Articles by Joseph Romm

What are the prospects for climate legislation in the House?

I think Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Waxman (D-Calif.) may be making both a strategic and a tactical mistake in pushing to get a climate bill out of committee by Memorial Day. I say this as someone who was delighted that Waxman defeated Dingell for the chairmanship.

Strategically, as an extended must-read analysis in E&E Daily ($ub. req'd, reprinted below) explains:

... in the Energy and Commerce Committee, it is often stated that a legislative victory there foretells success when the bill reaches the entire House. "If you do it in committee, I think you do a huge amount of what you need to do for the floor," said Manik Roy, vice president of federal outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Obama isn't going to see a climate bill on his desk this year (see here). Even Speaker Pelosi was originally skeptical the House would pass cap-and-trade this year.

Obama certainly isn't going to devote a lot of time and political effort to raising the issue's profile in the next three months -- nor should he.

So why push such an important and difficult vote before the ground has been laid for it, when you will be operating with one hand tied behind your back? At a time when the administration, public, and media are focused squarely on the greatest economic mess since the Great Depression? Even if Waxman succeeds under such circumstances, he may be stuck with a weaker bill than he otherwise could have gotten.

I will explore what I see as Waxman's tactical mistake -- trying to put energy legislation into his climate bill -- in a later post.

Here is the full E&E Daily story:

Non-OPEC production has likely peaked, oil output could fall by 30 million bpd by 2015

You might think that the recent collapse in oil demand would put off the peak. But the price collapse and global credit crunch mean the reverse is true:

Non-OPEC crude oil production may have already peaked and international oil companies faced the prospect of both younger and older oil fields declining steeply, the firm said in the report released on Wednesday.

Merrill said "the cumulative decline of global oil production from today could amount to 30 million barrels per day by 2015." What does world need to do going forward?

Steep falls in oil production means the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia's production every two years, Merrill Lynch said in a research report.

This matches what the normally conservative and staid International Energy Agency has been saying in recent months (see "Science/IEA: World oil crunch looming? Not if we can find six Saudi Arabias!" and "IEA says oil will peak in 2020").

The global economic recession has cut funding for investment in oil production around the globe. Ironically -- or tragically -- the only thing that can save the world from a return to soaring oil prices by 2010 or 2011 is if economic slowdown turns into "a multi-year event where global oil demand was pushed down structurally for the next five years."

The NYT magazine doesn't understand renewables, efficiency, energy prices, or green jobs

Reporting on the economics of climate change in this country is terrible, as made clear in the searing new report by leading journalist Eric Pooley.

The NYT economics reporter, David Leonhardt, made a big splash last week with his big piece on the stimulus, "The Big Fix." But like many economics reporters, he is both poorly informed and thoroughly confused about clean energy -- and most every other aspect of energy, as his extended discussion of green jobs makes clear:

Sometimes a project can give an economy a lift and also lead to transformation, but sometimes the goals are at odds, at least in the short term. Nothing demonstrates this quandary quite so well as green jobs, which are often cited as the single best hope for driving the post-bubble economy. Obama himself makes this case. Consumer spending has been the economic engine of the past two decades, he has said. Alternative energy will supposedly be the engine of the future -- a way to save the planet, reduce the amount of money flowing to hostile oil-producing countries and revive the American economy, all at once. Put in these terms, green jobs sounds like a free lunch.

Green jobs can certainly provide stimulus. Obama's proposal includes subsidies for companies that make wind turbines, solar power and other alternative energy sources, and these subsidies will create some jobs. But the subsidies will not be nearly enough to eliminate the gap between the cost of dirty, carbon-based energy and clean energy. Dirty-energy sources -- oil, gas and coal -- are cheap. That's why we have become so dependent on them.

The only way to create huge numbers of clean-energy jobs would be to raise the cost of dirty-energy sources, as Obama's proposed cap-and-trade carbon-reduction program would do, to make them more expensive than clean energy. This is where the green-jobs dream gets complicated.

No, no, and no. Leonhardt would seem to be completely unaware of the fact that in 2008 U.S. wind energy grew by record 8,300 MW. It was responsible for 42 percent of all new U.S. electricity generation installed last year. In fact, two weeks ago, Fortune reported:

West Antarctic ice-sheet collapse means more catastrophe for U.S. coasts

The fate of Florida and Louisiana if we're myopic and greedy enough to let the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse (click to see entire SE coast).

A new study in Science finds that sea-level rise from a collapse of the WAIS would likely be 25 percent higher for North America than previously estimated:

The catastrophic increase in sea level, already projected to average between 16 and 17 feet around the world, would be almost 21 feet in such places as Washington, D.C., scientists say, putting it largely underwater. Many coastal areas would be devastated. Much of Southern Florida would disappear.

This article has already started to make news around the globe (Reuters story here). But, frankly, divining the difference between a rise of 16.5 feet (an incalculably devastating catastrophe) and 21 feet (an incalculably devastating catastrophe) is like trying to count the number of devils on a pin.

Nonetheless, WAIS collapse is all but inevitable given business-as-usual warming of 5-7°C. As I explained in my book:

Perhaps the most important, and worrisome, fact about the WAIS is that it is fundamentally far less stable than the Greenland ice sheet because most of it is grounded far below sea level.

For a longer discussion of WAIS and its unique instability, see "Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years."

So what is new in the Science article, "The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse" ($ub. req'd)? Study coauthor and geophysicist Jerry X. Mitrovica, director of the Earth System Evolution Program at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, explains: