Skip to content
Grist home
All donations doubled!

Articles by Joseph Romm

Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

All Articles

  • Opening ANWR cuts gas prices $0.02 in 2025

    In the climate and energy debate, conservatives continue to argue that the only solution to high gasoline prices is drill, drill, drill, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This argument is false, false, false.

    The Administration's own Energy Information Administration found differently in a 2004 Congressionally-requested "Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR" (see "Note to Bush, media: Opening ANWR cuts gas prices one cent in 2025"). I pointed out then that the 2004 analysis was based on low oil prices, and that higher oil prices would raise the savings.

    A May 2008 re-analysis [PDF] by EIA, "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," in fact found this:

  • Arizona senator says no to Boxer-L-W without giga-subsidies for nukes

    McCain said last night that he is the candidate of change. How is billions of dollars in subsidies to build hundreds of nuclear power plants "change"?

    Here is everything you need to know about McCain's understanding of both energy and climate issues: He doesn't care enough about the climate to support even a so-so bill like Boxer-Lieberman-Warner unless there are giga-subsidies for nukes beyond the $100 billion or so the industry has received to date.

  • Standing up to Samuelson

    This post is by Bracken Hendricks, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

    -----

    In Monday's Washington Post, and a parallel piece in Newsweek, Robert Samuelson gets it wildly wrong on cap-and-trade, parroting a litany of falsehoods and misrepresentations concerning the most probable federal policy for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

    Like most detractors of action on global warming, Samuelson continues to push the unsubstantiated notion that reducing emissions will tank the economy, and thus is not worth the effort. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the last three decades of science, misunderstands basic economic theory, and overlooks the enormous opportunity presented by the clean energy economy.

    Inaction is by far the most expensive policy option, as many recent studies make clear.

  • Global warming draws heat from Dems

    Here's an article out today from Roll Call ($ub. req'd), which has been covering Congress since 1955: