So now, after making patently false claims about the substance of the book he's supposed to be reviewing, he's issuing "challenges."

Romm is turning a book conversation into a personal crusade against S&N. He's moved beyond critic to leveling intellectually dishonest misrepresentations. And he knows he's being dishonest.

For example Romm (see the comments in the post below) says that S&N propose a "technology-only strategy." Of course, that's in direct contradiction to what they propose in the book itself. If, instead of making things up, he actually looked at what is proposed in the book he'd find, on page 119:

"There is no doubt that the effort to reduce and stabilize global greenhouse gas emissions will require a major regulatory effort to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules, provide regulatory certainty so that nations and businesses alike can play their investments, and increase the cost of fossil fuels relative to cleaner energy sources. But regulation cannot be the sole policy egg in the global warming basket, for without investments to encourage technological breakthroughs, we won't come close to achieving the emissions reductions we need to stabilize the climate."

So the propose marrying a regulatory approach to, among other things, "increase the cost of fossil fuels relative to cleaner energy sources" to an investment strategy to "encourage technological breakthroughs." Just like Obama.

In terms of substance, they propose $300B over ten years. Obama proposes $150B over ten years. But in terms of the need for both regulation and investment (as S&N clearly outline on page 119, and which Romm completely ignores), they're on the same page.

Of course, Joe is not at all interested in what they actually say in the book. In Romm's world saying "there is no doubt that the effort to reduce and stabilize global greenhouse gas emissions will require a major regulatory effort," means that you are opposed to "a major regulatory effort."

So here's my challenge to Romm: Stop making up your own facts. Stop making patently false accusations. And come clean to TPM Cafe readers:

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the substance of the book?

Why are you claiming that S&N support a "technology-only strategy," when the very text of the book makes clear that your assertion is false.

Did you think that no one here would actually read the book?

And if you're going to make things up about a book (or not to bother reading it closely), why should we trust your "review?"

I hope the editors at TPMCafe take a good hard look at what Romm is doing here before offering him an opportunity to review another book.

DEBUNKING JOE ROMM, PART ONE

Joe Romm was supposed to engage in a book discussion about Break Through by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. Instead, he engaged in a sleazy sort of political hatchet job in which he knowingly misrepresented the substance of the book, and mischaracterized the authors to be anti-environmentalists who favor delaying action on global warming and oppose efforts to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere. Both are patently false, and Romm either knows it or, given his academic and professional credentials, ought to know it.

First, Romm asserts that S&N support a “technology-only strategy” (his words) to deal with global warming, leaving readers with the clear impression that S&N support investments in technology but do not support regulatory action to limit GHG emissions.

This is a lie.

In fact, as noted on page 119 of S&N’s book:

“There is no doubt that the effort to reduce and stabilize global greenhouse gas emissions will require a major regulatory effort to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules, provide regulatory certainty so that nations and business alike can plan their investments, and increase the cost of fossil fuels relative to cleaner energy sources. But regulation cannot be the sole policy egg in the global warming basket, for without investments to encourage technological breakthroughs, we won’t come close to achieving the emissions reductions we need to stabilize the climate.”

On cap-and-trade, they note (on page 120) “cap-and-trade -- could, if done right, generate billions of dollars in private investment for cleaner sources of energy. As such, it offers one of the best opportunities for environmentalism to evolve into a politics of possibility.” On page 121 they note, “cap and trade will likely drive much greater investment in cleaner energy development in the developed world,” which they say is, “necessary to get the emissions reductions we will need,” (although noting the need for investment to deploy clean energy technologies in the developing world).

Clearly, S&N do not advocate a “technology-only strategy.” They say some pretty favorable things about cap-and-trade and you can’t get much clearer than “the effort to reduce and stabilize global greenhouse gas emissions will require a major regulatory effort.” But that doesn’t stop Romm from saying they propose a “technology-only strategy.”

Romm then goes on to “challenge” S&N to “endorse” Obama’s energy plan saying that it includes cap-and-trade coupled with investment, precisely as the author’s call for in their book. Again, Romm is attempting to leave readers with the impression that they are opposed to the Obama approach, because, as he had previously (and erroneously) reported, they support an “investment-only strategy.” S&N do differ from Obama. They support a $300B investment over 10 years. Obama proposes $150B. But both Obama and S&N support cap-and-trade coupled with a significant investment. If Romm is so opposed to S&N’s approach, it’s not clear why he’s so excited about Obama’s.

Particularly for someone who wears his academic credentials on his sleeve, Romm’s intellectual dishonesty is troubling. But he doesn’t stop at making patently false statements about the substance of the book. He also attempts to link S&N to some of the biggest villains on the right. Romm says S&N are like “Bjørn Lomborg, Frank Luntz, George W Bush” calling them all “Deniers and Delayers.”

Again, because the authors propose neither delaying nor denying, Romm can offer no substantive proof that the authors hope, intend or desire to delay action on global warming. Interestingly, the authors gained prominence in 2004 for criticizing the environmental movement for not doing enough over the last few years to address global warming. On page 13 of their book they note that the “fourth truth about the crises we face is that global warming has arrived and will have increasingly serious consequences, even if we stop emitting all greenhouse gasses tomorrow.” Hardly denial, hardly saying we have time to waste. Their argument is not only different, but precisely the opposite of the argument offered by the “deniers and delayers.” The central premise of S&N’s position on global warming is that the regulation only approach doesn’t go far enough. We need to reduce GHG emissions (again, see the quote from page 119) they say, but they argue that this crises also requires us to start making a serious commitment to research, development and deployment of clean energy technology.

But perhaps the most intellectually dishonest tactic Romm purports to engage in is to use his professional credentials to discredit S&N, while essentially offering the same arguments to other audiences. As repeatedly documented above, S&N propose regulation coupled with investment in R&D and deployment. Romm says that promoting investment in R&D and deployment is a delaying tactic designed to, in his words, make it “sound like you care about global warming without actually doing anything about it.”

Yet in an article for Physics Today that Romm co-authored about emerging technologies to reduce CO2 emissions, he said, “It's clear that there are still many opportunities to reap gains in energy efficiency. Some technologies are already in the works and will be adopted in the due course of time. Other technologies will require R&D and may not come to pass unless a significant commitment is made to the required research.” http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-53/iss-11/p29.html. So when Romm proposes “a significant commitment… to the required research,” it’s in service of reducing carbon emissions. When S&N propose the same, its making it “sound like you care about global warming without actually doing anything about it.”

Additionally, in his own book, Romm proposes ten steps that can be taken to achieve necessary GHG emissions. Included in his proposal is the construction of 700 new nuclear plants, the deployment of the 1 million new wind turbines for electricity generation, and additional 500,000 wind turbines to fuel plug in hybrids, greatly increase the efficiency of power generation, and create 800 coal fired plants with carbon capture technology.

All of this will require either improving existing technologies, rapidly bringing existing technologies to scale, or making substantive infrastructure or deployment investments. Unless the price of carbon goes far beyond what the current proposals in Congress call for, it won’t happen without singificant investment. Romm says we just need 700 more nuclear plants, 1.5 million turbines and 800 coal fired plants with carbon capture technology -- yet he opposes investment in R&D or deployment? When S&N propose spending money on R&D and deployment, it’s the work of “delayers and deniers.” But, magically, when Romm proposes things that will require investment, it’s brilliant policy reverse climate change.

All of this begs the question as to Romm’s intellectual integrity and his motives for using his position as a book reviewer for TPM as an opportunity to blatantly mischaracterize the substance of the book. For the last few days, Romm has been on a tear, posting multiple posts “debunking” and “challenging” S&N. Last night, when I pointed out that he was lying, and provided a quotation from the book to prove it, he suddenly went dark. He hasn’t said a thing on TPM Café since then. Maybe he realized that he was mischaracterizing their argument, or maybe he was embarrassed to get caught engaging in the kind of intellectually dishonest tactics we often see from the right.

Either way, he owes an explanation as to why he has been engaging in this intellectually dishonest attack on the authors.

deleted and moved by author

Jack

I also quote you as saying, "“It's clear that there are still many opportunities to reap gains in energy efficiency. Some technologies are already in the works and will be adopted in the due course of time. Other technologies will require R&D and may not come to pass unless a significant commitment is made to the required research."

How is that saying that you oppose technology funding? My point is that you are attacking them for proposing precisely what you propose.

I thought this was a discussion about S&N's book, not a forum to bring up debates from however many years ago and pretend it's part of the book.

Grind your axe elsewhere...