As background see Breakthrough's special series on Climate McCarthyism.

UPDATE 3/3/10: Keith Kloor has weighed in with "Fisking Romm" at Collide-a-Scape, as has Ron Bailey at Reason with 'Climate Progressive Joe Romm Ducks Debate." Roger Pielke, Jr. has provided an an excellent PowerPoint presentation of climate disaster research for readers who wish to understand why the consensus science shows there is no global warming signal in the disaster loss record.

By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

The last few months have been rough for Joe Romm. Forced to spin Copenhagen as a success, climategate as a skeptics' conspiracy, and cap and trade legislation as world-changing, Romm has started making increasingly wild accusations against working journalists and academics.

Just in the last few weeks Romm has piled up quite a list: Newsweek's Fred Guterl, the Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball and Keith Johnson, the Times' Andy Revkin, climate researchers, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr., a Breakthrough Senior Fellow. Romm has shown himself willing to say virtually anything to avoid dealing with the fact that his apocalypse-mongering has backfired, and that his climate policies are failing.

A telling moment came last week after Revkin wrote on the Times blog Dot Earth, that one test of the IPCC's credibility is whether it will choose Pielke to co-author the next IPCC report on climate change and natural disasters. Revkin noted that Pielke has one of the longest, if not the longest, list of peer-reviewed publications on the matter.

Continue reading "Why Joe Romm Won't Debate Roger Pielke Jr." »

In Part 1 and in Part 2 we documented how Joe Romm uses McCarthyite tactics, including character assassination, misrepresentation, and guilt-by-association, to intimidate the press corps and discredit non-skeptical climate experts as "global warming deniers." In this post we will explore one of the main forces that gave rise to Climate McCarthyism: hyper-partisan polarization.

Also read Climate McCarthyism Part 4: The Headquarters in Washington

by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus

America is more polarized today than at any time since Reconstruction. A major quantitative analysis by social scientists Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal found today to be the most polarized period in 130 years.

Little wonder then that Romm's strength lies in his appeals to Democratic partisan identity. He writes for a Democratic audience and mobilizes liberal and environmentalist readers to attack reporters, activists, and policymakers who diverge, literally, from the Party line.

Continue reading "Climate McCarthyism Part 3: The Hyper-Partisan Mind" »

Read Part 1: Joe Romm's Intimidation Campaign
        Part 3: The Hyper-Partisan Mind
 and Part 4: The Headquarters in Washington

By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

Wikipedia defines a "global warming denier" as someone acting in "bad faith," which is to say, someone who takes money from a fossil fuel interest to deny the connection between human-induced carbon emissions and warming. By contrast, a "global warming skeptic" is someone who denies the connection between emissions and warming but has no financial interest. "Global warming denier" has long been viewed as a loaded term, Wikipedia notes, because it conjures an association with Holocaust deniers.

For the last two years, America's most-read and most-influential liberal climate blogger, Joe Romm of Center for American Progress, has used the term in radically different ways than the way Wikipedia defines it. Romm has used it to describe people who are neither funded by fossil fuel interests nor skeptical of anthropogenic warming. In fact, as we will see, Romm often levels the charge against those who support strong policy action on climate change -- just not the same policies Romm supports.

Continue reading "Climate McCarthyism Part 2: Equate Your Political Opponents with Holocaust Deniers" »

Read Part 2: Equate Your Political Opponents with Holocaust Deniers
         Part 3: The Hyper-Partisan Mind
   and Part 4: The Headquarters in Washington

Update 2 (Nov 6, 2009 8:30 am PDT) Joe Romm has surreptitiously changed the headline to his attack on journalist Keith Kloor, from "Meet Trash Journalist Keith Kloor" to "Meet Blogger Keith Kloor." In the comments below, Brad Plumer retracts his misrepresentation of our views on geo-engineering and Superfreakonomics while continuing to downplay his role in hyping Romm's misrepresentations of the views of Stanford scientist Ken Caldeira, and refusing to acknowledge that he has done little to correct the record or rebuke Romm's McCarthyite tactics on his New Republic blog.

UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who has weighed in. It's been heartening to receive so many emails from activists and reporters thanking us for standing up to a bully. Yesterday, Center for Environmental Journalism Director Tom Yulsman affirmed our defense of journalists and weighed in on the importance of standing up against McCarthyite attacks. In the comments below, The New Republic's environment blogger, Brad Plumer distances himself from Romm's McCarthyite tactics - but then he insists that we agree with Superfreakonomics, even though we had made clear our disagreements with Levitt and Dubner in our original post below. Howard University Chemistry Professor Joshua Halpern comments below under a pseudonym, "Eli Rabbett," and claims that we are supported by a right-wing foundation and organization -- a smear we have repeatedly corrected throughout the blogosphere. Readers can decide for themselves whether the comments Plummer and Rabbett/Halpern are consistent with the pattern of behavior we describe below.

By Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus

If you want to understand how it is that the debate over global warming policies became so shrill, consider the recent pattern of behavior by the country's second-most read most-read climate blogger, Joe Romm.

Last month Romm emailed Stanford scientist Ken Caldeira for a quote so he could, in Romm's words, "trash" the authors of the new book, Superfreakonomics, which includes a discussion of a climate solutions that Romm hates.

"I want to trash them for this insanity and ignorance."

The reason we know this is because Caldeira forwarded the whole awkward interaction to the authors of Superfreakonomics, who had run the relevant sections of their book by Caldeira twice before publication for his approval.

Romm wanted to make sure Caldeira understood the impact his trashing of Superfreakonomics would have:

"My blog is read by everyone in this area, including the media."

Romm then added:

"I'd like a quote like 'The authors of SuperFreakonomics have utterly misrepresented my work,' plus whatever else you want to say."

And indeed Romm's attack had great impact, resulting in scathing attacks on the book by The New Republic's Brad Plummer, Grist's David Roberts, UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong, liberal blogger Matthew Ygleisas, and Nobel Laureate and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, who acknowledged that he had not read the book but said, "I trust Joe Romm."

He shouldn't have. What Ken Caldeira said to Romm about the misquote was the following:

"[The Freakonomics authors] sent me the draft and I approved it without reading it carefully and I just missed it. ... I think everyone operated in good faith, and this was just a mistake that got by my inadequate editing."

Continue reading "Climate McCarthyism, Part I: Joe Romm's Intimidation Campaign" »

By Yael Borofsky and Jesse Jenkins

Europe is planning to stage a grand entrance into the clean energy race by investing approximately $73 billion in clean energy research, according to Reuters, which has obtained an early draft of the European Commission's Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan) scheduled for release Wednesday.

Until now, the race to lead the world in clean energy technology has largely involved competition between the United States, East Asia's "clean tech tigers" - China, Japan, and South Korea - and up-and-coming challenger, India. With the U.S. wavering for the better part of a year on how best to enact climate and energy legislation, the Breakthrough Institute and others have called on the U.S. to include large-scale investments in clean energy technology if it wants to remain a world leader in innovation and corner what could be a market worth trillions.

But it seems that Europe has beaten the U.S. to the punch. If the draft is any indication, the EU will triple funding in energy research in order to bring suite of clean energy technologies to market and achieve its 80% reduction in greenhouse gas target by 2050. Europe at least, has realized the urgency of the clean energy race and that investment in clean energy innovation is the only way to compete. As an EU official told Reuters:

"We know that low-carbon technology will one day become cost-competitive with fossil fuels, and the question then is whether the EU will be an importer or an exporter of that technology...We have to be in pole position."

Although it is not possible to verify the exact details of the plan until the report is released on Wednesday (stay tuned for future coverage), the draft is a reliable indication of the types of investments Europe has in store, including EU16 billion (US$23.5 billion) for solar power, EU6 billion (US$8.8 billion) for wind power, EU7 billion (US$10.3 billion) for nuclear, and EU13 billion (US$19 billion)for carbon capture and storage technology, all over the next ten years.

Continue reading "EU Set To Enter Clean Energy Race with $73 billion for R&D" »

Here is Joseph Romm of ClimateProgress writing about the United States Climate Action Partnership proposal in January 2009. Despite Romm's assertions that this proposal was a "dead end ... obsolete and irrelevant," the Blueprint for Legislation Action developed by USCAP, a coalition of major corporations and DC-based green groups, went on to form the framework of the Waxman-Markey climate bill. That bill went on to pass the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009 with all of the features Romm criticized here still intact: a "lame" 2020 emissions target of 83% of 2005 levels undermined by 2 billion tons of "rip-offsets" permitted each year; new conventional coal plants permitted if they are "capture ready" and able to install CCS technology by 2025; and the majority of cap and trade allowances given away for free. Joe Romm went on to be one of the Waxman-Markey bill's loudest champions. But here's a 'blast from the past' to consider as we take a look at a new bill emerging in the U.S. Senate. (emphasis in the original).

I think it is absurd for any serious environmental group to support permitting new coal plants that don't capture and store the vast majority of their emissions. Yet as the WashPost reports:

"The plan would also require any coal plant permitted after Jan. 1, 2015, to emit no more than half the carbon dioxide emissions now considered normal and require any newly permitted plant today to have the ability to be retrofitted to meet that standard."

These are bogus provisions. Nobody really knows what a capture-ready plant design is -- this is the climate equivalent of "the check is in the mail." ...

But it is the 2020 target and the issue of rip-offsets that make this proposal truly untenable. The Blueprint calls for requiring that U.S. greenhouse gases (GHGs) return to "80%-86% of 2005 levels by 2020." That is essentially returning to 1990 levels, which the science clearly says is inadequate to stabilizing at 450 ppm, let alone the 350 ppm target that environmental groups should be seriously considering ...

But the already-lame USCAP proposal shoots itself in the (other) foot with its embrace of a staggering amount of rip-offsets. ...

Shame on my NRDC and EDF and WRI friends for signing on to such nonsense. . .

But the unconscionable amount of rip-offsets USCAP embraces guts the entire effort. ...

The USCAP plan would call for a reduction of 1.0 to 1.4 billion tons of U.S. GHGs in 2020, while allowing 2 billion or more tons of offsets, at least half of which don't even have to be in this country. When would US carbon dioxide emissions see serious reductions under this plan? Who knows? It's déja vu all over again (see "Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill update: Probably no U.S. CO2 emissions cut until after 2025").

Let me repeat once more, as a major 2008 analysis from Stanford found

... "between a third and two thirds" of emission offsets under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) -- set up under the Kyoto treaty to encourage emissions reductions in developing nations -- do not represent actual emission cuts."

And this led to the study's stark conclusion:

"... any offset market of sufficient scale to provide substantial cost-control for a cap-and-trade program will involve substantial issuance of credits that do not represent real emissions reductions....."

...The USCAP proposal has other features that are problematic. For instance, "USCAP recommends that a significant portion of allowances should be initially distributed free to capped entities...." Again, Obama himself has called for a 100% auction. As the Friends of the Earth response to USCAP says:

"Put simply, the proposal would reward corporate polluters with hundreds of billions of dollars of giveaways, and its near-term pollution reduction targets are far weaker than what scientists have called for. The proposal is further weakened by its massive carbon offset loopholes. Were such a proposal to be enacted into law, it would fail to achieve the emission reductions we need in the U.S. and would undermine our ability to meaningfully and credibly engage in international climate negotiations. This is a dead-end approach that policymakers should reject."

Precisely.

This proposal is a dead end -- and an even deader starting point. Shame on NRDC, EDF, and WRI for backing it.

To head-off concerns that Joe Romm's comments have been taken out of context, we encourage readers to view Romm's full critique of the USCAP proposal here.

For readers of Climate Progress looking for some help sorting through Joe Romm's latest vituperation, here's a cliff-notes version: he agrees with our conclusions showing that climate legislation passed by the House in June would over-allocate emissions permits in the early years of the program, resulting in a collapse of carbon prices to the bill's $10 floor and the banking of excess permits that will undermine the stringency of the emissions cap in future years. He warns readers about precisely the same likely outcomes here.

Breakthrough conducted analysis of the implications of the economic recession and lower-than-expected emissions levels, concluding that the House climate bill would not require regulated firms to reduce emissions at all, either through offsets or actual reductions in their own emissions, until as late as 2018 under likely economic recovery scenarios. With offsets utilized at just 6 to 25 percent of the maximum levels permitted, the bill's cap and trade program would not require any actual reductions in emissions from regulated firms until 2020 or later.

Romm doesn't like these conclusions because it challenges his contention that Waxman-Markey is a strong bill. So, unable to actually challenge our analysis, Romm calls our analysis "crap" -- and then says we "glommed" it from him. He then quotes at length from an egregiously unbalanced E&E article about our analysis.

So, long story short: Breakthrough's analysis stands, as do the 19 prior analyses we have conducted of House climate legislation.

By Jesse Jenkins & Teryn Norris
Originally featured at the Huffington Post
Cross-posted at Grist.org

On Monday, Joe Romm of Climate Progress publicly attacked us for publishing an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle -- called "Will America lose the clean energy race?" (a longer version was posted here at Huffington Post.). In that piece, we urged Congress to fully fund President Obama's energy education initiative and scale up direct pubic investments in low-carbon energy to accelerate our transition to a clean energy economy.

Romm asserted that our op-ed "attacks" President Obama and Democratic leaders, when in fact it calls on Congress to support Obama's RE-ENERGYSE energy education program and urges greater public investment in clean energy to compete with Asian challengers. Yet Romm never mentioned the central focus of the op-ed -- RE-ENERGYSE and our efforts to rally support behind it, including a recent sign-on letter with over 100 organizations -- and instead criticized us for what he called "willfully misleading nonsense" about Asian countries' planned investments in clean energy.

Romm proceeded to make several factually incorrect statements about Asia's plans for clean energy investment that contradict research in publicly accessible reports and analyses, including those by the Center for American Progress (CAP), which employs Romm. The Breakthrough Institute wrote a comprehensive fact check here to correct Romm's numerous misstatements and clarify the details of public investment plans in China, South Korea and Japan.

Romm also criticized us for asserting that Congress must strengthen the Waxman-Markey bill with greater investments in clean energy to compete with Asian challengers and accelerate our transition to a clean energy economy. Why? Because Romm apparently believes the Waxman-Markey proposal -- which would invest only $10 billion per year in clean energy and energy efficiency, less than 0.1% of U.S GDP -- is sufficient to win the clean energy race. It is not.

"Waxman-Markey would complete America's transition to a clean energy economy, which started with the stimulus bill," reads the title of a prominently featured post on Romm's website, a claim he has repeated multiple times. "Waxman-Markey would generate more clean energy action than any piece of legislation passed by any country in the history of the world!" exclaimed Romm in another recent post as part of his consistent and ongoing cheer-leading for the legislation.

Continue reading "Joe Romm's Strategy to Lose the Clean Energy Race" »

On Monday, Joe Romm of Climate Progress publicly attacked the Breakthrough Institute for publishing an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle -- called "Will America lose the clean energy race?" -- which urged Congress to fully fund President Obama's energy education initiative and scale up direct pubic investments in clean energy to boost U.S. economic competitiveness and accelerate the nation's transition to a clean energy economy.

Romm never mentioned the central focus of the op-ed -- President Obama's energy education program (RE-ENERGYSE) and the Breakthrough Institute's efforts to rally support behind this program -- and instead attacked it for what he calls "willfully misleading nonsense" about Asian countries' planned investments in clean energy, while apparently defending the smaller investments in the proposed Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act.  

Romm asserts that the op-ed "attacks" President Obama and Democratic leaders, when in fact the op-ed is aimed at supporting the President's RE-ENERGYSE program and calling for larger public investment in clean energy to compete with Asian challengers.  The RE-ENERGYSE initiative is currently in danger of being cut by Congress at a time when the U.S. is severely lagging in energy science and technology education, and last week the Breakthrough Institute organized over 100 universities, student groups and other organizations to submit a letter urging Congress to fully fund the initiative.

Romm makes several factually incorrect statements about Asia's plans for clean energy investment that contradict research in publicly accessible reports and analyses, including those by the Center for American Progress (which employs Romm).  Here is a fact check to correct Romm's misstatements and clarify the details of investment plans in Asia:
    
1.  The op-ed states, "China alone is reportedly investing $440 billion to $660 billion in its clean-energy industries over 10 years."

Romm's response:

"the China figure -- while it is certainly impressive and definitely should motivate U.S. action (as I have argued) -- is "reported" and cumulative over 10 years.  It is part of their stimulus and NOT just R&D, but an investment in clean-energy industries broadly defined"

Facts: China's planned investment of $440-$660 billion over 10 years is indeed part of an economic stimulus package, but not the original $586 billion stimulus that is passed late last year, as Romm implies.  The new investment, according to a recent paper by Andrew Light and Julian Wong of the Center for American Progress (CAP), is part of a planned second stimulus package that is "dedicated solely to new energy development over the next decade, including generous investments in wind, solar and hydropower."  China is planning to make a sustained commitment to clean energy investment by building on the clean energy investments in their first stimulus package rather than being content with a one-time investment. 

China's massive clean energy investment plan is indeed "reported," or planned.  A top source for Breakthrough Institute's figures are analysts at CAP, who have repeatedly published the same figures, including recently in Congressional testimony.  These numbers were reported early by the AFP and have since been republished several times, including recently by the Washington Post in an article similar to Norris' and Jenkins' op-ed, titled "Asian Nations Could Outpace U.S. in Developing Clean Energy."

The Breakthrough Institute has never suggested that China's investment is centered solely around R&D, nor have we suggested that U.S. clean energy investments should be solely focused on R&D, despite Romm's ongoing effort to misrepresent our position, which strongly supports direct public deployment of clean energy technology (see here for a summary of Breakthrough's clean energy investment policy recommendations). 

Continue reading "Joe Romm Ignores Facts in Attacking Breakthrough Institute Op-Ed" »

Breakthrough Institute spent the past week analyzing the Waxman-Markey climate bill. We released several objective and transparent analyses for the benefit of our readers, exploring the allocation of allowances and the use of offsets in an effort to illuminate some of the weaknesses and strengths of the bill. This analysis was cited by Time Magazine, National Public Radio, Reuters, and the Wall Street Journal.

Joe Romm responded to our analysis on Climate Progress yesterday attacking it as "anti-environmental," "anti-climate-action," and a "disinformation rampage," declaring that Breakthrough Institute should be considered "part of the anti-environmental movement." This follows his recent attacks on Greenpeace, Andrew Revkin, and other reputable environmental and climate advocates, as well as a two-year series of ad-hominem attacks on Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus.

For the record, Breakthrough Institute has a long history of advocating progressive climate and energy policy (see our history). In 2003, Michael and Ted co-founded the Apollo Alliance, the first-ever public campaign calling for a $300 billion federal investment in clean energy. In 2005, former Senator Obama introduced a proposal co-written by Breakthrough to raise fuel efficiency standards, "Healthcare for Hybrids." In 2007, the Obama campaign adopted a $150 billion clean energy investment platform based on Breakthrough's recommendations. And in April 2009, the Obama administration adopted Breakthrough's proposal for a National Energy Education Act. Throughout this time we have continually advocated (see our writing page) a national approach on climate change and clean energy capable of achieving the broad transformations we need.

Continue reading "Joe Romm Tries to Shut Down Climate Bill Debate by Attacking Breakthrough Institute" »

Update 11/19/09

We have known for years that Joe Romm makes a habit of threatening the careers of journalists who write stories he does not like. He does so both publicly on his blog and privately in emails to their editors and employers.

In the past, Breakthrough Institute has only responded to Romm when he attacked us personally. But on November 4, 2009, we decided that enough was enough.

His attacks had created a chilling atmosphere for reporters, activists and academics alike. Romm uses McCarthyite tactics -- career intimidation, guilt by association, character assassination -- that contradict the core liberal value of tolerance for divergent viewpoints.

In response, we decided to stand-up to Romm's bullying directly. We have written a series on Climate McCarthyism: Part 1 is on Joe Romm's Intimidation Campaign. Part 2 is about how Joe Romm labels his opponents "global warming deniers." Part 3 is about The Hyper-Partisan Mind. And Part 4 is about The Headquarters in Washington.

To be clear, we don't agree with many of the people Romm attacks. But we strongly defend their right to express their opinions without having their reputations smeared and careers threatened.

Bullies can only thrive when they are supported by the establishment and when bystanders are too scared to stand up to them. Joe McCarthy's downfall started when CBS News' Edward Murrow challenged him on the air, and when the Army's chief legal counsel asked him at a Senate hearing, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Last week, while interviewing one of the Superfreakonomics authors, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart stood up against the climate of intolerance that Romm more than anyone has created. "I have been somewhat surprised by how angry people are," Stewart said, "because you don't deny global warming, or say that CO2 isn't a factor, but they feel you are betraying environmentalism? The world?...Why are people so angry about this? Why do they have to be so dogmatic?"

Stewart has stood up to the climate bullies. Will others? Stay tuned.

[Updated 8/5/09]

We have received several inquiries seeking to understand Joseph Romm of Climate Progress and his frequent public criticism of climate reporters and advocates, including the Breakthrough Institute. Many of these criticisms misrepresent our positions and include factually incorrect information. This post documents Romm's practices as well as Breakthrough Institute's positions and efforts to elevate substantive issues.

Since co-founding the Apollo Alliance in 2002, the Breakthrough Institute has believed that confronting the threat of climate change, securing the nation's energy future, and ensuring ongoing economic competitiveness all compel the rapid transition to clean and low-carbon energy sources. We are leading national advocates of major public investment to accelerate clean energy development and deployment, and we strongly advocate that the federal government invest at least $30 billion per year in the direct deployment of low-carbon energy sources, $15 billion per year in clean energy R&D, and $5 billion per year in clean energy demonstration projects. We believe these investments should be financed by a modest and steadily rising price on carbon emissions and supported by complementary policies addressing infrastructure, human capital and regulatory barriers.

Joseph Romm's criticisms of us are frequently unrelated to substance and consistently misrepresent our positions and intentions. For example, Romm falsely claims that we only support radical breakthroughs in technology driven by basic research and repeatedly ignores our advocacy for massive, direct investment to accelerate clean energy deployment. He also charges that we oppose a price on carbon, oppose environmental regulations, and are effectively part of the "anti-environmental," "anti-climate action," "global warming denial and delayer" movement. These claims are false and willful mischaracterizations.

Romm's practice of public attack and misrepresentation extends to several reputable climate reporters and advocates. Most recently, Romm accused Time Magazine's Bryan Walsh of plagiarism (he later changed the title from "plagiarism" to "cut-and-paste") for reporting on facts about clean energy investments in Asia, and has attacked the NYTimes' Andrew Revkin for reporting on facts and on individuals with whom Romm disagrees. Romm has also strongly criticized clean energy and climate advocacy groups for working to strengthen American climate and energy policy, including the Breakthrough Institute, Greenpeace, Energy Action Coalition, and James Hansen, one of the United States' leading climate scientists.

A growing number of independent media watchdogs and journalists are now criticizing Romm's behavior, including the Columbia Journalism Review, the Center for Environmental Journalism, and science journalist Keith Kloor. What follows is a documentation of Romm's practices as well as Breakthrough Institute's efforts to elevate substantive issues.

Understanding Romm's Efforts to Misrepresent Breakthrough

Romm Tries to Shut Down Climate Bill Debate by Attacking Breakthrough (May 2009): Joe Romm's attempt to shut down serious debate about the Waxman-Markey climate bill -- and his aggressive effort to attack and discredit those attempting to illuminate the bill's weaknesses, including reputable environmental activists and reporters -- should raise questions about his role as a credible and progressive climate advocate.

The Cap & Trade We Need (April 2009): Joe Romm claims that we oppose a price on carbon, oppose environmental regulations, and are effectively part of the fossil fuel "global warming denial machine." Unfortunately, ideological enforcers like Romm, who aim to shut down substantive policy debate, leave serious advocates ill prepared to navigate the difficult choices in the upcoming debate on climate legislation.

Anatomy of a Smear (May 2008): To get a sense at how the enforcers of climate orthodoxy on both left and right restrict the debate over solutions, witness the way Grist's David Roberts and Joe Romm of Center for American Progress worked with the right-wing Washington Times to attack Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr.

What is Joe Romm Complaining About? (April 2008): Roger Pielke, Jr. ponders ad hominem attacks from someone who seems to share many of his views on energy policy. In complementary posts, Pielke takes Romm to task for focusing heavily on semantics rather than substance, fuzzy math, and incorrect analysis.

The Emerging Climate Fault Line (April 2008): Joe Romm has launched a set of attacks against Pielke et al, calling their analysis "a pointless and misleading if not outright dangerous commentary" and paints the scientists as "standard delayers" and "climate destroyers."

Misinformation Campaign (April 2008): Unable to respond with a well-reasoned defense of their policy agenda, a few angry environmentalists are leading a misinformation campaign.

The Green Politics of Personal Destruction: Deconstructing Joe Romm (April 2008): Ted Nordhaus examines the misinformation campaign Romm and others launched against Breakthrough and Roger Pielke, Jr. immediately after the publication of the Nature piece.

Elevating the Substance: Breakthrough Institute's Efforts to Create a Constructive Debate

An Open Letter to Joseph Romm (Oct 2008): In response to Michael and Ted's op-ed in the LA Times, Joe Romm criticized Michael, Ted and Breakthrough on his blog. This post is an open letter from Michael Shellenberger to Joe Romm.

Why We Can Disagree to Agree (Aug 2008): In a debate at the Cato Institute, Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that liberals and conservatives don't need to agree about the seriousness of global warming. We can all embrace investment in energy infrastructure, technology, and education for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change.

Breakthroughs Depend on Learning While Doing (May 2008): In response to Joe Romm's latest post in the "breakthrough technology illusion," Jesse Jenkins clarifies how many breakthroughs in clean energy price and performance require not just research but also the deployment of technologies in the real world. Breakthroughs will be achieved less in the laboratory and more by learning while doing.

Joe Romm's Challenge (April 2008): Roger Pielke, Jr. responds to Joe Romm's challenge to back up the Nature piece claim to "shatter the notion that we have all the technology we need to deal with climate change."

Solar Energy Not Quite Ready For Prime Time (April 2008): In response to Romm's claim that solar technology doesn't require federal investment, Ted Nordhaus says Romm is being overoptimistic about the current state of solar power. "It's a great time to expand R&D, not contract it."

The Debate Gets Civil (April 2008):
Joe Romm finally apologizes for attacking Breakthrough as "delayers," and we move towards more productive debate.

The Wisdom of Investment in a World of Mounting Wedges (April 2008): In response to Romm's flawed wedge analysis, Ted Nordhaus writes about why it's a risky bet to count on current technology and currently proposed policies to meet the climate challenge.

Understanding Romm's Fallacies

Joe Romm's Strategy to Lose the Clean Energy Race (July 2009): In a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, Breakthrough urged Congress to fully fund the clean energy education initiative RE-ENERGYSE. Instead of substantively responding to this call, Joe Romm accused Breakthrough of attacking Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders. Romm also made several factually incorrect statements to muddle the discussion of Asia's clean energy investments. Here, Breakthrough sets the record straight.

Joe Romm Ignores Facts in Attacking Breakthrough Institute Op-Ed (July 2009): Breakthrough's comprehensive fact-check corrects Joe Romm's misleading and incorrect statements about Asia's investments in clean energy.

34 Nobel Prize Winners Write President Obama Urging Support for Clean Energy R&D (July 2009): Joe Romm continues to advocate for weakened federal climate legislation that would invest just $1 billion per year in clean energy R&D--going against the advice of 34 Nobel laureates who signed a letter urging Obama to invest at least $15 billion annually in clean energy R&D.

Is Joe Romm an Energy Challenge Denier? (April 2009): Romm continues to deny a wide body of expert consensus on energy innovation, including the positions of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and the International Energy Agency.

Steven Chu calls for $150 billion investment in "breakthrough" energy R&D (March 2009): Once again, Secretary of Energy Chu debunks Romm's views on energy technology, testifying before the U.S. Senate and calling for "breakthroughs in energy" technology, including major investments in "transformational research."

What's driving opinion on global warming? (March 2009): Michael Shellenberger responds to Romm's assertion that new climate polling data "must be due to the messaging and the media and the misinformers."

Energy Secretary Steven Chu: Honorary Breakthrough Fellow? (Feb 2009): Joe Romm consistently claims we have all the technologies we need to address climate change, attacking those calling for "breakthroughs" in energy technology as "climate delayers." In a conversation with reporters, Obama Energy Secretary and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Steven Chu said solving global energy and climate challenges would require Nobel-level "breakthroughs" in at least three core energy technologies.

Despite claims, climate ranks low on public priorities (Oct 2008): Romm revealed multiple flawed assumptions in his latest attack, but one stood out above all the rest. Despite all the empirical evidence, Joseph Romm believes global warming is a high public priority. Romm and other greens will continue to peddle this false belief at their peril.

Arguing Both Sides at Climate Progress (Aug 2008): After attacking Roger Pielke for his analysis published in Nature, Joe Romm cites the same analysis as evidence in support of the idea that the IPCC scenarios have built in assumptions about aggressive reductions in carbon and energy intensities.

International Energy Agency Calls for Massive Clean Energy Technology Push (June 2008): In its major new Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 report, the International Energy Agency challenges Joe Romm's claims on energy technology, calling for technological breakthroughs in nearly every single one of its recommended technologies.

Romm Calls for Breakthroughs - By Another Name (May 2008): Lindsay Meisel examines Romm's piece in Salon, discovering that his analysis relies upon major improvements ("breakthroughs") in energy technology.

Adaptation and Public Investment: The Expert View (April 2008): Michael Shellenberger writes a letter to Joe Romm attempting to understand his opinion on climate adaptation and public investment in clean energy technology.

Romm versus Expert Consensus on Energy Technology (April 2008): Michael Shellenberger contrasts Romm's position -- that we don't need technology breakthroughs to stabilize emissions -- with that of energy experts.