senator Kerry: ``Climate change injects a major new source of
chaos, tension and human insecurity into an already volatile world.''
\43\ Helping the vulnerable adapt will dampen the prospects for such
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See The Honorable John Warner (retired), Testimony before the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, July 30, 2009; http://
epw.senate.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the U.S. cannot overcome climate change on our own. It is an
international problem requiring an international solution. Our
investments in both climate mitigation and adaptation will be
ultimately futile without an international treaty or agreement,
especially since a recent McKinsey & Co analysis concluded that 67% of
the greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities required to keep the world
below 2 C above preindustrial levels (or about 1 F above 2009 levels)
are found in developing countries.\44\ Such countries have made it
clear that without sufficient funds for adaptation there will be no
deal, and having sufficient dedicated funding for international
adaptation in a climate bill is the best way for the United States to
meet this need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ McKinsey & Co., Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of
the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve (January 2009): p. 35
http://www.mckinsey.com. According to the IPCC, keeping temperature
rise to 2-2.4 C above pre-industrial levels would require a
stabilization of GHG concentrations at between 445-490 ppm (parts per
million). See IPCC, AR4, WG3, SPM, Table SPM.5, p. 15. See also, World
Bank, World Development Report 2010, pp. 66-69 [embargoed pdf].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth and finally, remaining true to our character and our values
of fairness, compassion, generosity, and freedom keeps us strong as a
country.
We have the means. Let us now summon the will. Thank you for your
attention and for your leadership.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Reverend.
Mr. Waskow?
STATEMENT OF DAVID WASKOW, CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
OXFAM AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Waskow. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Menendez,
Ranking Member Corker, and Senator Shaheen. I am David Waskow,
the Climate Change Program Director at Oxfam America.
Tomorrow, October 16th, is noteworthy for two reasons. It
is World Food Day and it also marks the point 50 days before
the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen in
December. This date should serve as a reminder to us of two
things. First, the struggle of vulnerable developing countries
to maintain food security is becoming even more acute as
climate change increases water scarcity and severe weather
events. And second, we are nearing a critical moment in the
international climate negotiations. In many ways, it is a
moment of truth for the United States. Copenhagen is a
tremendous opportunity for our country to inspire global change
and demonstrate leadership on this unprecedented global
challenge of climate change.
So I would like to ask the members of the subcommittee to
take a moment and imagine how the world might respond if the
United States came to the global negotiations in December with
a dramatic commitment to assist the most vulnerable, at-risk
developing countries to adapt to the climate change they are
least responsible for causing. How would this reposition our
country not only on climate change but also on a host of other
international issues related to our national priorities and
economic security? And moreover, this is essential for the
negotiations.
Supporting countries hard hit by climate change is
fundamentally important if the United States hopes to conclude
a global climate deal. For many countries, from small island
states to least-developed countries such as Bangladesh and many
in Africa, to countries in the Andes suffering from glacial
melt, adaptation to climate impacts is critically important.
Indeed, for well over 100 nations, a vast majority of those in
the negotiations, adaptation is a central element, not a
peripheral issue in the talks for a post-2012 agreement.
Also, for major developing countries such as South Africa
and India, who have substantial populations living on less than
$2 a day and have severe water scarcity challenges, adaptation
is a core issue.
And China has shown strong support for the efforts of other
developing countries to address adaptation in the negotiations.
As you know well, climate change requires global solutions,
and in sum, without substantial resources for adaptation, we
will not achieve an international agreement.
As President Obama recently said, any effort that fails to
help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that
climate change has already wrought and help them travel a path
of clean development simply will not work.
We also have other U.S. interests at stake. Let me briefly
mention three in particular.
First, passing climate legislation and leading in
Copenhagen will build the global leadership role of the United
States. Climate change is one of the greatest obstacles in the
21st century to development and efforts to reduce global
poverty. It even threatens to roll back many development gains
the United States has spent precious time and resources to
achieve. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were completely
eliminated today, we would face a couple of decades of growing
impacts that must be addressed.
Some numbers. The International Food Policy Research
Institute recently estimated that it will take $7 billion a
year in climate adaptation efforts in agriculture alone from
research on crop varieties to improved irrigation in order to
avoid a large jump in child malnutrition. According to the
World Bank, total adaptation needs in developing countries will
average $75 billion to $100 billion a year over the next 40
years. So we need to foster the ability of developing countries
to cope or our best efforts to promote global development will
be severely undermined.
Second, as I am sure General Wald will testify, climate
change already poses serious security consequences in fragile
and impoverished countries. I have a map. As this map shows in
very brief form--and I will not go into the details--stressed
regions are also the ones that will be deeply affected by
climate impacts. Simply put, our national security depends on
human security abroad.
Third, building resilience to climate impacts makes good
economic sense. As a just-released report by McKinsey & Co.
shows, many adaptation strategies from drip irrigation to
buttressing infrastructure will provide greater economic
benefits in the long run than they cost initially. Other
studies have shown that disaster prevention efforts save $7 for
every dollar spent.
Building climate resilience is also an economic
opportunity. Already we are seeing new markets for adaptation
technologies and services such as water pumps and irrigation
devices and early warning systems. U.S. businesses and workers
can partner with communities internationally in this new
adaptation marketplace. And I have another slide here. This
slide shows a sampling of U.S. companies that stand to benefit
from a robust adaptation market, and this is from a recent
report we released, which I would be happy to share with the
committee.
Let me conclude by saying that Congress can and should lead
the way by investing in adaptation solutions today that will
pay off immediately and in the future. We urge you to ensure
that a significant portion of the resources, again, the money,
in a comprehensive climate and energy legislation are devoted
to adaptation efforts in vulnerable developing countries.
Providing this support is a critical step that will send a
clear message to other nations and demonstrate our leadership
globally.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waskow follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Waskow, Climate Change
Program Director, Oxfam America
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator Corker and Members of
Subcommittee. I am David Waskow, the Climate Change Program Director at
Oxfam America.
Oxfam America is an international development and humanitarian
organization that works with communities and partner organizations in
more than 120 countries to create lasting solutions to poverty, hunger,
and injustice.
We have come to see climate change as one of the greatest
challenges to our efforts in the 21st century to promote development
and reduce global poverty. In our operations spanning Africa, Latin
America, and East Asia, our staff and partners are already responding
to the serious impacts of climate change, from increasingly severe
weather events to water scarcity. Moreover, as the science indicates,
poor and vulnerable communities around the world will increasingly bear
the brunt of the consequences of global warming, threatening the lives
of millions of people and undermining global stability and security.
As you know, climate change is a global problem that requires
global solutions and cooperation. This is true not only to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, but also to combat climate change impacts
already underway. In order for the United States to lead in addressing
the devastating effects of climate change on the world's poor, as well
as successfully negotiate a comprehensive global climate agreement, we
must provide meaningful resources to support the efforts of vulnerable
developing countries to adapt and build resilience to climate impacts.
Millions of lives and, in some cases, the literal survival of
vulnerable nations depends on a significant and sustained financial
commitment from the United States and other developed countries.
Moreover, we cannot afford to put our security at risk as a result of
inattention to the destabilizing impacts of climate change in
impoverished countries around the world. The necessity of such action
is complemented by the economic benefits it can provide, both for
developing countries themselves and for businesses and workers in the
United States who can partner with communities internationally to
deliver adaptation products and services.
Congress has a unique opportunity to invest in adaptation solutions
today that will pay off both immediately and in the future, and we urge
you to help ensure that at least 3% of the resources in comprehensive
climate and energy legislation are devoted to adaptation efforts in
vulnerable developing countries. While these resources alone would not
meet the substantial need for adaptation funding according to recent
estimates, and must be augmented through other sources, providing this
support in a U.S. climate bill is an important step to addressing
critical needs in developing countries.
As President Obama recently stated before the United Nations: ``For
these are the nations that are already living with the unfolding
effects of a warming planet--famine and drought; disappearing coastal
villages and the conflict that arises from scarce resources. Their
future is no longer a choice between a growing economy and a cleaner
planet, because their survival depends on both. It will do little good
to alleviate poverty if you can no longer harvest your crops or find
drinkable water. That is why we have a responsibility to provide the
financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt
to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.''
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speech to United Nations General Assembly by President Barak
Obama, as released by the White House, September 22, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reality is dire for the world's poor who stand on the front
lines of the global climate crisis that they are least responsible for
causing. People living in developing countries are 20 times more likely
to be affected by climate-related disasters--such as floods, droughts,
and hurricanes--compared to those living in the industrialized world.
In the 1990s alone, nearly two billion people in developing countries
were affected by climate-related disasters.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Jonathan Pershing (World Resources Institute): testimony to the
House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
Committee on Energy and Commerce; Hearing on Climate Change,
International Issues, and Engaging Developing Countries; March 27,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimates of climate change's contribution to worsening
conditions are disturbing. Weather extremes, food and water scarcity,
and climate-related public health threats are projected to displace
between 150 million and one billion people as climate change
unfolds.\3\ Our already strained capacity to respond to natural
disasters and health crises around the world is being stretched even
further by the increasing harm caused by climate change impacts.
Developing countries' struggle to maintain food security is made even
more acute in the face of declining agricultural productivity and the
loss of crops to weather-related disasters. The very lifeline of the
world's poorest countries, where communities depend on agriculture for
their very existence, is being frayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sir Nicholas Stern, ``Stern Review on the Economics of Climate
Change,'' (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007) www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk; and Christian Aid, ``Human Tide: The Real Migration
Crisis,'' May 2007, www.christianaid.org.uk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the consequences of climate change reach significantly
beyond these direct impacts. Global stability and security will be
undermined by increasing migration and refugee crises, by conflicts
over ever-scarcer natural resources, and by economic and political
destabilization as poverty and food insecurity grow.
Reducing these threats will require action today so that vulnerable
countries are able to adapt to and build resilience to climate impacts.
For the long-term, the most important preventive action we can take is
a dramatic, immediate reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions that
cause climate change. Indeed, adaptation needs will be far greater in
the future if we do not take concerted action now to limit those
emissions. Yet it is also increasingly clear that the consequences of
climate change are already being felt, and that those consequences are
often experienced first and worst by vulnerable communities in poor
countries. As the Stern Review has noted, even if emissions were to be
eliminated today, we would still face at least two decades of
increasing global temperatures.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nicholas Stern, ``The economics of climate change: The Stern
review'' (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking international action on adaptation is made all the more
urgent because of the increasingly serious impacts from climate change
we are already seeing today. Earlier this year, the International
Scientific Congress on Climate Change warned that global warming is
outpacing even recent scientific projections. ``Recent observations
confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] scenario trajectories
(or even worse) are being realized.\5\ For many key parameters, the
climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural
variability within which our society and economy have developed and
thrived.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, ``Key
Messages from the Congress,'' March 12, 2009, Copenhagen. http://
climatecongress.ku.dk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To cope with these consequences, the World Bank estimated in
September 2009 that developing countries would require $75-100 billion
annually during the period 2010-2050.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ World Bank, ``Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change
Study,'' September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this reality, adaptation has come to the fore in
international climate change negotiations. Making investments in
international adaptation action in developing countries will be
essential to achieving a global agreement that puts the world on the
path to a future that is resilient to climate change.
For many countries--from small island states to least developed
countries such as Bangladesh and many African countries to countries
like Peru suffering the consequences of glacial melt--adaptation is not
a peripheral issue in the negotiations for a post-2012 climate
agreement. Indeed, for well over 100 countries--a vast majority of the
countries that participate in the negotiations--adaptation to climate
consequences is a central element that must be addressed in a serious
way and with substantial resources in any global deal. Major developing
countries such as South Africa and India, who have substantial
populations living on less than $2 a day and who face growing water
scarcity challenges, also see adaptation become a fundamental concern
in the international process.
Developing country leaders have been outspoken about the importance
of adaptation. In a letter to this Committee dated July 30, 2009, the
Bangladesh Ambassador to the United States stated, ``such an agreement
will be difficult to achieve without adequate resources for the least
developed countries and other developing countries to adapt to climate
change impacts. The efforts to address these impacts and to build
resilience to climate change are vastly under-resourced.''
At the recent UN Summit on Climate Change, Mohamed Nasheed,
President of the Republic of Maldives, a small island state, appealed
to world leaders on September 22, 2009: ``We stand here to tell you
just how bad things are. We warn you that unless you act quickly and
decisively, our homeland and others like it will disappear beneath the
rising sea before the end of this century. We ask you what will become
of us.''
The Bali Action Plan, which set out the parameters for the
international negotiations leading to Copenhagen in December,
established adaptation as one of the four pillars of any global deal.
Adaptation is also a substantial area of negotiation in two of the
other pillars, finance and technology. For many developing countries,
the current attention to adaptation is a welcome recognition of its
importance after years of neglect following commitments made in the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was agreed in 1992 and to
which the United States is party.
In the current negotiations, developing countries are seeking
support for efforts already underway to adapt to and build resilience
to the climate impacts they face. For example, more than 40 least
developed countries have developed National Adaptation Programs of
Actions (NAPAs) that identify urgent and immediate adaptation needs and
actions. Many of these countries and others have now embarked on
broader and longer-term adaptation planning processes. Developing
countries often have the strategies in place to combat climate impacts;
what is missing are the vitally needed resources to carry out their
plans.
Climate adaptation is an urgent necessity for developing countries.
Supporting vulnerable countries with the resources to undertake their
adaptation efforts would be a wise investment by the United States.
Taking action now will pay for itself many times over. Reducing risks
from climate-related disasters, ensuring that water resources are
available, and increasing food security will help reduce the costs
faced in disaster response, food assistance, and security engagements.
A recent report conducted by McKinsey & Co. on the economics of
adaptation showed that a wide range of adaptation strategies--from
infrastructure improvements to technological measures and disaster
relief programs--will provide much greater economic benefits than their
initial costs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Economics of Climate Change Working Group, ``Shaping Climate-
Resilient Development: A Framework for Decision-making,'' 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building resilience in the face of climate change is also an
economic opportunity that should be seized. Innovative adaptation
solutions can be an integral part of a global transition toward a clean
and climate-resilient economy. From improving water systems to
developing more resilient agricultural practices, adaptation can
provide substantial economic benefits. Already we are seeing a need for
and development of new markets for technologies and services to help
communities build resilience to climate change impacts, such as water
pumps and filtration devices, irrigation equipment, early warning
systems to forecast storms, flood, and drought, weather-indexed micro-
insurance programs, and renewable energy systems to support adaptive
strategies.
impacts on vulnerable communities in developing countries
While the United States is facing a significant challenge in
addressing the consequences of climate change, the capacity of
vulnerable communities in developing countries to cope with climate-
related impacts is even more limited and is being stretched beyond
capacity. Already, the number of people affected by climate-related
disasters in developing countries has increased exponentially during
the past four decades, as demonstrated in the graph below.
This trend is expected to continue. By 2015, on average more than
375 million people per year are likely to be affected by climate-
related disasters. This is over 50 percent more than have been affected
in an average year over the last decade.\8\ Weather-related disasters
around the world have more than doubled since the 1980s.\9\ The
estimates of climate change's contribution to worsening conditions are
alarming. By 2020, up to 250 million people across Africa could face
increasingly severe water shortages, according to the IPCC. By mid-
century, more than a billion people will face water shortages and
hunger, including 600 million in Africa alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Oxfam International, ``The Right to Survive,'' April 2009.
http://www.oxfam.org.
\9\ Low, Petra, ``Weather-related Disasters Dominate,'' Worldwatch
Institute, October 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 75 percent of people in developing countries depend on
agriculture as the main component of their livelihoods. According to
IPCC estimates, some countries' yields from rain-fed crops could be
halved by 2020 due to climate impacts. According to a recent study by
the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), climate
change will lead to a 20% increase in child malnutrition by 2050, and
more than $7 billion is needed annually in adaptation funding to
prevent this growth in child hunger.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ International Food Policy Research Institute, ``Climate
Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation,'' September
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the moral and ethical arguments for dealing with the climate
crisis are not yet evident, the economic imperative to reduce emissions
is extremely clear. The Stern Review concluded that global warming may
cost the world close to $10 trillion by next century due to rising sea
levels, famine, storms and other environmental harm. An Oxfam analysis
of the costs of adapting to climate impacts in developing countries has
found that the needs are at least $50 billion annually, and potentially
higher, when existing investments are protected and community-level
adaptation needs are addressed.
As noted above, the World Bank released a study in September 2009
that estimates the cost of adaptation in developing countries to be
$75-100 million annually in the period 2010-2050. Similarly, the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) 2008 Human Development Report
estimates that the adaptation needs of developing countries will total
up to $86 billion per year from 2015 onward. This estimate is based on
the costs of integrating climate-resiliency into development activities
(such as with irrigation systems and preventive health programs),
strengthening infrastructure such as schools and roads, and adding to
disaster preparedness and response capacity.
national security, global stability and building climate-resilience
Our national interest will not be well-served by a failure to
tackle the powerful ripple effects that climate change will cause in
some of the most politically sensitive parts of the world. In a report
from CNA, a number of retired U.S. admirals and generals refer to
climate change as a ``threat multiplier,'' presenting significant
national security challenges for the United States.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The CNA Corporation, ``National Security and the Threat of
Climate Change,'' 2007. For instance, the increased scarcity of natural
resources has contributed to conflicts in areas such as Darfur. The
recent conflict there coincides with a 40 percent decline in
precipitation in Sudan, which has been linked by scientists to global
temperature change and changes in rainfall patterns tied to warming in
the Indian Ocean. Such examples provide us with a glimpse at what is to
come in the developing world if we do not build resilience to the
consequences of climate change. One of the recommendations of the CNA
report is for the U.S. ``to assist nations at risk to build the
capacity and resiliency to better cope with the effects of climate
change. Doing so now can help avert humanitarian disasters later.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adaptation as catalyst for new growth and resiliency
Acting today to reduce disaster risks and improve livelihoods in
agriculture and other sectors is essential in avoiding even greater
costs later. For instance, providing improved irrigation and water
retention systems will help reduce future food aid costs in times of
scarcity or famine. Similarly, protecting infrastructure or putting in
place natural sea buffers such as mangrove or cypress forests will help
reduce future disaster assistance costs.
The financial benefits from taking preventive action have been
demonstrated widely. According to an analysis by the U.S. Geological
Survey and the World Bank, an investment of $40 billion to reduce
disaster risk is capable of preventing disaster losses of $280 billion.
A study conducted by the British international development agency finds
that every U.S.$1 invested in pre-disaster risk management activities
in developing countries can prevent U.S.$7 in losses.
In China, U.S.$3 billion spent on flood defenses in the four
decades up to 2000 is estimated to have averted losses of U.S.$12
billion. Evidence from a mangrove-planting project designed to protect
coastal populations from storm surges in Viet Nam estimated economic
benefits that were 52 times higher than costs. In Brazil, a flood
reconstruction and prevention project designed to break the cycle of
periodic flooding in 2005 has resulted in a return on investment of
greater than 50 percent by reducing residential property damages.
Bangladesh provides a particularly compelling example of the
benefits of prudent planning and risk reduction. In 1970, up to 500,000
people perished in the Bhola cyclone in Bangladesh, and in 1991 another
138,000 people were killed in the Chittagong cyclone. Bangladesh has
since instituted a national cyclone preparedness program that includes
shelters, early warning systems and community-based preparedness
measures.
When Cyclone Sidr struck Bangladesh in 2007, a network of some
34,000 volunteers were mobilized to effectively communicate risks to
millions of people--even where many had limited or no access to TV and
radio--to encourage evacuation to a network of cyclone shelters. As a
result, while 3,300 people perished, far more lives were saved compared
to the earlier cyclones. By contrast, when Cyclone Nargis hit the Burma
(Myanmar) delta region in May 2008, there was a broad failure by the
government to alert residents and to provide protection. As a result,
UN agencies report that more than 100,000 perished in the cyclone.
Working with vulnerable communities in building their resilience to
the consequences of climate change can also provide a means to enable
these same communities to become more economically, socially and
politically resilient in the broadest sense. For instance, reliable
access to essential services such as sanitation and clean water can
help build the capacity of communities to respond to unpredictable
climate events such as floods and drought but also can serve as a
foundation for economic growth and development.
Often, building resilience means enhancing existing development
approaches, such as improving agricultural techniques or water supply
systems. At other times, however, the challenges will be new and
different. For instance, some communities will have to adapt to rapidly
melting mountain glaciers-creating excessive runoff and the potential
for unprecedented floods now while leading to scarcer water supplies in
future years once the glaciers are gone. These communities could
benefit from the creation of reservoirs and water impoundments to
capture and store water resources that will become increasingly scarce
in the future. Alternatively, these communities may have to create
flood warning systems to deal with higher water flows and may have to
change agricultural practices and the crops they grow to deal with
water abundance in the short term and scarcity sometime in the future.
In some cases, adaptation strategies can also provide important
benefits in reducing or sequestering greenhouse gas emissions. For
example, agricultural practices involving agroforestry; increasing soil
carbon from reduced tillage, mulching, or other practices; and
efficient water usage can provide both adaptation and emissions
reduction benefits.
Vulnerable communities are engaging in a variety of resilience-
building approaches that promote economic development and poverty and
improve climate-change resilience. Some examples include:
In the Arequipa region of Peru, small farmers are installing a new
system of gravity-fed irrigation to ensure that pastures are
properly watered, an increasingly difficult task as water
supplies decrease due to the overly rapid melting of glacial
water sources. Other initiatives in the region include
installing radio networks to ensure that remote communities are
informed of any severe weather patterns.
In Karnataka, India, the local government has initiated an
innovative watershed development project. Small dams now catch
the water from monsoon rains before the water disappears from
the watershed, and the water is slowly absorbed into the ground
to replenish the local aquifer and refill dry wells.
In Ethiopia, farmers are being trained in practices such as
appropriate crop spacing and crop rotation, techniques which
also increase farm productivity. Farmers have also learned
skills and strategies such as water harvesting and carefully
selecting seeds based on their capacity to cope with climate
variability. In addition, distribution of energy-saving stoves
has decreased unsustainable use of firewood and the workload of
the women and children who gather it.
In Cambodia, small-scale farmers are implementing an agricultural
technique called System of Rice Intensification (SRI). SRI has
been developed to revive traditional agricultural techniques
for rice farming that may prove less water intensive and more
productive than other agricultural approaches.
A recent cost-benefit analysis conducted by McKinsey & Co. for the
Economics of Climate Adaptation Working Group of the World Bank found
that the development of new areas of cash crop production in countries
like Mali could avert the country's expected economic loss from climate
change and even generate additional revenue. The analysis also found
that climate resilience measures can have a positive impact on health.
In Guyana, putting in place basic flood-proofing measures and emergency
response capabilities would also significantly reduce mortality.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Economics of Climate Change Working Group. ``Shaping Climate-
Resilient Development: A Framework for Decision-making,'' 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, for many companies, there are critical overlaps between
climate impacts that will affect their supply chains and impacts on
local communities. For example, water scarcity can affect the
production of cotton for the apparel industry so that finding ways to
protect shared water resources can be enormously beneficial both to
those companies and to communities.
Responding to climate change impacts affecting poor communities may
also present new business opportunities and spur economic development
in some of the poorest regions of the world. Recent interest in
``climate-risk'' insurance products by the insurance industry offers
one indication that global financial institutions understand the costs
and benefits of both emissions reduction and building climate
resilience aimed at hedging future climate risks.
In Ethiopia, where 85 percent of the population is dependent on
rain-fed agriculture, Oxfam is working with the insurance company Swiss
Re and small-scale farmers to pilot a weather-indexed micro-insurance
project.
Meanwhile, cutting-edge companies with major U.S. operations are
already developing and deploying innovative technologies and services
that help communities adapt to droughts, floods, storms, and other
climate-change impacts. Climate resilience solutions take many forms.
For example, Pentair, a Minnesota-based company with nearly $3.5
billion in annual revenue, manufactures technologies for the entire
water cycle--from pumps to filters. The company has installed and
maintained filtration systems that provide clean drinking water to
rural communities in India and Honduras. General Electric is supplying
solar energy modules and water filtration technology to a new
initiative to increase the availability of drinking water in rural
areas of India and other developing countries in the East Asia region
and Africa.
The development of new, clean energy technologies to support
climate adaptation and resilience in developing countries is another
arena for business opportunities. Energy poverty, or the absence of
access to reliable energy services, affects approximately one-third of
the world's population, with 80 percent of those in South Asia and Sub-
Saharan Africa. Building a renewable energy future in vulnerable
countries can provide the developing world with the infrastructure
needed for some critical adaptation strategies such as water pumps,
while also helping developing nations grow along a low-carbon pathway.
For example, General Electric's Homespring system harnesses solar
energy to power water apparatuses in off-the-grid communities in Africa
and Asia.
The map in the appendix represents a sampling of companies
operating in the U.S. that develop products and provide services that
build climate preparedness. These and other firms stand to benefit from
an increase in adaptation market opportunities that spur innovation and
create jobs. Public financing for climate change adaptation will
increase demand opportunities for well-positioned companies.
achieving a successful outcome in international negotiations
and u.s. support for international adaptation
Climate change requires a global solution, including investments in
international adaptation efforts around the world. Achieving a
successful outcome in the international negotiations will depend on the
readiness of the United States and other developed countries to support
the efforts of developing countries to adapt and build resilience in
the face of the climate change challenge.
The most important element for success is substantial resources for
adaptation in vulnerable developing countries. These resources must be
new and additional to existing official development assistance (ODA)
commitments. Climate change is a new burden on developing countries;
the resources to address this additional obstacle to development should
not come from aid commitments intended to address underlying, already
existing development challenges. Health and education development
programs, for example, should not be diminished in order to pay for
addressing climate challenges such as water scarcity or increasingly
severe storms and floods.
The amount of funding currently being generated and distributed to
support adaptation in vulnerable countries is woefully inadequate when
compared to the current estimates of need. According to the World Bank,
resources for multilateral adaptation finance initiatives included $172
million total for the Least Developed Countries Fund (as of October
2008); $600 million total in pledges for the World Bank's Climate
Investment Fund/Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (due to sunset when
a post-2012 climate agreement is in place): an estimated $300-600
million/year for the Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund, to which the
United States is not a party; and $50 million total for a special
Global Environment Facility adaptation fund.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ World Bank, ``Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change
Study,'' September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While adaptation funding should be new and additional to existing
ODA commitments, adaptation strategies and programs should be aligned
with national development strategies in developing countries and a U.S.
development strategy. If adaptation is not carried out in alignment
with broader development approaches, it will not provide the greatest
possible benefit for development. Indeed, in many cases, adaptation
practices must expand upon existing development approaches.
In addition to providing adequate resources, an international
climate agreement, as well as Congressional legislation, should result
in an appropriate structure and appropriate delivery mechanisms for
international adaptation assistance. The following are key elements to
address:
Adaptation efforts in developing countries should be community-
based and ensure the full engagement of local communities in
the development and implementation of adaptation strategies and
activities. Such approaches have the greatest likelihood of
success on the ground.
Adaptation resources should be focused on the most vulnerable
communities and populations in developing countries. Gender
should be a key consideration in deciding where to focus
resources; women are often the most vulnerable to climate
impacts because of their role in providing food and water for
their households.
Bilateral adaptation assistance should include multi-year funding
for developing countries, based on agreements regarding
national objectives for enhancing climate resilience.
Multilateral adaptation funding should be overseen and governed in
a way that ensures fair representation for vulnerable
developing countries. To best achieve this, funding should be
governed through a funding body under the oversight of the
parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), the principal international venue for addressing
climate adaptation.
conclusion
We appreciate this subcommittee's leadership on climate change and
the ways in which we can deal with its consequences. It is not too late
to demonstrate our resolve and to lead the world in addressing one of
the greatest challenges of this century. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Dr. Green?
STATEMENT OF DR. KENNETH P. GREEN, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Menendez,
Senator Corker, members of the subcommittee. I am Kenneth
Green, a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
where I study energy and environmental policy.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on a topic that
I believe has received insufficient attention since the threat
of climate change came to the attention of policymakers
worldwide. That topic is the need to focus on adaptive
responses to climate variability whether caused by human action
or by the influence of bio-geochemical cycles, ocean currents,
or changes in solar activity.
These views are also my own. They do not represent anyone
other than myself. AEI does not have official positions. My
words are my own.
Before I begin the body of my remarks, I would like to
start where I state my beliefs and biases so people can
understand what I am saying in context. By training I am an
environmental scientist. I received my doctorate in
environmental science and engineering at UCLA. By vocation, I
am a public policy analyst that worked for 15 years analyzing
environmental policy in California, as you mentioned, in Canada
at the Fraser Institute, and here in Washington nationally.
I do my best to just read the science. I actually subject
myself to a masochistic ritual of reading the IPCC reports
every 5 years when they come out. And hence, I accept that
greenhouse gases can cause heat retention in the atmosphere,
though I believe it will be on the modest side based on what we
have seen in 20th century, and having looked at my 401(k)
recently, I place virtually no faith in predictive models.
My policy analysis--actually I am going to move ahead here
to the issue at hand. What is the best response to climate
variability domestically and internationally?
We have heard about the question of throwing money at it,
and I am going to actually look at this a different way. You
can sort of sum up what I am going to say by saying if you give
a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach how to fish,
you feed him for a lifetime. And that is what we need to be
doing.
Since the earliest days of climate policy development, the
world has been focused on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions
rather than on adaptation. In fact, the UNIPCC and
environmental groups have tended to scoff at adaptation because
they believe it implies accepting that the climate will change
rather than----
[Interruption from the audience.]
Dr. Green. Thank you very much.
Senator Menendez. We appreciate the civil expression but I
think you got your message across, and we want to let Dr. Green
continue. Doctor, go ahead.
Dr. Green. Thank you very much.
Where was I? Oh, anyway, the environmental groups and the
IPCC have generally tended to favor mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions rather than funding resilience. But as we know, some
risks are not exactly predictable. We do not know exactly where
the risks of climate change will manifest or how they will
manifest, and as Aaron Wildavsky, a great policy analyst,
pointed out, in many cases building resilience is better than
attempting to head risks off at the pass.
What does it mean to build resilience? I think we can build
resilience both nationally and internationally by achieving
several aims.
The first is right now we subsidize risk-taking. We
subsidize people living in coastal areas. We subsidize people
living in drought-prone areas and flood-prone areas because
governments intercede when floods, droughts, and storm damages
happen and we often allow people to rebuild right in the same
place. The subsidization of risk leads people to these fragile
areas that we are afraid they will face damage in, and we
should be finding ways to de-subsidize risk-taking, not only
here but also building institutions abroad so that people pay
the full cost of their choices of where they choose to live.
Second, the way we manage our infrastructure and the way
that developing countries are going to manage their
infrastructure as they build it is very important. If we do not
price our infrastructure and build it according to market
signals that can maintain it, what happens is we build the
infrastructure and then it is not updated. It is not
maintained. It is not made resilient in the face of change. And
so establishing full pricing of infrastructure is a vitally
important action as well. Roadways, highways as an example,
water infrastructure, waste water infrastructure, all of these
things can be expected to be impacted by climate change. All of
them will react better if they are priced to systems where
people are paying--getting a price signal for how variable
their climate is and how dangerous it is to be in a certain
place climatically.
Finally, some people say, well, what about the people who
cannot do this? What about countries that are simply too poor?
They cannot get away. Should we not have a climate adaptation
fund?
I am a little dubious about this because if you look at
what happens with trust funds, they often wind up being used
today and replaced with IOUs tomorrow. And handing our great
grandchildren an obligation without resources strikes me as
being a poor choice in effectiveness and also poor ethically.
I am concerned that in fact this would make the problem
worse. Establishing a fund would lead people to take greater
risks knowing that there is a fund waiting there to bail them
out. It would tend to lead them not to take adaptive measures
ahead of time. And so, in fact, it might make the problem worse
by building complacency that others will come in and fix what
needs to be fixed.
My full comments will be submitted to the record, and I
will be glad to take your questions. Thank you for the couple
of extra seconds, and thank you for the civil and quiet
protest.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kenneth P. Green
Mr. Chairman, Senator Menendez, members of the committee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on a topic that, I
believe, has received insufficient attention since the threat of
climate change came to the attention of policymakers world-wide. That
topic is the need to focus on adaptive responses to climate
variability, whether caused by human action or by the influence of bio-
geochemical cycles, ocean currents, and changes in solar activity.
Before I begin my remarks, I always like to state my beliefs and
biases, so my comments can be understood in proper context. By
training, I'm a biologist and environmental scientist. By vocation, I
am a public policy analyst, having worked for 15 years in think tanks
in the U.S. and Canada.
I do my best to keep my science free of biases--I just try to
figure out what the science really says, and look past the hype. Hence,
I accept that greenhouse gases can retain additional heat in the
atmosphere, though I believe that heat the heat retention capability of
the greenhouse gases is quite modest, based on what we've observed in
the 20th Century. I do not believe in predictive climate models, or
most other forms of forecasting other than extrapolation for very
modest periods of time. Nonetheless, what we have learned about the
variability of the Earth's climate holds an important lesson for us
about the need to build climate resilience into our private and public
institutions.
My policy-analysis, on the other hand, is not value-neutral: I hold
environmental protection in very high regard (I wouldn't have spent 16
years in college studying biology and the environment if I didn't), but
I believe that environmental protection must complement, rather then
displace, other values such as fiscally responsible governance;
personal freedom; economic opportunity and prosperity; free enterprise;
limited government; and so on. I also believe that our best actions
abroad are to help people develop the institutions of liberal democracy
that allow them to rise out of poverty.
Now, to the issue at hand: what is the best response to climate
variability, both domestically, and internationally?
Since the earliest days of climate policy development, the world's
focus has been on the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions rather
than adaptation. In fact, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has always discussed the idea of adaptation to
climate change as a second- or third-best policy response-something to
be done only after every possible effort has been made to reduce GHG
emissions.
Both governmental and environmental groups have generally been
hostile to adaptation-based responses to climate change, as they view
such approaches as surrender, an acceptance of the idea that GHG
emissions will continue, that the climate will change, and that people
will come to believe they can adapt. They fear that a focus on adapting
to climate change would detract from a focus on mitigating emissions.
But as Aaron Wildavsky, one of the great policy analysts of the
20th Century documented, some risks are unsuited to pre-emptive
mitigation. Attempting to head risks off ahead of time generally fails
unless the nature of the risk is extremely well known, and the efficacy
of the proposed intervention is equally well known. Consider this: say
that you're a batter, and you're 70% sure that you know the pitcher is
going to throw you a fast ball. Your success hitting that particular
pitcher's fast ball is also 70%. What's the probability you'll actually
hit the ball? Only 49%. The other 51% of the time, either he throws a
different pitch and you miss, or he throws the fastball and you miss.
In the context of climate change, our level of information about
where specific harms will manifest is far, far lower than 70%, and our
understanding of whether our mitigation efforts will negate any
particular harm is virtually nil. Clearly, the focus on greenhouse gas
mitigation, both domestically and internationally, has been misplaced,
and the money and attention of world leaders toward greenhouse gas
mitigation efforts would be best directed elsewhere.
Instead of seeking greenhouse gas reductions, what we need to
foster, as Wildavsky called it, is resilience: the ability to withstand
changes, and bounce back from them. We need to encourage others to
build their own climate resilience as well. What makes for climate
resilience? I would argue that we can establish climate resilience with
three efforts.
The first effort is to remove the incentives that lead people to
live in climatically fragile areas, that is to say, at the water's
edge, in drought-prone locations, in flood-prone locations, and so on.
At present, our government, and other governments, serve as the insurer
of last resort. When people who live at water's edge or in a flood
plain are hit by storms or floods, governments intervene not only to
rescue them and their property if possible, but then provide rebuilding
funds to let the people build right back where they are at risk. The
United States is currently doing this in New Orleans, where people are
re-building in an area that is still at risk from storm surges and
levee failure.
Both domestic programs that subsidize risk-taking and international
aid programs that subsidize risk taking should be phased out as quickly
as possible, replaced with fully-priced insurance regimes. Eliminating
risk subsidies would show people some of the true cost of living in
climatically risky areas, and would, over time, lead them to move to
climatically safer places where they can afford to insure their
property and safety.
A second effort pertains to infrastructure. Again, these are
efforts that should be taken both domestically and, as infrastructure
is built in developing countries, internationally as well. Another
government action that leads people to live in harm's way is the
failure to build and price infrastructure so that it is both
sustainable, and resilient to change. Governments build highways, but
without a pricing mechanism, no revenue stream is created to allow, for
example, for the highway to be elevated if local flooding becomes a
problem. There is also no price signal relayed to the users of the
highway that reflects the climatic risk that their transportation
system faces. The same is true of fresh-water, wastewater, electricity,
and other infrastructure.
Establishing market pricing of all infrastructures would quickly
steer people away from climatically fragile areas, dramatically
reducing the costs of dealing with climate variability.
Now, as I'm sure people will argue, not everyone can do this. If
predictions of strong sea-level rise come to pass, low-lying areas,
many of them in poor countries, will be inundated, potentially leading
to mass exodus. The same is true if desert areas become sharply dryer.
Though as I mentioned, I don't believe in predictive modeling, that
doesn't mean we can't tie up our camel. For that reason, as a third
effort, I support re-directing government research and development
spending away from greenhouse gas mitigation technologies and into geo-
engineering, and carbon air-stripping technologies.
Now, when I've talked about this before, I always get the same
question, so I'll answer it pre-emptively. What about people who can't
get away? This is a tough problem. Some have proposed the establishment
of a climate-change damages trust fund, which would grow over time, and
be there to pay for relocation of people, the construction of sea-
walls, the building of pipelines for bulk-water transport in the event
climate calamities come to pass.
Ideally, such a fund should be paid into by all developed and semi-
developed countries on a fair basis, such as an equal fraction of GDP.
If climate change is shown to be a non-threat, or a modest one, or some
cheap ways of removing carbon from the air turn up, those moneys could
be returned to the tax-payers of the donating countries.
I have to say, however, that I am not sanguine about such a fund
for several reasons. First, I doubt that it would be paid into fairly:
based on their unwillingness to adopt binding emission reduction
targets, and their demands for wealth transfer from the developed
countries to the developing, I very much doubt that the semi-developed
countries will agree to contribute, any more than they are likely to
agree to binding emission reductions. Second, I am also dubious about
government's ability (any government) to keep its hands out of the
funds, rather than spending them today, and replacing them with IOUs,
as is a common practice in such ``trust funds.'' And third, I am
concerned that it would simply make the problem worse: the
establishment of such a trust fund would lead to greater risk-taking
around the world, with less self-insurance by individuals or
governments, under the assumption that if anything goes wrong, the
world will step in to make things all better.
I'll be glad to take your questions.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Mr. O'Driscoll?
STATEMENT OF PETER O'DRISCOLL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ACTIONAID
USA, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking
Member, Senator Corker, Senator Shaheen. I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to comment on how climate change is
already affecting people in developing countries and on
measures the United States Senate can take to help address
their urgent needs.
ActionAid field work confirms the urgent need for
adaptation strategies and for significant financial commitments
to avert catastrophic famine and loss of life from increased
vulnerability to extreme weather events in the poorest
countries.
The good news on climate is that the Government of the
United States is now fully engaged on the issue. The bad news
is that the impacts of climate change are already wreaking
havoc on food production, on poverty eradication programs, and
on emergency response systems in developing countries.
And with due respect to my colleague's views on the value
of predictive studies, there does seem to be a broad consensus
that the problem is only going to get worse, no matter how much
progress the Congress or the Copenhagen negotiations make on
emissions reductions. Temperatures will likely continue to rise
throughout the century, making the climate consequences worse.
Therefore, from ActionAid's perspective, there is no viable
alternative to investing in climate adaptation. Helping people,
communities, and entire countries face these consequences must
be a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy.
Perhaps the cruelest irony of the unfolding climate
emergency is that those most intensely and immediately affected
are least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that are
driving global warming.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies
agriculture as a sector particularly vulnerable to climate
change. 70 percent of the world's extreme poverty is found in
agricultural areas where subsistence farmers depend on rain for
their harvests. In some countries in Africa, yields from rain-
fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020,
and in parts of Asia, crop yields could fall by up to 30
percent by 2050 because of climate change.
ActionAid's field work shows that decreases in crop
production are happening already. And since women in the
developing world are largely responsible for food production
and provision, the impact of climate change on agriculture also
means that women, who already constitute the majority of poor
people, are most adversely affected.
The voices and experiences of those most affected should be
considered in the deliberations of policymakers whose decisions
will have life-or-death implications for them. Therefore, at
the invitation of the chair, I would like to focus on two women
farmers with whom ActionAid has worked closely so that we can
offer some insight into the impacts of climate change in the
developing world and the kinds of solutions in which we might
invest on a larger scale to help them adapt.
I would like to introduce you to Joyce Tembenu from Malawi.
She is a 38-year-old mother of three and a widow. She works as
food security officer for the Salima Women's Network on Gender
and also with the Yamikani Women Farmers Group in Salima,
Malawi.
In Malawi, she depends on agriculture for her livelihood.
She is facing challenges from climate change. Her mother
remembers a rain cycle much longer than the rain cycle she
currently experiences. As a result of that shortened rain
cycle, the local seed varieties do not have time to mature and
grow. Therefore, during food shortages, farmers are forced to
turn to hybrid seeds which are more expensive and require more
expensive inputs, which local farmers simply cannot afford. As
she puts it, ``We are poor,so we are starving in Malawi.''
As a woman farmer in Malawi, Joyce's challenges are
familiar to a huge segment of the population there. Agriculture
is the main driver of Malawi's economy, contributing up to 39
percent of GDP and employing 80 percent of the country's labor
force and more than 90 percent of them rely on rain-fed
subsistence agriculture.
Funding agencies must work with farmers to implement
adaptation programs and governments must play a key role in
providing a policy framework to guide and support effective
adaptation strategies.
I would also like to introduce you to Asiya Begum who lives
with her mother and two sons in the village of Charipara on the
river delta in the south of Bangladesh.
Over the past decade, her river has eroded land and forced
100 families to find another place to live. As she says, ``Our
poverty is caused by river erosion; people of two villages are
now living in one.''
In 2007, Asiya's family lost all their crops when Cyclone
Sidr hit Bangladesh. The storm also increased the salinity on
their land, making it more difficult to grow food. To
supplement their family's income, Asiya's sons have quit school
so they can work.
Asiya volunteered to participate in an ActionAid project
which involved testing improved rice varieties which have
succeeded, along with a better irrigation system, fertilizers,
and insect traps, in nearly doubling crop yields in Charipara.
So today, Asiya is urging her government and ours to further
support adaptation to climate change through projects that
build the resilience of poor communities and improve food
production.
Within the concept of the common but differentiated
responsibility, the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, to which the United States is a party, states
that it is the responsibility of developed nations to ``assist
the developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable
to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of
adaptation to those adverse effects.''
The Senate's deliberations on a climate bill and on the
UNFCCC process through Copenhagen and beyond are crucial
opportunities to establish both financial commitments and
financing mechanisms that are effective and accountable to
people like Joyce Tembenu and Asiya Begum. The Senate can make
great strides in this direction by focusing on financial
commitments to the cost of adaptation funding and on enhanced
financing mechanisms to make sure such funds reach those who
need them most.
You have heard a number of estimates already of the annual
cost of adaptation, but it is fair to say that they range from
$25 billion to $100 billion per year at least.
ActionAid encourages the Senate to significantly expand on
the American Clean Energy and Security Act's commitment to
funding climate adaptation which starts at only $750 million
per year. We would like to see that number rise, as Rev. Ball
suggested, to $7 billion and beyond through 2020.
Such funds should prioritize agricultural adaptation
projects that use environmentally and economically sustainable
techniques. They should also emphasize investment in women
farmers as well as community participation in project design.
But a vast increase in funding is only part of the
solution. Essentially adaptation funding will only be as
effective as the institutions through which it is channeled.
Because of our concerns about the World Bank and the Global
Environmental Facility's governance, their fossil fuel lending,
and their openness to stakeholder engagement, ActionAid
endorses the need for an enhanced financial mechanism under the
authority of the UNFCCC's Conference of Parties with an
adaptation funding window.
Thank you very much, Senators, for this opportunity to
express our views. We are ready to work with you at ActionAid
as you set about the complex but necessary work of developing
international climate adaptation policy to help achieve a more
sustainable and equitable future for people around the world
like Joyce Tembenu and Asiya Begum. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Driscoll follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter O'Driscoll,
Executive Director, ActionAid USA
I would like to thank the Chair, Senator Menendez, the Ranking
Member Senator Corker, and all the Senators on this Subcommittee, for
the opportunity to comment on how climate change is already affecting
people in developing countries, and on measures the United States
Senate can take to help address their urgent needs.
ActionAid is an international anti-poverty agency working in 50
countries, taking sides with poor people to end poverty and injustice
together. Our approach to climate change is informed by over 35 years
of experience working alongside poor and excluded people in Africa,
Asia and Latin America. Climate change has become an institutional
priority in recent years because of ActionAid's focus on agriculture
and disaster risk reduction. Our field work has confirmed the urgent
need for adaptation strategies and for significant financial
commitments to avert catastrophic famine and loss of life from
increased vulnerability to extreme weather events in the poorest
countries.
The good news on climate is that the government of the United
States is now focused on the problem. The Obama Administration has
recognized the need for real negotiations on emissions reductions and
the transition to a clean energy economy. And after passage of the
American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House in June, the Senate
now takes up legislation that could improve the House bill and
strengthen U.S. contributions to resolving this global challenge.
But the bad news is that the impacts of climate change are already
wreaking havoc on food production, poverty eradication programs and
emergency response systems in developing countries. And no matter how
much progress the Congress, the President and the international
negotiators at December's United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change achieve on emissions reductions and clean technologies,
global temperatures will continue to rise throughout this century,
making the climate consequences worse.\1\ There is therefore no viable
alternative to investing in climate adaptation: helping people,
communities and entire countries face these consequences must be a
central pillar of U.S. foreign policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A new UNEP report, the ``Climate Change Science Compendium
2009,'' offers an overview of recent global warming research and
concludes with increased projections of temperature rises expected by
2100. Scientific assessments now outstrip worst case scenarios foreseen
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. See http://
www.unep.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the poorest people are the most vulnerable to climate impacts
Perhaps the cruelest irony of the unfolding climate emergency is
that those most intensely and immediately affected are least
responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global
warming. The response to climate change can thus be framed as one of
the gravest equity challenges of the twenty-first century. The eight
richest countries in the world, which represent just 13 percent of the
word's population, are responsible for generating over 40 percent of
the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warning.
Although projections suggest that climate impacts will vary
geographically, analyses by the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) and the International Institute of Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA) have attempted to pinpoint likely regional
impacts of climate change on agricultural productivity and on food
security. Their work suggests that, on balance, developing countries
will lose out due to an increase in arid areas in coming decades:
The FAO/IIASA study indicates that the developing world would
experience an 11% decrease in cultivable rain-fed land, with
consequent decline in cereal production. Sixty-five developing
countries, representing more than half the developing world's
total population in 1995, will lose about 280 million tons of
potential cereal production as a result of climate change. This
loss, valued at an average of U.S. $200 per ton, totals U.S.
$56 billion, equivalent to some 16% of the agricultural gross
domestic product of these countries in 1995. Some 29 African
countries face an aggregate loss of around 35 million tons in
potential cereal production.
In the case of Asia, the impact of climate change is mixed:
India loses 125 million tons, equivalent to 18% of its rain-fed
cereal production; China's rain-fed cereal production potential
of 360 million tons, on the other hand, increases by 15%. Among
the cereals, wheat production potential in the sub-tropics is
expected to be the worst affected, with significant declines
anticipated in Africa, South Asia, and Latin America.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FAO and IIASA. Impact of Climate Change, Pests and Diseases on
Food Security and Poverty Reduction, 31st Session of the Committee on
World Food Security 23-26 May 2005, FAO, page 2.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also
identifies agriculture as a sector particularly vulnerable to climate
change. Seventy per cent of the world's extreme poverty is found in
agricultural areas\3\ where subsistence farmers depend on rain for
their harvests. In some countries in Africa, yields from rain-fed
agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020,\4\ and in
Central and South Asia, crop yields could fall by up to 30 percent by
2050 \5\ because of climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.fao.org.
\4\ IPCC (2007): Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 7-22.
\5\ Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security
in 2030. David B. Lobell, Marshall B. Burke, Claudia Tebaldi, Michael
D. Mastrandrea, Walter P. Falcon, Rosamond L. Naylor, Science, 1
February 2008: Vol. 319. no. 5863, pp. 607-610. DOI: 10.1126/science.
1152339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further to these official statistics, participatory vulnerability
analyses (PVA) conducted by ActionAid have revealed that poor and
excluded people themselves identify loss of crops due to climate change
as a key factor increasing their vulnerability.\6\ ActionAid's field
work shows that decreases in crop production are happening already. And
to add to the stress of decreasing yields, poor people in developing
countries (who typically spend 50-80 per cent of their income on food)
\7\ have been doubly hit by recent volatility in food prices. While
commodity prices began to decline in late 2008, many of the factors
that led to high prices are still in place. This volatility, compounded
by increasing climate variability, will therefore likely continue to be
a serious problem for the foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Fischer,
Gunther; Shah, Mahendra; Van Velthuizen, Harrij; and Nachtergaele,
Freddy O. Global Agro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st
Century
\7\ International Food Policy Research Institute. High Food Prices:
the What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy Actions. Policy brief: May
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since women in the developing world are largely responsible for
food production and provision, the impact of climate change on
agriculture also means that women--who already constitute the majority
of poor people--are most adversely affected. Women depend more than men
on the fragile ecosystems that are threatened by climate change, yet
lack adequate access to and control over the natural resources,
technologies, and credit they need to produce food. As a result, they
are more vulnerable to seasonal and episodic weather variations, and to
natural disasters resulting from climate change.
The voices and experiences of those most affected must be
considered in the deliberations of policy makers whose decisions will
have life-or-death implications for them. In this testimony I would
like to focus on two women farmers with whom ActionAid has worked
closely in recent years. I hope that through their reflections on
climate change in Malawi and Bangladesh, the Subcommittee might gain
new insight into impacts of climate change in the developing world, and
into the kinds of solutions in which we might invest on a larger scale
to help them adapt.
2. malawi: joyce tembenu
My name is Joyce Tembenu. I am 38 years old, the mother of three
children, and a widow. I am the food security Officer of Salima Women's
Network on Gender (SAWEG) and a member of Yamikani Women Farmers Group
in the SALIMA district of Malawi in Southern Africa. With SAWEG, I work
on issues of climate change adaptation, women's rights, and HIV and
AIDS.
As you may know, Malawi is an agriculturalist society. We depend on
agriculture for our livelihood. But we are being challenged by climate
change. I am a farmer. My mother was a farmer. For my mother, the rains
used to come from October until April. This would give our local
indigenous varieties of seeds time to mature and grow. And we would
have food on the table and for the market. Today, because of climate
change, the rains come in December and end in March. Our local
varieties do not have time to mature. We are forced to buy hybrid
crops, which are much more input-intensive, and we cannot afford these
inputs. We are poor. So we are starving in Malawi.
Because of Climate Change we see:
An increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughts which
causes death of people, food crops, and animals.
Houses, toilets, crops and household items collapse and are carried
away by running water.
Increased cases of water borne diseases, such as malaria, cholera,
dysentery.
Women engaged in unsafe sex just to buy food for their families.
And girls as young as 13 years old are forced to get married,
exposing them to greater risks of HIV and AIDS.
Migration of men to urban areas in search of work, leaving women
with extended families and the burden of feeding children whose
parents have died of HIV and AIDS.
As a woman farmer in Malawi, Joyce's challenges are familiar to a
huge segment of the population there. Agriculture is the main driver of
Malawi's economy, contributing up to 39 per cent of GDP and employing
80 per cent of the country's labor force. About 6.3 million Malawians
live below the poverty line, the majority in rural areas. More than 90
per cent of them rely on rain-fed subsistence farming to survive.
Climate change and weather extremes are having a huge impact on the
country's agriculture sector, affecting productivity and therefore
resulting in food shortages and chronic hunger. Crop losses related to
natural disasters, such as drought and flash floods, as well as crop
failure due to erratic and unpredictable rainfall, pose a great danger
to food security, especially for poor and marginalized communities.
Vulnerability and adaptation studies undertaken in Malawi predict
that temperatures are likely to increase by 1 C, 2 C and 4 C for the
years 2020, 2075 and 2100 respectively, and that rainfall will increase
by up to 8 per cent by the year 2100.\8\ In these circumstances, the
number and intensity of drought and floods will increase, with a
negative impact on food production. If nothing is done to support poor
and marginalized communities, their right to food will be severely
undermined. Women, who represent the majority of full-time farmers,
will be particularly adversely affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Environmental Affairs Dept. (2005). National Adaptation
Programmes of Action (NAPA). Government Press, Zomba. Environmental
Affairs Dept. (2008). Malawi's Second National Communication to the
UNFCCC. Government Press, Zomba.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainfall data from 1990 to date shows that the Districts like
Salima, where Joyce is from, have been subjected to climate change and
weather extremes in most years. There were recorded droughts in Salima
during the 1994-95, 1999-2000, 2001-02 and 2004-05 seasons, which
resulted in total annual rainfall of less than 800mm, hardly enough to
sustain crop production. Salima was also subjected to floods during the
1997-98, 2002-03 and 2005-06 seasons, causing losses of property;
destruction of infrastructure; siltation of rivers; destruction of
crops such as maize, sorghum, millet and rice; diseases like malaria
and cholera; and malnutrition and hunger.
Climate-related hazards have a significant impact on human health.
During years of drought, malnutrition becomes a major issue, especially
amongst children and the elderly. Any fluctuation in climate leading to
adverse weather conditions is likely to lead to significant
malnutrition problems among the population as less food is consumed.
Children, breastfeeding mothers, pregnant women, female-headed
households and orphans are among the most vulnerable.
The dependence of Malawi's agricultural sector on the climate
cannot be over-emphasized. Most of the crops and livestock are grown
under rain-fed conditions; therefore any drought or flood has a direct
impact on productivity and may result in country-wide food deficits and
hunger, especially among small-holders, the most vulnerable groups. The
increased severity of floods means increased risks of ruined crops,
killed or injured livestock as well as submerged and destroyed
infrastructure (roads, footpaths and buildings). People from Mbangu
Village, for example, have suffered from floods that have caused
extensive and severe damage to their assets and livelihood. They have
also observed that the frequency and severity of the floods have
increased over the last decade.
The drought experienced in the 2001-02 season resulted in low crop
yields and a food deficit of 570,000 tons. More than 3.2 million people
were affected and the World Food Program (WFP) spent $87.5 million on
emergency food aid, while the Malawian Government spent an additional
$67.4 million. Some elementary schools had to close down due to the
hunger crisis, and a large number of children suffered from kwashiorkor
(a dietary deficiency disease). Most people started eating wild fruits,
roots and tubers and indigenous vegetables, while at the same time
eating and harvesting premature maize to avert hunger.
In order to become more resilient to climate change, communities
and households attempt to diversify their agricultural production and
to intensify activities they can carry out when the weather is
favorable. Communities have also begun to embrace methods to improve
soil fertility, using organic manure instead of chemical fertilizers.
In Salima, for example, farmers use the ``chimato'' system where
vegetative material is composted in special mud structures. The
cultivation of winter crops using the residual soil moisture from river
banks or flooded areas is also a way to cope. Farming communities
living along rivers, the lakeshore and the Shire valley are
successfully adapting to changing climatic conditions by growing a
second crop of maize that is planted at the end of the rains in March
and is harvested in winter.
As part of the adaptation programs, many clubs and communities from
Malawi are engaging in activities to diversify their livelihood. In
many cases, women are leading in this effort. For example, the Salima
Women's Network on Gender (SAWEG), of which Joyce Tembenu is food
security officer, has started various income-generating activities in
order to empower themselves economically. Women and girls in Salima
realized that in times of hunger they were vulnerable because their
husbands often controlled the money they would need to buy more food.
Now women are involved in various activities such as selling cakes and
scones (``zitumbuwa''), brewing beer, making traditional pots or
weaving baskets.
Small-holder farmers produce about 80 per cent of Malawi's food.
Most of them are poor and depend on rain-fed agriculture, so they lack
resources to adapt to climate change sufficiently. There is a need for
concerted efforts from funding agencies to assist the farmers to
implement adaptation programs. Governments must play a key role in
providing a policy framework to guide and support effective adaptation
strategies for individuals and communities. Some key recommendations
from ActionAid partners include the need for:
High-quality climate information and tools for risk management that
help to improve climate predictions. These will be critical,
particularly for rainfall and storm patterns.
Land-use planning and performance standards that encourage both
private and public investment in buildings and other long-term
infrastructure to take into account the vulnerability of
different elements in the community systems.
Governments that can contribute through long-term policies for
natural resources protection and emergency preparedness.
A financial safety net. This may be required for the poorest people
who are often most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change
and least able to afford protection.
The case of Malawi illustrates how women are leading adaptation
efforts in their communities. For adaptation to be effective, funding
must therefore support women's efforts to reduce their vulnerability to
the impacts of climate change, and build their capacity to become
leaders in their communities.
3. bangladesh: asiya begum
Asiya Begum, a widow, lives with her elderly mother and two sons in
the village of Charipara located on the river delta on Bangladesh's
southern tip. Over the past decade, the river has eroded land and
forced one hundred families to find another place to live. ``Our
poverty is caused by river erosion; people of two villages are now
living in one,'' says Asiya. In 2007, Asiya's family lost all their
crops when Cyclone Sidr hit Bangladesh. The storm also increased the
salinity of their land, making it more difficult to grow food. To
supplement their family's income, Asiya's sons Mohibur (14) and Habibur
(12) have quit school so that they can work.
Because of the impacts climate change is having on communities like
Charipara, ActionAid is working in Bangladesh to help poor people adapt
to changing weather patterns. In Asiya's village, the community
identified declining food production as one of their greatest
struggles, and decided to try new seed varieties and farming methods to
produce better yields.
Asiya volunteered to participate in an ActionAid project in which
the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute in Dhaka provided farmers with
three seed varieties to test, and taught them how to use the seeds to
produce better yields. ``Now we are doing Boro (a variety of rice)
cultivation, which was not practiced in this village,'' says Asiya.
``We are going to harvest the rice in a few days, and we never had rice
during this time of year. With the help of the project our poverty is
getting reduced.'' The new seeds, a better irrigation system,
fertilizers and insect traps have nearly doubled crop yields in
Charipara. ``We couldn't have vegetables before,'' Asiya adds. ``Now
with ActionAid's support, we can even sell them. From every aspect,
things are now getting better.''
Today, Asiya is urging her government and other agencies to further
support adaptation to climate change through projects that build the
resilience of poor communities and improve food production. The
challenges she faces are typical for many in her country. With a
population of about 140 million living in an area covering 144,000
km\2\, Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the
world.\9\ More than 75 per cent of its people live in rural areas and
agriculture represented nearly 20 per cent of the country's GDP in
2006.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2006).
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
People living near the rivers of Bangladesh and the Bay of Bengal
are used to floods. In the past, yearly floods even contributed to
agriculture by bringing moisture and nutrients to the soil. Nowadays,
however, the intensity and severity of floods has sharply increased.
Most climate models predict that 17 per cent of the total area of
Bangladesh along the coastal belt may be under water by the end of the
twenty-first century due to rising sea levels. This will increase
salinity intrusion, which is already having a negative effect on soil
fertility. Seasonal droughts in the northwestern region of Bangladesh
are also causing serious damage to crops and food shortages. Extreme
weather events put a huge strain on the country's economy,
infrastructure and social systems. They bring with them loss of lives,
destruction of houses and public buildings, disruption of education and
loss of assets and livelihoods. Their intensification will have a
disastrous effect on poor people.
While disasters and food insecurity induced by climate change
affect both women and men in Bangladesh, the burden of coping with
disasters falls heavily on women's shoulders. The division of labor
between men and women becomes critical, as disasters bring additional
work and changes in environment that often reinforce and even intensify
gender inequity. Because women are culturally perceived as having a
lower social status, they suffer more than men from poverty, hunger,
malnutrition, economic crises, environmental degradation, health-
related problems and insecurity. ActionAid's field work shows that
women are often forced to sell their assets, such as hens, chickens or
goats, in order to feed their families, and when food support is
insufficient to feed all family members, women are generally the ones
who do not eat.
Climatic events such as changes in rainfall patterns, floods,
storms, river bank erosion, salinity intrusion and drought have
exacerbated the problems faced by Bangladesh's agricultural sector and
increased the risks of food shortages. Cyclones also prevent fishermen
from going to the coast or the rivers to bring back fish or crabs.
Researchers from the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) and the
FAO have pointed out that agriculture in Bangladesh ``is already under
pressure from increasing demands for food and the parallel problems of
depletion of agricultural land and water resources from overuse and
contamination. Climate variability and projected global climate change
makes the issue particularly urgent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ R. Selvaraju et al. Livelihood Adaptation to Climate
Variability and Change in Drought Prone Areas of Bangladesh, ADPC, FAO,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The associated decline in crop production, loss of assets and
reduced employment opportunities contribute to household food
insecurity. Food consumption falls, along with the ability of
households to meet their nutritional needs on a sustainable basis.
Vegetables and roots are in short supply during natural hazards. Acute
shortage of pure drinking water makes the situation even more critical,
as most women from rural areas have to carry water over long distances.
In Bangladesh, many communities are doing what they can merely to
cope with the impacts of climate change. For example, farmers have
started to change the way they cultivate their land; some of them raise
the bed of their vegetable fields, while others are modifying their
cropping patterns, harvesting water from canals and ponds, improving
soil moisture retention through mulching, and increasing the amount of
organic matter in their soil. In rural areas of Sirajganj district
(where feeding animals can be highly problematic in times of hardship)
farmers are now preserving fodder for their cattle. And in areas where
water logging is a common problem, farmers are practicing hydroponic
agriculture for vegetable production. In south-west Bangladesh it is
becoming a popular adaptation strategy that increases households' food
security.
In some rural areas, women also dry food in order to preserve it
for the lean season. This practice is gaining increasing attention and
has started to spread among poor households. Kitchen gardening by women
also makes a contribution to household nutrition. It increases their
resilience as well, since vegetable surpluses can be sold to provide
extra income to the family and seeds can be dried.
The needs of Bangladesh's people are clearly overwhelming their
ability to cope, much less to truly adapt to the mounting impacts of
climate change. The damage from Cyclone Sidr (which lasted only one
night) is estimated at up to $4 billion. Given the increasing intensity
and frequency of floods, cyclones and other extreme weather events, the
amount of money that the country will need to adapt to these changing
conditions is immense. However, money alone is not sufficient to
respond to the needs. Knowledge and skills are also crucial to ensure
that money is used effectively and in a manner that really addresses
the needs of the most vulnerable groups.
While spontaneous and ingenious efforts to cope with the adverse
impacts of climate change are noticeable at community and household
levels, limited resources and capacities often hinder these
initiatives. Changing planting dates and seed varieties, for example,
could help to offset losses and increase yields--if people had access
to the information, credit and seeds they would need to implement those
changes. Climate change also has implications for justice and equity:
poor households and small-holder farmers are more affected, yet support
does not necessarily reach them. More attention to these questions is
therefore needed.
4. recommendations for united states climate adaptation policy
Within the concept of ``common but differentiated responsibility,''
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to
which the United States is a Party, states that it is the
responsibility of developed nations to ``assist the developing country
Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of
climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse
effects.''\12\ Although communities are already taking steps to adapt
to climate change, their efforts will require a significant infusion of
new resources to avoid the most disastrous consequences forecast by the
IPCC. Rich countries, which are historically responsible for generating
the lion's share of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change,
should now provide the necessary funds to enable poor countries to
adapt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ UNFCCC at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developing nations highly dependent on agriculture are especially
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change on food production. It is
therefore critical that U.S. legislation and the post-2012
international climate negotiations in Copenhagen protect the right to
food by promoting measures to support small-holder farmers and the
sustainable agriculture approaches they are embracing to combat the
impacts of climate change. This support must include concrete financial
contributions and the establishment of governance mechanisms for
adaptation funds that are effective and accountable to people like
Joyce Tembenu and Asiya Begum.
On the basis of consultations with community partners around the
world, ActionAid sees the Senate's deliberations on a climate bill and
the UNFCCC process through Copenhagen and beyond as crucial
opportunities to link the global response to the climate emergency to
the concrete needs of those most affected by and least responsible for
the crisis. The Senate should therefore assure that:
a) There are substantial additional financial resources to fund climate
change adaptation.
The absolute level of resources needed to adapt to the impacts of
climate change remains a matter for debate, in part because too few
formal adaptation projects and programs have been completed to provide
an accurate assessment. The UNFCCC estimates that between $28-67
billion will be needed annually by 2030 to help developing countries
adapt. The 2007-08 UN Human Development Report estimates that $86
billion will needed annually by 2015. And the World Bank now estimates
that $75-100 billion will be needed annually between 2010 and 2050.\13\
If significant emissions reductions are not achieved in the short term,
these figures will only increase as rising global temperatures generate
worsening impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCC/Resources/
EACCFinalRelease.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though these estimates may vary, it remains clear that the cost of
adapting to climate change will be enormous. Developed countries may
dismiss the need to generate $86 billion per year as unrealistic, or
point to fiscal deficits and the impact of the 2008 global financial
crisis on their capacity to respond. But the fact remains that they are
bound by the framework convention to respond to the adaptation needs
described in this testimony, and that they can use a variety of
innovative mechanisms to generate new and additional adaptation
funding. ActionAid calls on the Senate to take on this challenge with
the degree of political commitment it will require. In that vein,
ActionAid encourages the Senate to significantly expand on the American
Clean Energy and Security Act's commitment to funding climate
adaptation, which starts at approximately $750 million per year in
2012. The goal for the U.S. ought eventually to reach $30 billion per
year for climate adaptation, to be generated through a variety of
mechanisms.
b) Adaptation funds must be governed in a transparent and accountable
manner.
A vast increase in funding is only part of the solution to the
developing world's adaptation needs. Even if developed countries were
to announce massive new financial pledges tomorrow, how that funding is
disbursed, managed and governed would determine whether it would truly
meet the needs of poor and excluded communities. Essentially,
adaptation funding will only be as effective as the institutions
through which it is channeled. ActionAid has identified a core set of
principles by which any adaptation funding mechanism should be
assessed.\14\ Such mechanisms should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ These principles were established in ActionAid's 2007 report,
Compensating for Climate Change: Principles and Lessons for Equitable
Adaptation Finance. See http://actionaidusa.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Demonstrate a broadly representative governance structure;
2. Ensure the participation of affected communities;
3. Provide sustainable and compensatory funding streams;
4. Avoid the imposition of economic policy conditionality; and
5. Create streamlined access for countries seeking funds.
There are currently two multilateral institutions primarily
involved in adaptation finance: the World Bank, which manages the Pilot
Program on Climate Resilience; and the Global Environment Facility
(GEF), which manages the Least Developed Countries Fund. ActionAid's
analysis of these funds and, in particular, their managing
institutions, demonstrates the need for new approaches to the
governance of climate adaptation funds.
The World Bank's role in climate finance must be challenged for a
number of reasons. Its governance structure does not allow developing
countries sufficient voice in how the institution is managed or how
funds are disbursed. The World Bank has a poor track record in engaging
affected communities and civil society in its work. The Independent
Evaluation Group of the World Bank estimates that in 2003, 75% of World
Bank projects did not involve community participation.\15\ Moreover,
even as the World Bank is positioning itself as a major player in the
response to climate change, it is worsening the problem through its
fossil fuel lending. From 2006-08, coal lending at the World Bank Group
increased by 648%, and in 2008 fossil fuel funding more than
doubled.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank Support for
Community-Based-and-Driven Development. Overview. http://
web.worldbank.org.
\16\ Bank Information Center. World Bank Energy Sector Lending:
Encouraging the World's Addiction to Fossil Fuels. February 2009.
http://www.bicusa.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also significant concerns about the GEF's role as an
operating entity for the UNFCCC's financial mechanism. These relate to
its governance structure (which weights votes according to financial
contribution) and the lack of access to funding for the most vulnerable
countries and communities. Because of these and other concerns,
ActionAid endorses the need for an enhanced financial mechanism under
the authority of and accountable to the UNFCCC's Conference of Parties
(COP), with an adaptation funding window.
The basic structure of this enhanced mechanism would include a
board, appointed by and accountable to the COP, called the Executive
Body (EB). It would establish and coordinate funding windows for areas
such as climate adaptation, mitigation, reducing emissions from
deforestation and degradation (REDD), and technology development,
disbursement, and diffusion. The EB would be serviced by a secretariat
and a trustee. Each funding window would be advised by a technical
assessment panel. Other key structures could include National Multi-
stakeholder Committees, a Women's Rights Desk, and a Monitoring and
Evaluation Panel.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For a full description for ActionAid's proposed enhanced
mechanism, see ActionAid, ``Equitable Adaptation Finance: The Case for
an Enhanced Funding Mechanism Under the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change'' at http://www.actionaidusa.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Agriculture must be recognized as a sector that is particularly
vulnerable to climate change.
The United States should ensure adequate funding for adaptation
strategies based on sustainable agricultural techniques that allow
communities to combat hunger and realize their right to food. Given the
particular impact that climate change has on agriculture, the
Copenhagen outcome should recognize the responsibility of the
international community and national governments to enhance the food
security of vulnerable people. Furthermore, a significant portion of
adaptation funding should be specifically dedicated to promote
sustainable agriculture practices in the developing world. Such
programs should build on the examples of adaptation strategies that
have already increased food security. And in the face of such
significant outstanding need, substantial adaptation funding should:
Enhance farmers' ability to respond quickly and effectively to
shocks in order to maintain food production, even under rapidly
changing climatic conditions;
Advance farmers' capacity to use organic matter and to employ
multiple cropping strategies and livestock production systems
that will enhance soil quality, increase food security and
reduce exposure to climate shocks;
Support innovative practices, especially farmer-controlled methods
of agriculture based on local knowledge and traditional
practices that reduce farmers' dependence on synthetic inputs
and imports, in line with the recommendations of the 2008
International Agricultural Assessment of Science and Technology
for Development;\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ see http://www.agassessment.org.
Support community-level organization--especially of women--to
implement creative solutions and hold duty-bearers accountable
to implement policies that ensure their access to and control
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
over natural and productive resources.
d) Climate adaptation measures must ensure the effective participation
of poor and excluded communities.
Many poor communities have been adapting to climate change for some
time now, and already have ideas for adaptation strategies appropriate
to their specific context. U.S. adaptation programs and the adaptation
financing mechanisms negotiated through the UNFCCC must increase the
participation of the most vulnerable groups in decision-making around
how adaptation funds are disbursed, managed, used, monitored and
evaluated. Furthermore, representatives of affected communities must be
meaningfully involved in the governance of multilateral adaptation
funds to enhance their effectiveness through transparency,
accountability and stakeholder participation.
e) Climate adaptation measures must support women's efforts to claim
their rights.
Poor women are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change, but are also potential leaders of change and innovation with
respect to adaptation. Women must be acknowledged as a vulnerable
social group in the Copenhagen outcome, and adaptation funding must be
specifically directed towards addressing women's needs.
ActionAid thanks the Subcommittee on International Development and
Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental
Protection for the opportunity to express these views today. We stand
ready to share the perspectives and experiences of our partners around
the world as you set about the complex but necessary work of developing
international climate adaptation policy to help achieve a more
sustainable and equitable future for people around the world like Joyce
Tembenu and Asiya Begum.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
General Wald?
STATEMENT OF GENERAL CHARLES F. WALD, (USAF, RET.), FORMER
DEPUTY COMMANDER OF UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND; DIRECTOR
AND SENIOR ADVISOR, AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE INDUSTRY, DELOITTE;
WASHINGTON, D.C.
General Wald. Thank you, Chairman, Senators. Appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Center for Naval
Analysis.
A question I think a lot of people would ask is why are a
group of 11 military retired general officers and admirals
focusing on climate change. We asked ourselves that 2 years ago
when we started the project as well. And I think we came into
the project from different angles and different probably
backgrounds and probably different levels of belief of this
being a problem. But by the end of the year, there was
consensus among the 11 of us. All have been in command at
various places in the world, to include Africa, Central
Command, which is basically where most of our activity today in
the world is militarily, as well as the Pacific, and chiefs of
staff of the military.
At the end of the project, we all agreed that climate
change, as was depicted to us and as we studied, is now and
will be more increasingly a national security threat to the
United States and our allies.
The study, National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change, came out in 2007. I would commend reading it. It is
interesting, I think, not because we wrote it, but it is kind
of a different approach.
We found four findings and five recommendations from the
project.
The first finding was that we projected that climate change
does pose a serious threat to the American national security.
In my last job as European Command Deputy, we also had Africa
in our region at that time. It has subsequently become a
separate command. I spent a lot of time in Africa. I looked at
the chart that was shown by David. It was pretty telling I
think. As a matter of fact, all those circled areas I spent
time in. Unless you go there and see it, it is hard to imagine
just what it is really like. And I know you have traveled a lot
and have seen it.
But places like Lagos, Nigeria, for example, which the
first time I arrived there, to me it looked like a Mad Max
movie, literally. There were 17 million people there in abject
poverty. The United States Marine Corps this year did a study
on what they think the world will look like in 2025 so they can
start projecting their acquisition costs for what the
environment will be. They think Lagos in 2025 will be 40
million people, mostly living in slum areas, which is basically
a recipe for extremism. It is a good place for terrorism to
actually breed. It is a good breeding ground for recruitment.
And we have seen that around the world in places that are
basically unstable or fragile.
The second finding was that climate change is actually a
threat multiplier, which is interesting. I mean, historically,
as was mentioned earlier, the United States is going to respond
particularly with military to natural disasters or manmade
disasters, either one. You see during the tsunamis or during
earthquakes, the U.S. military is usually the first one on the
scene. In 1996, there were two consecutive typhoons on the
eastern coast of Africa that caused Mozambique to totally flood
as a nation. That is a huge nation. The only people that were
able to respond because of our equipment was the United States
military. And there are figures that say we probably saved
250,000 people by evacuating them from flooded areas. That will
become more common.
Last week I was in Germany--or I should say Brussels, and
there has been an international military advisory board started
to look at this from an international standpoint. And the
representative from Bangladesh tells me that if they have a 3-
foot ocean rise, which is predicted, that 30 million
Bangladeshis will be displaced, mostly into India. India today
is starting to build a fence along the Bangladeshi/Indian
border. You can just imagine the conflict.
Third, climate change will add to the tensions even in
stable regions of the world. And a lot of people like to say
that climate change is kind of a zero sum game where there will
be winners and losers. I think that is probably a bad
statement. I think everybody is going to lose in this somewhat.
There will be lesser losers, but we are going to lose somewhat.
So we are going to have to start predicting what that will
cost.
Now, yesterday I was told that if we send whatever the
number is--but per thousand troops we are going to send to
Afghanistan, which we probably will I think, additionally it is
$1 billion per thousand troops per year. Now, that counts for
deployment anyplace of troops. So it is going to cost a lot of
money.
And then lastly, climate change, energy security, and
national security are basically a Venn diagram. They are all
connected. And for those who do not believe in climate change
or do not think it is a problem, they should believe that
energy security is a problem for us. And if we address energy
security in the proper way, we are probably going to address
climate too. So it is a win-win, if you look at it that way.
What we recommended is that we, the United States military,
start putting climate change in our national security planning;
that we, the United States, demonstrate leadership in the
world. In my travels around the world, it is very apparent that
hardly anything major in the world is ever going to happen
without U.S. leadership, and the world is begging for that. We
need to develop global partnerships in this effort.
DOD, in this case, now should accelerate our planning in
the acquisition area for addressing this and the United States
Navy, this Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead, has
sanctioned a group that I am a part of through the National
Academy of Sciences to study what the Navy should do
acquisition-wise to address the impending consequences of
climate change. The reason that is important, I think, is
because most of the systems we acquire today will be with us
30-40 years from now.
And then lastly, that the United States military should
start looking at their installation efficiency and climate
footprint and carbon footprint at their installations.
So I thank you for the time and look forward to the
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Wald follows:]
Prepared Statement of General Charles F. Wald, USAF, Retired
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is
an honor to appear before you today to discuss the critically important
matter of climate change and its implications for U.S. foreign policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views, which are based on 35
years of service in the United States Air Force.
In my final assignment, I served as the Deputy Commander of United
States European Command. Over the past three years, I have had the
privilege of serving with some of our nation's most distinguished and
senior retired military leaders on the CNA Military Advisory Board. I
would like to take this opportunity to summarize, briefly, the findings
of the Board's work as they relate to the committee's deliberations.
CNA's Military Advisory Board has produced two reports: the first,
released in April, 2007, examining the national security threats of
climate change, and the second, released in May of this year, which
analyzed the national security threats of America's current and future
energy posture.
Our first report, National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change, concluded that climate change poses a ``serious threat to
America's national security,'' acting as a ``threat multiplier for
instability" in some of the world's most volatile regions, adding
tension to stable regions, worsening terrorism and potentially dragging
the United States into conflicts over water and other critical resource
shortages.
On the most basic level, climate change has the potential to create
sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale and at a
frequency far beyond those we see today. The consequences of these
disasters will likely foster political instability where societal
demands for the essentials of life exceed the capacity of governments
to cope.
Other findings of our National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change report include:
Reduced Access to Fresh Water. Adequate supplies of fresh water for
drinking, irrigation, and sanitation are the most basic
prerequisite for human habitation. Changes in rainfall,
snowfall, snowmelt, and glacial melt have significant effects
on fresh water supplies, and climate change is likely to affect
all of those things. In some areas of the Middle East, tensions
over water already exist
Impaired Food Production. Access to vital resources, primarily food
and water, can be an additional causative factor of conflicts,
a number of which are playing out today in Africa. Probably the
best known is the conflict in Darfur between herders and
farmers. Long periods of drought resulted in the loss of both
farmland and grazing land to the desert. The failure of their
grazing lands compelled the nomads to migrate southward in
search of water and herding ground, and that in turn led to
conflict with the farming tribes occupying those lands. Coupled
with population growth, tribal, ethnic, and religious
differences, the competition for land turned violent. I believe
this shows how lack of essential resources threatens not only
individuals and their communities, but also the region and the
international community at large.
Land Loss and Flooding. Displacement of Major Populations. About
two-thirds of the world's population lives near coastlines,
where critically important facilities and infrastructure, such
as transportation routes, industrial facilities, port
facilities, and energy production and distribution facilities
are located. A rise in sea level means potential loss of land
and displacement of large numbers of people. Rising sea levels
will also make coastal areas more vulnerable to flooding and
land loss through erosion. Furthermore, most of the
economically important major rivers and river deltas in the
world-the Niger, the Mekong, the Yangtze, the Ganges, the Nile,
the Rhine, and the Mississippi-are densely populated along
their banks. As sea levels rise and storm surges increase,
saline water can contaminate groundwater, inundate river deltas
and valleys, and destroy croplands.
Mass Migrations Add to Global Tensions. Some migrations cross
international borders. Environmental degradation can fuel
migrations in less developed countries, and these migrations
can lead to international political conflict. For example, the
large migration from Bangladesh to India in the second half of
the last century was due largely to loss of arable land, among
other environmental factors.
Potential Escalation of Conflicts over Resources. To live in
stability, human societies need access to certain fundamental
resources, the most important of which are water and food. The
lack, or mismanagement, of these resources can undercut the
stability of local populations; it can affect regions on a
national or international scale.
Since the CNA Military Advisory Board's April 2007 report was
published, a National Intelligence Assessment on global climate change
confirmed our findings. And the most recent scientific evidence reveals
that climate change is occurring at a much faster pace than originally
believed. The Arctic is a case in point. New evidence and analysis
suggests that the Arctic could be substantially ice-free in the summer
within in as few as 30 years, not at the end of the century as
previously expected.
Some may look at this changing analysis as a reason, or an excuse,
for delay. We believe that would be the wrong path.
As military professionals, we were trained to make decisions in
situations defined by ambiguous information and little concrete
knowledge of the enemy intent. We based our decisions on trends,
experience, and judgment, because waiting for 100% certainty during a
crisis can be disastrous, especially one with the huge national
security consequences of climate change. And in the case of climate
change, the trends are clear: the global environment is changing.
In thinking about the best ways to deal with this growing threat,
we need to keep clearly in mind the close relationship among the major
challenges we're facing.
Energy, security, economics, and climate change - these are all
connected. It is a system of systems that is very complex. And we need
to think of it in that way and not simply address small, narrow issues,
in the hope that they will create the kind of change needed to
fundamentally improve our future national security. Interconnected
challenges require comprehensive solutions.
These are interconnected challenges that require comprehensive
solutions, and it will take the industrialized nations of the world to
band together to demonstrate leadership - and a willingness to change--
not only to solve our current economic problems, but to address the
daunting issues related to global climate change.
And here, let me add my firm belief that it is the responsibility
of the United States to be first among leaders. If we don't make
changes, then others won't. We need to look for solutions to one
problem that can be helpful in solving other problems. That's one of
the things we uncovered in our work - that there are steps that can
help us economically, militarily, diplomatically. And those steps fit
with the direction the world is heading in it pursuit of climate
solutions.
As retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, former commander of
U.S. Central Command, and Military Advisory Board Member has said ``We
will pay now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today.or we will pay
the price later.''
Building on a key finding in the 2007 report--that climate change,
national security and energy dependence are inextricably intertwined--
the CNA Military Advisory Board devoted over one year to examining our
national energy posture, and, this past May, released its second report
entitled: Powering America's Defense: Energy and the Risks to National
Security.
While most of the findings of our second report are beyond the
scope of this hearing, the Military Advisory Board's primary conclusion
was that America's energy posture constitutes a serious and urgent
threat to national security--militarily, diplomatically and
economically.
Our second report also concludes that we cannot pursue energy
independence by taking steps that would contradict our emerging climate
policy. Energy security and a sound response to climate change cannot
be achieved by increased use of fossil fuels. Our nation requires
diversification of energy sources and a serious commitment to renewable
energy. Not simply for environmental reasons--but for national security
reasons.
Some may be surprised to hear former generals and admirals talk
about climate change and clean energy, but they shouldn't be. In the
military, you learn that force protection isn't just about protecting
weak spots; it's about reducing vulnerabilities well before you get
into harm's way. That's what this work is about.
Unless we take dramatic steps to prevent, mitigate, and adapt,
climate change will lead to an increase in conflicts, and in conflict
intensity, all across the globe. It's in this context--a world shaped
by climate change and competition for fossil fuels--that we must make
new energy choices.
But achieving the end state that America needs requires a national
approach and strong leadership at the highest levels of our government.
I conclude by quoting from the foreword to our May, 2009 CNA
Military Advisory Board report:
The challenges inherent in this suite of issues may be
daunting, particularly at a time of economic crisis. Still, our
experience informs us there is good reason for viewing this
moment in history as an opportunity. We can say, with
certainty, that we need not exchange benefits in one dimension
for harm in another; in fact, we have found that the best
approaches to energy, climate change, and national security may
be one in the same.
If we act with boldness and vision now, future generations of
Americans will look back on this as a time when we came together as a
Nation and transformed a daunting challenge into an opportunity for a
better quality of life and a more secure future for our world.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee and
contribute to this important national discussion.
Senator Menendez. Thank you and thank you all very much.
We are going to start 8-minute rounds since there are three
of us here. And if there is more time needed, we will be happy
to go through a second round. The chair will start with
himself.
Thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. O'Driscoll, I listened to your testimony and it sounds
to me that some of what you suggest may very well meet Dr.
Green's admonition that if we give someone a fish, they will
eat for a day. If we teach them how to fish, they will be able
to eat for a lifetime. It sounds like some of the adaptation
projects that your organization is involved with and are
suggesting goes to the very heart of that. You are creating the
opportunity for people to be self-sufficient in the long run.
Would that be a fair statement?
Mr. O'Driscoll. I think that is exactly the right approach
to take to this. There are certain dimensions of adaptation
that involve creation of infrastructure to protect, you know,
sea walls or elevating buildings and so forth, which are
obviously one-time infrastructure investments. But most of the
approach to adaptation I would say, particularly in the field
of agriculture, which is where we are focusing, is absolutely
on investing in sustainable futures and looking for technical
training and investments, access to seeds and credits and so
forth that will enable people to become self-sufficient as
quickly as possible.
Senator Menendez. You know, I want to get a better sense
for the record of what the terms ``adaptation'' and ``climate
resiliency'' mean, and we have just begun to broach this with
some of the projects most likely to be funded by programs such
as the ones outlined by the Kerry-Boxer bill. I understand the
view that it needs to be more robust, but not the nature of
what that would ultimately fund. Are we talking about sea walls
or drought-resistant crops or irrigation systems or water
treatment systems? What do you envision being the universe of
the projects? And I will say that to you and anyone else who
wants to engage.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Sure. I think you have covered a range of
the options that are there. Certainly from my testimony, we
would emphasize there are twofold dangers of climate change on
the one hand, the risk to communities based on extreme weather
events, which speaks to a number of adaptation projects that
will protect them in various ways whether it is through the
construction of this kind of infrastructure or whether it, in
some cases, might involve relocation and compensation for that.
So that is certainly one dimension.
That said, however, I think we are also at a critical
moment, as David mentioned, looking at World Food Day and
looking at the reality that a billion people are living in
hunger, there is a huge convergence between the climate
emergency on the one hand and the need to refocus on
agricultural development on the other. So I think what we
should be thinking about in terms of climate adaptation funding
is how do we support the capacity of communities to meet their
food needs in the face of these changing climate circumstances.
And I think that goes beyond climate adaptation to look at the
importance of reinvesting in agriculture more generally, making
sure that farmers have the means, not only the seeds and the
fertilizers and so forth, but also the access to credit, the
access to markets, and so forth that will enable them to
thrive.
I think we want to insist there that it is also important
to focus on sustainable techniques. I think some of our
concerns about some of the ideas on the table for agricultural
adaptation and new seed varieties might be beyond the means of
the 60 percent of the world's billion people who are small
farmers. So I think it is really important that adaptation
projects focus on making sure that technologies are affordable
and accessible to the poorest people.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Waskow?
Mr. Waskow. Thank you. First, just as a general comment on
the notion of adaptation, I think sometimes it is seen as sort
of a matter of running in between the raindrops, if you will,
if you think of climate change as a gathering storm. And we
prefer to think of it as really the importance of building a
robust umbrella and being proactive so that we are not simply
responding to climate impacts but, given an uncertain and
unstable climate, really putting in place the kinds of tools
and the kinds of preparedness that need to be there in a
proactive way.
Secondly--and I think this echoes much of what Peter was
saying--it is really critical that communities be deeply
engaged in the process of developing and implementing climate
adaptation strategies and activities. And that is so because we
know from the history of development that when you do not have
that community-level engagement, you do not have the kind of
success on the ground that is necessary.
And so to take some concrete examples and drawing on some
of what you were asking about, sea walls are often not the
right approach in a context where sea level rise or storms are
the issue. Instead, putting in place mangroves, for example,
planting mangroves, which can act as a sea buffer, a natural
sea buffer, in many cases is the approach that makes more
sense, both from an environmental standpoint and also often
from the point of local communities. And so we really need to
ensure that we are undertaking those kinds of community-based
adaptation strategies when we go about this.
Senator Menendez. Dr. Green, I see you want to get in here.
Dr. Green. Yes. They were very interesting questions. What
do we mean by adaptation? What do we mean by resilience?
To me those really are two separate activities. Adaptation
are steps we can use to move away from the areas of risk, sort
of almost a pre-migration strategy that happens very slowly,
incrementally because you fix the institutions so that people
understand the level of risk they face where you create those
institutions where they do not exist.
Resilience being the ability to bounce back after damages,
and that again consists of creating institutions that are
insurance-based and market-based so that you have revenue
streams and the ability to be resilient. If you have one-time
infusions to build infrastructure and then you do not have any
revenue stream for that infrastructure, it quickly becomes non-
resilient to change. So those two things, I would say, lead to
adaptation and resilience.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Mr. Chair, can I follow with one brief
comment?
Senator Menendez. Briefly. I want to get to one or two
other questions.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Go ahead.
Senator Menendez. No, go ahead.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Just to say that, as David said, community
involvement is crucial. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. And we have found that investing in participatory
vulnerability analyses in communities so that they are thinking
in advance about what the threats are and what ways they can
mitigate those threats is a very important investment in
reducing costs down the line. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
General Wald, you mentioned in your testimony that
unchecked climate change can result in an increased number of
U.S. military humanitarian missions. And you have been talking
about certain different departments of our defense looking at
what their procurement needs will be towards the future. Of
course, procurement needs are normally about equipment.
Equipment is also followed by personnel, and that drives the
numbers as well, as well as our personal commitments, as well
as our deployments and being spread thin in a world in which we
provide global leadership, but there are real challenges to
national security in a variety of ways.
So if we agree that the Defense Department is already
looking at what it will take to meet some of these challenges
in the future, which is going to drive money as well, to go to
Senator Corker's concern, which is a very legitimate one, is it
not possible to view that a robust climate adaptation could
save us money in the long run if we are proactive in that
respect?
General Wald. Yes, I think so. I mean, I think there needs
to be a lot more study done, which is being done right now, to
get to the real bottom of what the implications will be.
But a couple examples. One Peter just mentioned is when we
were in European Command, much of our activity was in Africa.
Africa is very volatile, unstable in many places and has a lot
of problems, as you know. And we did a lot of preventative
actions as well, training. Governance is a huge issue as well,
obviously not a military mission, but it is part of something
that would help us if we could get better governance in a lot
of areas. But one of the things we found in a study with the
General Accounting Office was that for every $1 of prevention,
we saved $10 in response, which is kind of an interesting
number.
I told that to some EU parliamentarians trying to get them
to be more participatory, and one of them said to me, that is a
great point except I cannot get any credit for doing anything,
so we do not want to do that. And that is part of the problem
because when you prevent something from happening, you cannot
chalk it to a success a lot of times. So it is difficult to put
money to something that you cannot get a tangible return on,
but I think that is one thing.
I was, I guess, fortunate enough to run the Afghan air war
for the first 4 months, and without Diego Garcia, which is an
island in the Pacific, we never would have been able to do that
the first few months of the attack on the Taliban. It is
predicted a 3- to 5-foot rise in sea water. That island goes
away, for example.
I was in Europe last week with the NATO Commander in an
advisory group, and one of the things he is looking at today is
what they call the high north, the North Sea. And the north
passage is now going to be opened. It was predicted at 2040,
and now they say it is going to be in the next 5 to 10 years.
And that becomes a military issue because resources and et
cetera. So the Navy is looking at--they only have two
icebreakers, for example. They do not have the ships that even
go up there. Those are very expensive, by the way.
And so the question is, well, how do you kind of start
posturing yourself equipment-wise, as you point out, which is a
long-term issue? And then number two is, how do you try to get
ahead of it a little bit? And then number three, the Navy
obviously and the Marines--their big issue is littoral, and
that is where most of the population is going to live, but also
that is where their seaports and their bases are. Norfolk in
Virginia, a large naval base there, would be affected
significantly with a 3- to 5-foot rise in sea water. You just
do not replace bases like that. You are talking about billions
of dollars.
So I think your point is well taken. Number two is I think
that is what we recommended here. The military needs to start
looking seriously at what the impact here fiscally is going to
be as well.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Senator Corker?
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank each
of you for your testimony.
Rev. Ball, I certainly appreciate the scripture that you
referred to on the front end. This is certainly a place where
that can be utilized heavily.
I also was interested in your audacious comments speaking
on behalf of the entire religious community, and upon hearing
that, I have got three or four other issues I want to talk to
you about after this.
And, General, I appreciate also your tremendous service to
our country.
I am going to focus most of my questions to the three
gentlemen in the middle. I thank all of you, though, for your
testimony.
One of the things we have done since we have been here--
first, we have observed that every time a Senator goes to a
country, we come back and authorize a new development program.
I mean, we see a need. We authorize it, and we end up having
lots of aid programs that are not fully synchronized, by the
way, all of which in most cases have merit. And so we have
asked the administration to streamline those, to put those in
priority. We are actually meeting with one of the
administration officials this afternoon. They have been working
with us to do that.
But as it relates to adaptation, are there some existing
development programs, aid programs, that we now have that we
could orient in a different way to be far more effective as it
relates to adaptation itself?
Mr. Waskow. I am happy to take that.
I think this is a multi-part puzzle. Climate change
adaptation is something that is essentially a new and
additional task that has to be undertaken in the context of a
new situation. This is an additional obstacle and burden on
developing countries. So because of that, our view is that
additional resources beyond existing development assistance are
going to be needed to tackle it.
At the same time, this is something that has to be done
very much in alignment with ongoing development strategies. It
cannot be simply off in its own climate adaptation bubble of
some kind. So I think your suggestion, if I understood it
right, that we need to integrate climate change understandings
and adaptation approaches into our broader development work is
absolutely correct. That is something that AID can and has
begun to do and I think, if resourced properly, would be able
to do much more of.
Let me say this does go to the resources again. Even when
we are integrating adaptation into ongoing development
approaches, that does take quite a bit of resources to be able
to have the intellectual capacity within development agencies
like AID and actually play it out in the field.
So I think you are absolutely right that we should be doing
that integration. At the same time, we need to be ensuring that
it is not just a matter of saying, oh, we can redirect current
strategies, current resources, but in fact, augmenting the
resources sufficiently that we can tackle this new challenge.
Dr. Green. Thank you, Senator Corker.
I think there are areas where we could redirect before we
add additional funding. One of those areas is research and
development on things like genetically engineered crops which
can adapt to varying climatic conditions, saline conditions,
and the like, drought conditions, and also promotion of
policies that lead to those deployment of genetically modified
crops in the field. Right now there are many international
obstacles to the use of genetically modified organisms and
crops that I think we could divert some more attention to
repairing, to fixing.
Also, research and development on geo-engineering which may
become necessary if there are high-end outcomes from climate
change.
And also, I think we could do more to increase the access
to energy that is going to be vital for developing countries to
be able to respond to climate change, to adapt and be
resilient. Having ample supplies of affordable energy is very
important for reacting to change and an awful lot of the world
has virtually no access to energy or what access they have is
very harmful to their health because it is highly polluting
forms of energy.
So in those areas where we have existing programs, we could
augment them or redirect funds into those areas to help build
the knowledge base and the infrastructure base the developing
world will need in order to be resilient in the face of change.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Thank you, Senator Corker. You are
certainly asking the right question.
I think we would agree with David. I think there are at
least two sets of issues here.
First of all, the particular threats and challenges that
are created by climate change are augmenting a series of
international development challenges that were there on the
table before. Again, these things have been brewing for a
while. We are just becoming more familiar with them and more
capable to identify them as climate change challenges. So we
would also strongly support the notion that climate change and
climate change adaptation needs to be understood as the
particular frame of our international development policy.
That said, one of the strongest arguments for climate
adaptation funding is the risk to existing development
infrastructure and investment that has been made over the
course of decades, gains that have been made that could be lost
or wiped away by the threat of climate change. And so the
notion of how you climate-proof existing international
development programs on the one hand and how you anticipate the
impact of climate on future programs is crucial.
We were meeting at the State Department yesterday with a
number of staff about the President's food security initiative
and made strongly the point that, as welcome as that emphasis
is on food at a time that a billion people are hungry, we want
to make sure that the strategies and the initiative are
factoring in the climate impact on agriculture as well.
Senator Corker. I know that sort of the topic du jour to
focus on is climate change and understandably so. And yet, when
I look at issues like we saw in Darfur in Sudan--and other
places we have seen the same--there is a complicating issue and
that is we have climate change that is occurring, but we also
have huge masses of migration and it exacerbates. I mean, in
many cases with the desertification that is taking place, you
might say, well, really it is not a function of climate change.
It is a function of a mass of people coming into an area and
just absolutely exacerbating the water issues.
Should we also, as we look at this, be focusing more on the
bureau of migration, I mean, looking at migration, looking at
the bureau of population? Should those kinds of things not--let
us face it. I mean, a big issue and maybe I am saying something
that is not within the mainstream politically to say, if you
will. But I mean, a big part of our issue is we have more
people in the world today than natural resources can support in
some cases. And are we focusing appropriately on those kinds of
migration issues and population issues tied to this issue also?
Mr. Waskow. Well, I think the answer is that it is not an
either/or. If you take the case of Bangladesh and the Indian
border, we need to be looking at what the implications are for
migration and security in that context and very much having the
institutions that address those issues really focusing on what
is coming down the pike and what is already happening in
instances like that.
And at the same time, we need to be thinking about, in
Bangladesh, for example, how can we work with communities on
the ground so that they are better prepared for the impacts
that they facing. Floating gardens was an example that Jim
raised of an approach that has been successfully used in
Bangladesh. We have been working there for years on early
warning systems for severe weather events, and I think with the
most recent cyclone that we saw, that that has had some very
positive effect. There are going to be a number of other
interventions, if you will, that are going to have to be made,
I think, in Bangladesh to try to alleviate some of this
migration pressure.
So I think it is not an either/or. We both have to be
looking at how to create that resilience to climate on the
ground and also looking at some of these other issues that are
intersecting with the climate impacts.
Dr. Green. I think migration is an interesting question and
I think we could focus more on that issue. In some ways,
migration can exacerbate problems, as you pointed out.
In other ways, migration is a desirable outcome. You want
to get people out of climatically fragile areas. One of things
climate science has taught us is that the climate is much more
variable than people thought it was previously, not just from
anthropogenic impacts, but simply because the climate is prone
to sharp shifts in short periods of time. And we should be
adapting our living patterns to reflect that new knowledge. So
areas that already drought-prone are probably good areas to
leave. Areas that are already flood-prone are probably good
areas to move back from.
So I think we need to look at migration not only as a
negative or as a potential risk, but how can we actually
promote good migration from dangerous areas as opposed to bad,
sort of sudden responsive migration that is unplanned. And that
I think is a key challenge, figuring out a way to establish a
system that leads to that kind of migration you want and does
not lead to the kind of migration you do not want because it
takes too long.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Well, Senator, as you know, concerns about
the impact of a growing population have been talked about since
Thomas Malthus, and we have heard all sorts of dire
predictions.
I think the way to distinguish the two issues that I do
agree with you are related is to say that it is one thing to
figure out what the impact of a growing population will be on a
fixed resource base. It is another thing when you start looking
at changes in that resource base that will complicate those
calculations.
So I think we need to do both. We need to think about what
a growing population strain will put on existing
infrastructure, but as these predictive models suggest, if
those resource bases are going to dwindle, then we are just
going to complicate the implications for population growth and
for migration.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for your testimony.
There have been a variety of amounts thrown out that are
going to be required for an adaptation fund. How do you arrive
at that number, and how important is it that we agree on a
number? Is that critical to accomplishing a global deal?
Dr. Green. I think that, if I may, Senator, gets to the
question of predictive models. The way these numbers tend to be
arrived at is someone does an economic study of predicted
damages and they come up with a fund that they believe will
avert those predicted damages. The problem is climate models,
even if they can have some accuracy in the very big global
picture, they have virtually no accuracy below the continental
scale. And so the ability to actually predict----
Senator Shaheen. Wait, wait, wait, wait. What do you mean
below the continental scale?
Dr. Green. When climate models make predictions, they can
predict for the whole globe, and they have a certain amount of
confidence in their outcomes. When you scale the modeling down,
uncertainties go up. So when you get to the continental level,
you can make some predictions. Subcontinental--even the IPCCC
admits there is virtually skill to the models in making
predictions at the subcontinental level. That means you cannot
actually predict what the changes are. You cannot put a
monetary amount on it ahead of time.
And that is why I have focused on the question of how do
you build resilient systems independent of creating a big fund
or independent of picking a dollar amount because I do not
believe you fundamentally can know where these changes are
going to occur or have any confidence that your number is a
correct one or a meaningful one.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Waskow?
Mr. Waskow. Well, two things. One is there is uncertainty
and instability in the system. That, in fact, is the problem
with climate change. But I think what we are seeing with the
estimates, that they have been growing in time in terms of what
the adaptation needs are. Oxfam 2 years ago did an analysis
saying that we thought that adaptation needs in developing
countries in total would be about $50 billion. Now the World
Bank comes out just a couple weeks ago and says over the 2010
to 2050 period, that it is an average of $75 billion to $100
billion a year. The UN Development Program has said $86 billion
a year, and so forth. So I think that we see that not only are
their numbers large, but in fact estimates have been growing.
The other thing I want say is that many of the adaptation
strategies that we think should be undertaken are, in fact,
win-win strategies in the sense that they both are important
for climate adaptation purposes and also are economically sound
and sensible and winners. So, for example, drip irrigation,
according to the McKinsey study, is a strategy that not only
provides adaptation benefits but also is a net economic gainer.
You reduce water usage in important ways and you increase your
crop yields. So I think that in many of these cases, the need
to really put these resources forward is not only necessary but
also optimal.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Thank you, Senator. As David has suggested,
there is a broad range of estimates. The low end of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is $25 billion a
year, rising to $67 billion; $86 billion per year forecast by
the United Nations Development Program, and so forth. The World
Bank, now says $75 billion to $100 billion. So I agree with you
that the range of those numbers is confusing and it makes it
hard to focus on what the exact number should be.
However, I think what might be helpful is to even take the
low end of that range, the $25 billion estimate from the United
Nations Framework Convention, and say what is the distance
between that expense and, for example, the amount of money
committed in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of $750
million and how the United States and the global community can
step up even to that low end of the adaptation bar. So we are
very hopeful that the Senate's deliberations will look at that
issue and see whether we can substantially increase the amount
of funding.
Senator Shaheen. Again, to go to the second part of my
question, how important do you think that figure is in arriving
at a global deal?
Mr. Waskow. You know, many developing countries have come
to the negotiations pointing to numbers like the World Bank's
numbers or the UN Development Program's numbers. The numbers
are very large. One might say that the U.S. responsibility
should be based on our historic emissions of greenhouse gases,
25 percent, or at the World Bank, we contributed close to 20
percent of the funds based on that institution's metrics. So
what we ought to put into the pot is probably somewhere in that
percentage ball park. What the total pot would be, of course,
is a matter of negotiation. Countries have said this is what is
needed based on these estimates. We think that that has to be
generated through the negotiating process.
I think what is critical for the United States is to get
over a certain hurdle, right, so that we can be taken seriously
at the negotiating table. I personally, having watched the
negotiations closely, having been at many of the negotiating
sessions over the past almost 2 years, do not think we have
crossed that hurdle yet. I do not think what is in the House-
passed legislation gets us there yet. So we do think it is
critical that the Senate expand on what was done in the House.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
As we look at an adaptation fund and how it gets used, how
do we ensure that we are undertaking the most appropriate
measures to address adaptation in various places? Several of
you have suggested some measures are more optimal than others.
Do you have thoughts about how we allocate those decision-
making capacities and how that gets handled in an adaptation
fund?
Mr. O'Driscoll. Yes, that is a great question. Thank you
very much. And we have a recently published paper [``Equitable
Adaptation Finance: The Case for an Enhanced Funding Mechanism
under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,''
available at http://www.actionaidusa.org] on that very issue
that I would love to put in your hands after the hearing.
Senator Shaheen. I thought you might.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Yes.
But I think one of the key principles--and this perhaps
goes back to Senator Corker's earliest comments. How do we make
sure that taxpayers' money really is being invested wisely and
is accountable? And I think from our perspective one of the
best ways to make sure that it is being spent efficiently and
accurately is to ensure transparency and accountability in
whatever those financing mechanisms would be. And moreover, I
think we would say that those funds are much more likely to be
invested wisely and efficiently if the communities are involved
in the design, the implementation, the monitoring of the
projects themselves.
So those are key principles for us, which then led
ActionAid to ask the question, what institutions are most
likely to be able to provide that level of participation on the
one hand, accountability and transparency on the other hand?
That is where we have raised some questions about the direction
the conversations are currently leading. Both the World Bank
and the Global Environmental Facility, which are put out there
as likely recipients of this adaptation fund, have had some
serious questions. For example, an internal World Bank report
suggested that as of 2006, about 75 percent of the World Bank's
projects had not involved significant community participation.
So one of the suggestions that we are making strongly in
our paper is that the Senate and the administration look long
and hard at the possibility of creating a new enhanced
adaptation funding mechanism under the auspices of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is not
only, we hope, an opportunity to expand the oversight, the
transparency, the accountability of the process but also to
this key question of how we get a global deal in December, a
huge indicator of good will and of openness and leadership on
the part of the United States around these issues.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I actually am out of time, but
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one final question----
Senator Menendez. Go ahead.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. ----to Rev. Ball. And I want
to try and be diplomatic about how I put this. But I think
there were a number of people who were, frankly, a little
surprised but very much appreciated the support from
evangelical Christians for addressing climate change. And as we
look at the challenges of getting the votes in the Senate, many
of the people who have expressed reservations about any
legislation come from parts of the country that have very
strong evangelical Christian populations.
So what do you think the prospects are for engaging the
evangelical community on this issue to try and get legislation
passed?
Rev. Ball. Well, as I said at the beginning, there is this
group of senior evangelical leaders called The Evangelical
Climate Initiative. In my community, you need senior leaders
like that to bless the facts. Right? In other words, in terms
of the science and to be messengers that are trusted.
Unfortunately, for some in my community, scientists are not
necessarily the most trusted of messengers, or honestly,
neither are necessarily Democratic politicians. Apologies.
Senator Shaheen. I appreciate that. [Laughter.]
Rev. Ball. So we have gotten our leaders to step up and----
Senator Menendez. Only Democratic politicians? [Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. You do not have to answer that.
Rev. Ball. So we have gotten our leaders to step up and say
this is a crucial issue. A key part of that is caring for the
least of these, as we talk about it in our community.
We are not going to be able to say to our folks that this
is something to support unless the funding levels are
sufficient, and the funding levels in the House bill are not
sufficient. We want to fight hard and we will if those funding
levels are sufficient.
So we need to have a bill that our community can fight for.
It is already a tough sled because some in our community are
not with us, and so to engage those we know will be, we need to
have something that we can fight for.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Senator Corker took notes on
that.
Senator Menendez. Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you
for having this hearing. I think this is an extremely important
part of the challenge that we have before us.
I participated this past weekend in a discussion with the
OSCE in Greece on climate change. We had 56 states that were
represented there, and we had a chance to debate how we can
move forward in Copenhagen. Of course, the question that was
asked the most from my participation is where is America. Where
is the United States? Where is the leadership from this
country?
I pointed out the fact that the House has already acted on
legislation. The Senate legislation has been introduced. We are
having hearings at the end of this month, and I am optimistic
that America is going to be a leader in Copenhagen.
But you know, we look at it from the developed nation's
point of view, and that is we look inward to how we are going
to get a bill done by dealing with expanding jobs in America
and building the infrastructure in this Nation that is
necessary in order to achieve our targets and dealing with
consumers to make sure that they are protected through this and
how we are going to deal with transition with industries to
meet the new challenges of energy.
But in order to be successful, if we are going to have
international targets that are going to bring down carbon
emissions, then we have to deal with the issue that we are
dealing with here, and that is financing. How are we going to
deal with the developing world? They have already been
confronted by the impact of global climate change. They already
have seen what we call climate migrants who are fleeing their
country and causing instability. And there are international
responsibilities here that we need to deal with and how we
finance it is critically important. So I think this hearing is
critical if we are going to be successful in dealing with the
climate change issues.
But I just want to emphasize one point and ask for whoever
on the panel would like to respond--and that is, how do we have
accountability on these funds? I look today at mineral wealth
nations that are poor, that the mineral wealth has been a curse
because it fuels corruption and it does not help the people of
that nation. As I look at how we are trying to finance these
international efforts on global climate change, it could very
well be a revenue flow to nations that do not have the maturity
to deal with it and could be a funding source for corruption,
therefore, not only failing to accomplish the goals that we are
setting out, but also fuel additional international problems of
corruption.
So how do we avoid that? How do we put into this
international effort to avoid those issues? Rev. Ball?
Rev. Ball. Earlier Senator Corker said I was saying the
whole religious community. That was a bit of shorthand. I was
more careful in my written testimony.
But my organization--I knew you were kidding--is the
evangelical partner of the National Religious Partnership for
the Environment. It includes the U.S. Catholic Conference, the
National Council of Churches, and the Coalition on the
Environment and Jewish Life. And together we have put out a
statement talking about how we should do some of these things.
One of the things that we have talked about is exactly these
types of questions.
I already criticized Waxman-Markey a little bit, so let me
praise Waxman-Markey here. We think they got it pretty good.
One of the things that we want is to see about 40 to 60 percent
of the funds staying with USAID, and USAID being the ones to be
able to figure out who will get the grants. Hopefully, some of
those go to evangelical relief and development organizations,
but folks who are on the ground who USAID already has
relationships with and there is transparency and monitoring all
those kinds of things for some of the reasons that you have
raised.
We think there needs to be balance of multilateral and
bilateral funding. If we are able to have 40 to 60 percent, as
it says in the Waxman-Markey bill, kind of stay at USAID to
then be given to PVOs, secular or religious, to do work,
especially work within communities--that was another thing that
Peter highlighted that is really important. These relief and
development organizations are working at the community local
level. So I think for that kind of transparency and balance of
funding, I think if you have that kind of formula, that that
would be very helpful.
Dr. Green. Thank you, Senator. You raise a very important
question. I think it needs to be understood that many of the
countries we are talking about that face the biggest climate
risk also have the weakest institutions. They often lack
property rights regimes. They often lack even the basic rule of
law. And as you pointed out, we have seen in the past that U.S.
aid programs can, indeed, find their way right into the hands
of the very people that are victimizing others and causing more
trouble.
So I would argue that we really need to keep not 60 percent
of this under the control of U.S. agencies. We should keep
virtually all of our aid under the control of U.S. agencies.
And then we should institute the kind of transparency
initiatives that the President has talked about with regard to
science, transparency in science. There also should be
transparency in the way these projects are funded and the way
they are monitored and the way their performance metrics are
established to make sure that we are getting some value for
what we are spending.
And I just have one question. Senator Shaheen had asked a
question I did not get the chance to point to. There has been
discussion here about putting a number out before Copenhagen,
and I guess maybe I would ask you a question. Why would you go
into negotiations having already put out your number as to what
you are willing to spend instead of actually negotiating it at
the point where you are going to have the maximum leverage?
Senator Cardin. Well, I think we have put out the number.
The international community has put out the number. It is no
greater climate change 2 degrees centigrade from pre-industrial
levels. I think that is going to be, I hope, the standard that
we set. Now, how it is divided among the nations is something
that obviously can be negotiated.
I just want to challenge you, though, on the point. And Mr.
Waskow, I will certainly give you a chance on this. Okay, maybe
we can do a better job with U.S. contributions here. But we are
talking about international in Copenhagen, and we want to make
sure there is a fair sharing of the burdens of the developing
world in dealing with these problems.
We have not been successful on mineral rights
internationally. The EITI is a strong effort. Senator Lugar and
I have introduced legislation to strengthen the U.S.
involvement and to make it more multinational. But the track
record has not been that good. So why do we expect that the
international community will assist us in making sure the money
actually is used in an open way?
Let me give Mr. Waskow a chance.
Mr. Waskow. Thank you, Senator.
I think there are three things that need to be done for the
purposes of accountability.
One has to do with community-level engagement, and this is
something that several of us have stressed here. It is
critically important that communities be involved in the
development and implementation of adaptation strategies and
programs. Without that, the success on the ground is likely to
be severely diminished, and I think that the level of
accountability will also be diminished if you do not ensure
that communities, in fact, are engaged and making sure that the
programs and the funding, in fact, is meeting the needs on the
ground.
Secondly is monitoring and evaluation. I agree that we need
to have clear metrics in place and we need to have an
evaluation process that very clearly spells out how we are
looking at what the success is of the funding.
On those first two elements, community engagement and
monitoring and evaluation, I think the House-passed
legislation, in fact, does a very good job.
There is a third element that I think we ought to seriously
consider, and that is really building off the experience, the
model of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. And that model,
in essence, requires that the United States reach agreements
with other countries' governments on the parameters and
objectives for the ways in which development assistance will be
spent and then has a very clear feedback system for monitoring
and evaluation. We put in place multi-year grants with these
governments and have these kind of very robust systems to look
at both what needs to happen and whether it has happened. I
think that incorporating that, not all of the funding that
Congress would put forward, but I think incorporating that into
the adaptation resources that Congress puts forward, in fact,
would be an extremely important step for the Senate to take.
Dr. Green. Senator, I agree with you. This is a huge
challenge. I am not saying that the European or the rest of the
world, developing or developed, are going to put up the same
kind of resources we are talking about and run their programs
in a highly rigorous way that we would approve of. And I think
that is something that should be understood going into
negotiations. It should be required that even the developing
countries, China and India, contribute to these processes
because the Chinese are already the largest emitters of
greenhouse gases and they are going to, by far, be the biggest
contributor in the big picture of things in the long-term
scheme. So I think it is very important that we require these.
But they also must require the same kind of institutional
settings we have, which is performance metrics, transparency,
real delivery of funds, and so forth. And there have to be
agreements in place that if they do not, we do not.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Senator, may I jump in on that?
Senator Cardin. Surely. Go ahead. The chairman is being
generous with my time.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Just to say community engagement is
critically important, but also making sure that the conditions
that are attached to international funding include
communication of amounts and mechanisms to civil society
because I can tell you about sitting down in Malawi with a
group of parliamentarians who said, ``the IMF has come to town.
They have sat down with our finance ministry. They have
negotiated a loan. The conditions on that loan are not apparent
to us. We are being asked as a parliament to approve that loan
without knowing the conditions.''
Senator Cardin. Transparency is absolutely essential. I
agree with you, and I think that is one area that we can insist
upon not only with America's participation, but the
international.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
I have one or two other quick questions, and then we will
see if anyone else does.
Dr. Green, in your written testimony, you seem to be a lot
more reticent than even in your oral testimony about any monies
being spent in this regard, or at least you raise serious
cautions about it. But I listened to your response to one of
the questions where you said, ``I think one of the key
questions is how do we build a more resilient system.'' I think
you and I could both agree that in order to build a resilient
system, there is going to be money necessary. So for those who
might suggest that there should be no money as it relates to
adaptation, that is a difficult proposition if we are going to
try to build even resilient systems.
Dr. Green. Well, I agree to a certain extent.
I think there are two areas in which we can contribute. One
is we could contribute money, or the other is we could
contribute experience.
In the case of the developing countries such as China and
India who have advanced technologies, we should be encouraging
them or showing them how to build resilient systems and
encouraging them to move away from, for instance, state-run
infrastructure and things of that sort. So I think we have
leadership that we can exert that is non-monetary to try to
teach what resilience is to countries that do not actually have
the institutions at hand to implement it.
If money is to be allocated, I think it should be
reallocated from existing uses and also should be targeted with
extreme care. As I said, I mean, I understand the need for
some--there may be some need, but the establishment of how that
is done is really a huge challenge----
Senator Menendez. You mentioned China and India, and I
probably would agree with you there. Those are countries that
are resource-wealthy or well-off. But we could have the
greatest experience to share on resilient systems with
countries that have absolutely no wherewithal to implement such
systems. So we are going to need some resources here. We might
argue about what the level of that is, but we are going to need
some resources. I think as a foundation question we should
agree to that.
General Wald, I just want to ask this. Having listened to
your testimony, there are some in the Senate who believe that
the CIA is wasting money by opening its Center on Climate
Change and National Security. I wondering if you are familiar
with what work is and what your views are on that.
General Wald. I am. In our first report, we recommended a
national intelligence estimate be done this issue, which was
somewhat controversial I think. It got a lot of blow-back from
some Senators and Congressmen.
I know the person that runs the center. As a matter of
fact, he was my instructor pilot in 1971 when I learned how to
fly. So it is kind of ironic. But he is one of the most
responsible individuals I have ever met, one of the most
intelligent. He believes this is an issue. And they are not
going out and doing human intelligence per se. They are doing
an estimate of what they see, literally and figuratively, the
environment we are going to have to contend with in the future.
That is part of their job is estimating threats and estimating
situations.
So I think it is a good idea, and I think the criticism of
it is misplaced.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask Mr. Waskow. Because of glacier
melt in the Himalayas leading to water scarcity and because sea
level rise will lead to more coastal flooding, China and India
are quite vulnerable to climate change. But the domestic bills
here in Congress are quite clear that well-capitalized
countries such as India and China are not targets of the
adaptation fund. What about that view internationally?
Mr. Waskow. There has been a focus internationally on what
are often described as the most vulnerable developing
countries. That is the language used in many of the UN
documents, including the Bali Action Plan that underpins the
current negotiations. Those are generally understood to include
small island states, least developed countries, and also
Africa, countries in Africa.
Now, I think that makes sense as a basic rubric, but at the
same time, I think it does leave out some countries. And so we
need to think about how to address that. For example, no
countries in the western hemisphere other than Haiti are
classified as least developed countries. So that leaves out a
number of countries, all of Central America, countries in South
America that are deeply affected. So I do think we need to
think more about how to create rubrics and parameters that
really make sense.
Senator Menendez. No one is seriously arguing that India
and China, for example, should have access to such funding.
Mr. Waskow. I do not think China sees itself as a--China
knows that it needs to do adaptation because, as you said, they
have a very serious water issue.
Senator Menendez. The question is, should they have access?
Mr. Waskow. I do not think they see themselves as needing
access.
I think India may be a slightly different case for a couple
of reasons. One is their GDP per capita is less than half of
China's. Their emissions are about a quarter of China's. So I
think from their perspective, they clearly have serious issues
that they are going to need to address and I think maybe see
themselves as deserving of some of that assistance. I think we
would tend to agree with that, but I think India is certainly a
question mark that needs to be taken up.
Dr. Green. With all respect to Mr. Waskow, I think your
question is how does the international community feel about our
not allowing access to these funds to China and India. From
what I have read, that is not an accepted position
internationally, nor is it accepted by China, which has put
forward actual demands for percentages of GDP wealth transfer
from the United States or from developed countries to
developing countries including themselves. So I think while the
position is pretty well understood in the United States that we
do not think that China and India should be recipients of these
funds, internationally I do not believe that is the case, and I
think there would be an emphasis on moving some of those funds
to China and India whether U.S. funds or international funds.
Senator Menendez. That would be something for negotiation
and clearly something that if we come in with a significant
threshold, we will be in a better position to negotiate on.
Let me ask Rev. Ball. The role of government can sometimes
be very divisive in the faith community, and I am just
wondering, as I hear your testimony and some of your answers
here, is climate change adaptation something for which there is
deep disagreement or a broader agreement? I am not asking for
universal agreement. That is almost impossible.
Rev. Ball. Yes. It is interesting. It is a very helpful
question because you may recall during the campaign that
Governor Palin was asked what was her position--what were her
views on climate change, and she basically said while I think
global warming is happening, I am not so sure how much humans
are causing it. That is a view that is shared by some in our
community.
But if you believe that global warming is happening,
regardless of the cause, and you start to understand the
seriousness of the impacts that are going to occur, then--when
we would explain that to someone, even those who think it is
baloney in our community that it is being caused by humans, but
nevertheless see that it is happening, I think they would say,
yes, we have got to help these folks.
Just like I contribute money to World Vision to help with
other kinds of humanitarian issues, if global warming is going
to make these things worse in terms of refugees and health
issues and food security and water scarcity, the things that I
give money to help people with, then yes, we should do that. So
I actually think that adaptation is a place where there is
going to be a lot of consensus within the religious community.
Senator Menendez. Senator Corker?
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think this has
been a great hearing and I thank each of you for what you have
had to say.
I think Senator Cardin's comments were very, very good, and
I think that line of questioning--as, of course, our chairman
and others. But to sort of figure out a way to link up the
heart that I think Rev. Ball is trying to embody here with the
practicality of monies being spent in a way that makes sense,
something that many of the folks in his community at this time
of the year are talking to their congregants about and
certainly as legislation occurs, if it occurs, my guess is that
this whole issue of how you actually expend money in a way that
makes sense and there is a desired end I think is very, very
important.
I would actually challenge the community that is the
recipient of these monies to work more closely together to
develop something that makes sense in that regard. Part of it
being multilateral, as you refer to, part of it bilateral is
going to make that very, very complex.
Not to give a travelogue, but most recently I was in
Afghanistan, and you talk to citizens there on the ground and
they are getting like 20 cents on the dollar of our aid. I
mean, it is criminal. Lots of people are benefitting all along
the way.
So I do think that the question Senator Cardin asked--and I
think certainly if you look at the government--in most cases we
are talking about countries that are very, very poor. They do
not have a system there of checking corruption. So I think that
is a very, very important thing to focus on.
I want to ask a question, and this is obviously slightly
loaded. But we are already involved in adaptation now. I mean,
we do things. We deal with that. If legislation like this
passes, there is no question in my mind we will be involved
more. There may be various things that each of us feel in
different ways are most important. Obviously, you all are here
about adaptation.
I was in the Amazon region recently, and I cannot imagine
how anybody in the world would not think that the burning of
those forests is not--regardless of how you feel about climate
change, it is not a good thing. Okay? It is affecting the
world. And so some people might say that monies ought to be
expended there to keep that kind of thing from happening. I
know the international community has disagreed with that.
But let me ask you this question. And it is loaded. Energy
security has been something that has been important to me. The
general talks about our national security in some ways as it
relates to climate change. My focus on this area has been to
figure out a way that regardless of how you may feel about all
these other things, how do we craft a policy that moves our
country and the world ahead. How do you do that?
How do you feel about a bill? You talked about not having
enough money coming into adaptation. I mean, that is why you
are here today. But these bills that are being put forth seem
to move away from climate change and they move towards lots of
people making lots of money. I mean, if you look at the U.S.
cap group and how they as a group benefit from this, you look
at buying off the hook and bullet guys that exist all around
our country, you look at buying off the agriculture community,
you look at buying off every interest group in the world which
basically is taking money out of our economy.
So here you are people of good will, I think. I think you,
on a daily basis, try to do things that are good for other
human beings. How do you feel about a piece of legislation that
is the centerpiece that basically extracts money from the very
people we represent, syphons it off to various groups around
the world? I am not talking about adaptation and I am not
talking about the Amazon. Okay? But all those other areas. Do
you feel like the end justifies the means and if it takes us
buying off every organization and every interest group in the
country to get it passed, it makes sense? Or would you like to
see this body act more responsibly?
Dr. Green. Well, Senator, if I may. I think that is a
crucial question.
Senator Menendez. Only slightly loaded. [Laughter.]
Dr. Green. Only slightly loaded. That is true. I did not
detect any hint of loading in the question.
This is one of the areas where I think it is important to
think about technology development because one of the things
that we can do that cuts around this question of corruption is
we can develop the technologies that can be deployed in these
countries to help them adapt to climate change. So, again,
genetically engineered crops is a large area we should be
working on developing new technologies. New energy technologies
that can be deployed in these areas, new sanitation
technologies that can be cheaply and easily deployed in
developing countries. I think we have much more in terms of
building things and technology advantage than we do in trying
to get around corrupt systems and make sure that if we send
money, it goes to the right hands. If we create technologies
that can be deployed, it is going to reach the lower levels and
not profit as much the people we do not want to profit.
Mr. O'Driscoll. Senator, when you say that your question is
loaded, I wonder if you are suggesting that you would like us
to write the legislation for you so that we can make sure
adaptation is----
Senator Corker. My guess is adaptation would have a larger
chunk. [Laughter.]
Mr. O'Driscoll. It would have a significantly larger chunk.
So we will be working on that bill and we will get to you
shortly.
You know better than we do the complications of getting
legislation passed and the realities of politics in this
country. So I think our position on any bill is that there is a
certain amount of that that we certainly cannot avoid and that
that is why we appreciate the efforts that you are making and
the meetings that you are having with the different groups who
have some interest in this issue.
That said, I think from where we sit, there is absolutely
no alternative to moving forward with a bill that addresses
this issue, and we will be thrilled to talk to you as you work
out the various interests and how they come together. But I do
not think from our perspective we could possibly say that the
best solution is no bill and not addressing this issue.
Mr. Waskow. If I could amplify that a little from our
perspective. We have long had the position that 100 percent of
the resources in a climate bill should go to public benefit.
That will likely not happen. So I think we all have tough calls
to make.
But let me say this. We focused at this hearing on
adaptation and there is no question that is a critical task
ahead. As I said, even if we eliminate emissions today, we will
have climate change growing and increasing over the next few
decades. So we have to take on this adaptation challenge. At
the same time, if we do not tackle the emissions reduction
challenge, the adaptation challenge 40, 50, 60 years from now
will be so immense that it may not even be possible. We will
not be able to have the tools to adapt out into that time
frame. So action on climate change is urgent, and as I said, we
have tough calls to make, but I do think that we need to do
something now and not wait.
General Wald. Can I just make a comment?
First of all, I agree with everything that was said. But I
would say that there needs to be----
Senator Corker. Everything I said or he said?
General Wald. Everything you said, Senator.
Senator Corker. Thank you. [Laughter.]
General Wald. But seriously, the big issue that needs to be
addressed, I think, is--I mean, money is an issue. It always
is. But is U.S. leadership. This is not going to be effective
unless we really take a part in this. Our saying in European
Command is we wanted to use OPM. That is ``other people's
money.'' We need to have them focus the money in areas that are
beneficial to us, and we are not going to be able to do that
without serious leadership. And so unless we do something as a
Nation, none of this is going to be fixed. And by the way, it
is going to be hugely inefficient unless we are leading.
Senator Corker. Reverend, do you want to close us out with
a benediction here?
Rev. Ball. Well, that would be interesting.
I just was recalling that a professor at Harvard--Professor
Stavins I think it is--did an analysis on the Waxman-Markey
bill, and he came to the conclusion that 80 percent was going
towards public benefit and 20 percent towards private. So if
you go by the adage of don't let the perfect be the enemy of
the good, then I think, well, we have got to make the sausage,
and so let us at least have a good-tasting sausage.
Senator Menendez. That is one great benediction.
[Laughter.]
Senator Corker. Thank you all very much.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
This will conclude this hearing on addressing the impacts
of climate change in the world's most vulnerable nations.
Let me thank all of the witnesses on behalf of Senator
Corker and myself and our other colleagues for participating. I
think we lay a lot of work here to help the committee prepare
as it moves forward on a climate change bill.
The record is going to remain open for 1 week to allow
Senators the chance to ask follow-up questions in writing. We
ask, if you receive them, to please try respond as quickly as
possible.
With that, the hearing comes to a close.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
