Articles by Joseph Romm

Thumbs down for Toyota, GM, Ford, Washington Post

The Washington Post had an article yesterday on the House fuel economy deal that is quite good in doling out cheers and jeers -- good except for two sentences. Let's start with the cheers.

The article quotes NRDC rightly praising Pelosi for being steadfast with the Senate's 35 mpg target and Dingell, too, for:

... telling the automakers a year ago that they were going to have to accept a mileage improvement. He bargained hard for trying to make it less, but he deserves credit for coming around and agreeing.

The article also has fascinating back story on how Japanese car manufacturer Nissan "struck out on its own to lobby Capitol Hill for fuel standards that were in some ways stricter than what other automakers wanted." A Nissan Sr. VP "said the company decided early to advocate tough fuel-economy standards as part of a company-wide effort to become more eco-friendly."

Ungreen GM and Ford worked hard to kill a 35-mpg deal, and so did supposedly green Toyota. Google "Toyota greenwash" to see how people feel about this. [Note to Toyota: Why not have lobbying consistent with your eco-branding?]

So what are the two sentences that get the Post a thumbs down?

WSJ launches Luddite attack on climate scientists and Al Gore

The bar for Wall Street Journal editorials, in the journalistic equivalent of limbo dancing, keeps dropping. In a piece titled "The Science of Gore's Nobel" (subs. req'd), Holman W. Jenkins Jr. of the WSJ editorial board manages to slander the media, Al Gore, the Nobel Committee, and all climate scientists -- without offering any facts to back up the attacks:

The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science" ... Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

Why would the media blur the Nobel Peace Prize with a science prize when Gore isn't a scientist? They wouldn't, of course, but this imagined media blunder allows Jenkins -- a journalist -- to make climate change the subject of his piece.

How many Texas mayors does it take … ?

... to change the lightbulbs Texans use?

The answer turns out to be ... five:

Another big climate bet

Good news: I got three guys to put up a total of $1000 against the bet in my recent post, "Ice, ice, maybe (not)":

It is very safe to say the Arctic Sea will be essentially ice free by 2030, and I'd personally bet on 2020 -- any takers?

Not-so-good news: The "takers" are not global warming doubters, quite the reverse -- they are three well-known and knowledgeable climate bloggers -- James Annan, William Connolley, and Brian Schmidt -- and James and William are certifiable climate experts.

That said, I think I'm going to win this, as I'll explain. I estimate the odds at at least 2 to 1 in my favor -- no, this isn't the same kind of 100-to-1 lock the hydrogen bet is -- though James, William, and Brian have, unintentionally, given me (slightly) better-than-even odds. Let's start with the bet:

At no time between now and the end of the year 2020 will the minimum total Arctic Sea ice extent be less than 10 percent of the 1979-2000 average minimum annual Arctic Sea ice extent, as measured by NSIDC data or any other measurement mutually agreed-upon; provided, however, that if two or more volcanic eruptions with the energy level equal to or greater than the 1991 Mount Pinatubo shall occur between now and the end of 2020, then all bets are voided.

The 10 percent minimum covers me against straggling ice. I also asked for the two-Pinatubo voiding -- I didn't want to lose this bet if warming is temporarily slowed by an unusual series of big volcanoes.

Why will I win?