Articles by Joseph Romm

On a new McKibben editorial

If this were the daily sunset you had gotten used to growing up, you would understand the hesitancy of even Bill McKibben, a renowned environmentalist, to okay wind turbines on the horizon, interfering with bird migration in order to generate electricity.

However, in an opinion article in which McKibben confesses his sentiment, entitled "One world, one problem," he ultimately resolves:

In this world, the threat to that landscape, and to those birds, comes far more from rapid shifts in temperature than from a few dozen towers.

McKibben goes on to write a testament to the gravity of climate change and its meaning for the environmental movement, which the existential call for action is uniting. No matter your top concern -- clean water, dolphin populations, crop survival, energy consumption -- there is a link to climate change and a bigger picture to keep in mind.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

All green eyes turn to the West Coast

Popularized by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the term "Californication" actually refers to the surge of Californians migrating up the West Coast following the opening of a major highway. In this context, we're hoping we can Californicate the state's climate change and energy policies to the rest of the Union.

Since the 1970s, California has kept its per capita energy use at a level rate, using primarily energy efficiency programs. Over time and with minimal spending, the cost of electricity under the programs is 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's an outstanding rate compared to traditional or even carbon-free energy sources.

I discuss California's unique route in Chapter 7 of Hell and High Water, but you can access the information from the California Energy Commission or this PowerPoint with graphics.

When our country gets serious about addressing climate change and energy dependence, we need active national attention and proliferation of California's policies.

A good start is Paul Krugman's editorial in the New York Times from earlier this year. You need a Times Select subscription, but it is included below because it's too good to miss:

Keeping an eye on the ‘wingers

(Part of a series of posts keeping an eye on Planet Gore, the National Review blog devoted to obfuscating on climate change.)

New research finds low cost for tackling climate change. But not when that research is reported by Planet Gore. Sterling Burnett recently authored a classic example of PG's disinfotainment. He writes:

Has the media completely lost objectivity and the search for the "truth" with regard to the issue of global warming. The latest reason that made me ponder this question arose with the "non-story" of the recent reports by MIT and the CBO detailing the substantial costs and regressive nature of the costs that are estimated to arise if any of the current domestic proposals restricting carbon emissions to combat global warming are enacted. Despite the best efforts of Senator James Inhofe, among others, to get these studies publicized, I have barely seen a mention of the findings of either of these reports in the mainstream media.

He goes on to say, "it has surprised me how economic and science reporters have also ignored the MIT and CBO reports." The same week I read this, however, I saw a science news article on the MIT report ("Damn you, Science magazine," as Jon Stewart might say). The article requires a subscription, but I have copied the key figure below:

Or is it just us?

April may have seemed on the cool side in this country, but globally it was the third warmest on record (and the warmest April ever over land). In fact, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reports that "globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the warmest on record for January-April year-to-date period."

Drudge reported the April news perversely: "WARMING ON HOLD? April’s temperatures were below average ..."

April temperature anomalies are shown on the dot map below. The redder it is, the hotter it is: