I’ve come to depend upon Joe Romm for ideological rigidity and his unwavering faith in his own infallibility. Such commitment provides a useful touchstone in the climate debate. So I have been dismayed to see Romm not just abandon some of his most firmly held views, but sprint in the opposite direction while at the same time lambasting those who would have the gall to espouse views that he only recently held.
Why Romm has made an about-face on cap-and-trade:
Perhaps the real Joe Romm has been kidnapped, and an offset-loving, climate-delayer-eq, fossil fuel drinking replacement has been quietly spirited into his place? A look at the recent flip-flopping by Joe Romm might help us understand the transformation, and with some luck, locate the real Joe Romm and return him to his proper place in the climate debate.
Okay, on to my original post about Romm’s unfailing habit of accusing others of behavior that is actually his stock in trade:
Joe Romm tees off on Breakthrough Institute and journalists
Once again, I can feel the spittle flying out of my computer screen when I read Joe Romm’s latest post taking The Breakthrough Institute to task for questioning the current cap-and-trade legislation now wending its way through Congress — and for journalists who have quoted TBI analysts.
I believe psychologists have a word for Romm’s consistent, unseemly behavior: “projection.” (Or possibly ”transference“?) 
What’s Romm so upset about? Several posts at the Breakthrough Institute blog questioning the capacity of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation for bringing down greenhouse gas emissions. Romm himself once criticized the very same loopholes in Waxman-Markey that he now says are no problem. Fine. Being open to new interpretations and analyses and changing one’s mind is a sign of maturity and intelligence. But so is sticking to debating ideas with respect and civility. And as many readers of CEJournal know, Romm is constitutionally incapable of sticking to ideas and showing respect and civility. (For the Breakthrough Institute’s detailed response to Romm’s post, go here.)
Romm takes most disagreement with his ideas personally. He then lashes out using language that describes nothing other than his own approach. In his post about the Breakthrough Institute, for example, Romm uses the word “attack” ten times: “They attacked President Obama’s cap-and-trade climate plan…” “They attacked Henry Waxman…” “They launched a lengthy attack against Al Gore…” “…they have launched a series of attacks on it — attacks based on misrepresentation and misanalysis.” “TBI has recently written two attacks on Waxman-Markey, “The Flawed Logic of the Cap-and-Trade Debate,” which attacks any effort to significantly raise the price of carbon pollution…” And on and on and on.
Romm doesn’t seem to understand the difference between the words “attack” and “critique.” Shellenberger, Nordhaus and the other authors at The Breaktrhough Institute mostly do the latter — they offer “detailed analysis and assessment.” While Romm certainly is capable of the same, he also wallows in the former.
What a shame. He clearly has much to offer in the way of ideas, analysis and assessment. But he seems to relish the role of the bully more. I wonder what demons he is working out in public on his blog.
This thing has 5 Comments
N+S: “It has become an article of faith among many greens that the global poor are happier with less and must be shielded from the horrors of overconsumption and economic development–never mind the realities of infant mortality, treatable disease, short life expectancies, and grinding agrarian poverty.”
Tom, I find it really peculiar that you are able to defend people who would make such a statement. It’s the sort of thing one might expect to find on Free Republic e.g. Aside from being a baseless lie, it’s neither respectful nor civil.
I agree with steve bloom. Why not comment on the actual TBI article instead of Romm’s critique of it? The TBI article deserves to be criticized and you would have been better off writing your own interpretation of their article instead of commenting on how you disliked Romm’s. Despite the language he used, do you disagree with any point romm made in the article? This is what’s worthwhile blogging on. Not yet another article highlighting your opinion that Romm is using inflammatory language to the detriment of his blogs and professional integrity on climate and energy issues.
Interesting site, but much advertisments on him. Shall read as subscription, rss.
Aaron: I already described my opinions about the flaws of Waxman-Markey in very great detail (and along the way found the TBI article credible enough to cite). So I believe I have already done what you are calling for here. (One caveat though: I have not yet read Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s “Green Bubble” essay in the New Republic, and until I do I will offer no opinion about it.)
As for what’s worthwhile to blog on, even a cursory glance at CEJournal will reveal that I mostly stick with analysis. But when an influential blogger like Romm foams at the mouth, I think it’s fair game to warn people about the potential for rabies.
“Foams at the mouth” and “rabies,” eh? Perhaps we should refer to those as burst pustules of journalistic smallpox.
This thing has 2 Trackbacks
[...] 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 [...]
[...] a journalism professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, shined a light on Romm’s modus operandi, but so far as I know, nobody at Grist or any other prominent environmental outlets has dared to [...]