Articles by Joseph Romm

More on fourth IPCC report

Bring your tissue to this one. On Friday, the IPCC publicizes its "emotional heart," the Second Working Group's contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report, covering impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.

Preliminary drafts have been leaked. Why is it shaping up to be such a tear-jerker? According to Andrew Weaver, a lead author of Working Group I and climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, this one illustrates "a highway to extinction, but on this highway there are many turnoffs. This is showing you where the road is heading. The road is heading toward extinction."

More on Supreme Court decision

In November, the issue of EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions went before the Supreme Court. Yesterday, the decision (PDF) was announced -- 5-4 in favor of Massachusetts, meaning that the EPA does have the authority and responsibility to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In short, the time to act is now!

In the chutzpah department, EPA actually tried to argue that 1) "any EPA regulation of motor-vehicle emission" was a "piecemeal approach to climate change that would conflict with the President's comprehensive [!] approach" -- comprehensive, I suppose, in the sense that he refuses to take any substantive action in every sector, and 2) such regulation "might hamper the President's ability to persuade key developing nations to reduce emissions" -- a particularly amazing argument, since the president has been working hard behind the scenes to persuade key developing nations not to reduce emissions. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, made short work of those absurd arguments.

How high and how fast?

How high and fast will sea levels rise? An important piece (PDF) by Stefan Rahmstorf in Science concludes:

A rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong warming scenarios cannot be ruled out, because all that such a rise would require is that the linear relation of the rate of sea-level rise and temperature, which was found to be valid in the 20th century, remains valid in the 21st century.

Personal ethics pledge my left foot

At the Environment and Public Works hearing yesterday, Sen. Inhofe (R-Okla.) displayed an amazing lack of understanding about energy as he tried to get Gore to make a meaningless pledge. Now the EPW Minority web page repeats the inane charge:

Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge" today to consume no more energy than the average American household.

But why should Gore take such a pledge? Gore is a champion of greenhouse gas reductions, not energy reductions. Gore explained he buys 100 percent renewable power and is planning to build a solar power system. Thus the electricity Gore consumes in his Tennessee home does not contribute to global warming.