Joe Romm rarely disappoints. Nary a day goes by when he isn't showcasing his intolerance, inconsistency, and disaster fetishism. Let's highlight the most recent best of the worst, starting with the bile he spewed on Friday to kick off the long holiday weekend. You won't find any disgust expressed by Climate Progress readers (or such comments that make it past Romm's censor), so check out Tom Yulsman's reaction and takedown at CEJournal. After that, read the point-by-point rebuttal offered by the Breakthrough folks, the objects of Romm's ire. On Sunday, Romm inadvertently revealed why debate over global warming is so often driven by non-related weather conditions or events, when he expressed hope that a vote on Waxman-Markey by the House occurs before the August recess
since the ideal time to debate a global warming bill is probably during the hot summer.
Yeah, nothing focuses people's minds more than a typical July scorcher. Oh wait, it turns out that hurricanes are even better, so I suppose it makes sense that Romm continues to play up the specter of future Katrinas, as he did on Monday and Tuesday:
We are stuck with a fair amount of warming over the next few decades no matter what we do. But if we don't reverse emissions trends soon, then Category 4 and 5 storms smashing into the Gulf coast seem likely to become a rather common in the second half of this century.
Whether you agree or not with his hurricane frequency-global warming connection, you have to at least admire Romm for his measured prescription, when he advises that we simply need to act "soon." Oh, scratch that. In the next breath, Romm reverts to style with this kicker:
Preserving the habitability of the Gulf and South Atlantic Coast post-2050 can only occur if we reverse U.S. and global emissions trends immediately.
Sorry, Joe, but "immediately" seems out of the question. Can we settle for "soon"? Or does that still spell doom?
