Articles by Joseph Romm

The hits keep on comin’

Senate Foreign Relations Testimony on the grave threat to our nation's security posed by global warming:

• Admiral Joseph W. Prueher (PDF), USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command and Former Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China;
• General Charles F. Wald (PDF), USAF (Ret.), Former Deputy Commander, U.S. European Command; and
• Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly (PDF), USN (Ret.), Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the First Commander of the Naval Space Command.

Memo to conservative global warming deniers: Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) asserts in his opening statement (PDF),"To adequately prepare our security and diplomatic forces for future threats, we need to understand how climate change might be a source of war and instability."

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

They don’t get that climate is a security issue

"The Democrats' Global War on Weather" and "Jack Bauer, Climatologist???" are the headlines conservatives are using to mock efforts by progressives to finance a National Intelligence Estimate to study global warming. But climate is clearly a national security threat, as made clear in a recent CNA report from a distinguished group of former military leaders (PDF).

As but one example, a "ferocious drought and famine" were the driving forces behind the crisis in Darfur, which is "likely to be seen as the first climate change war," as the Guardian put it.

Contrary to the mocking press release, the "war on weather" is being waged by conservatives who block action on mandatory greenhouse gas controls, thereby ensuring more and more extreme weather events for many decades to come.

It is precisely because conservatives have blocked action on climate change that progressives are driven to fund a serious effort by our intelligence agencies to understand the dangerous implications of our do-nothing climate policy.

If only Jack Bauer were a climatologist -- then conservatives might listen to the overwhelming scientific evidence about the climate crisis. Better yet, put Jack in charge of U.S. climate policy -- then we would finally have a leader who believes in taking action.

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

Summarizin’ summaries, summarily

Here is the second half of my summary of the IPCC summary (PDF):

Energy Efficiency:

It is often more cost-effective to invest in end-use energy efficiency improvement than in increasing energy supply to satisfy demand for energy services. Efficiency improvement has a positive effect on energy security, local and regional air pollution abatement, and employment.

(In buildings):

Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings could considerably reduce CO2 emissions with net economic benefit. Many barriers exist against tapping this potential, but there are also large co-benefits (high agreement, much evidence).

By 2030, about 30 percent of the projected GHG emissions in the building sector can be avoided with net economic benefit.

Summaries of a summary — the new black?

Finally, below is the first half of my summary of the IPCC summary (PDF):

In 2030 macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation, consistent with emissions trajectories towards stabilization between 445 and 710 ppm CO2-eq, are estimated at between a 3% decrease of global GDP and a small increase, compared to the baseline. However, regional costs may differ significantly from global averages (high agreement, medium evidence).

In 2050 global average macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation towards stabilization between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq, are between a 1% gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP. For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average (high agreement, medium evidence).