More reviews are coming in for my new book, Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.

John Cook at the always excellent blog Skeptical Science has a nice review that concludes:

Language Intelligence is extremely readable, due to the fact that Romm practices what he preaches, employing the full kitbag of rhetorical techniques that he expounds about. The principles of rhetorics are illustrated with colourful examples from some of history’s greatest figures. It’s not just a user manual on how to communicate but also a riveting account of the history of communication. Language Intelligence is a must-read for anyone who seeks to communicate better or safeguard themselves from rhetorical manipulation. If you’re a communicator, a blogger, a public speaker or merely someone with a Twitter account, adopt this book as your user manual in how to tune up your talks, posts and tweets to maximum impact.

A. Siegel at Daily Kos concludes his review, “Learning intelligent Language from Lady Gaga, Lakoff, Lincoln, Luntz, and others …”

While powerful as a political text(book), this is a book destined for the nation’s classrooms. Romm has written something that every high-school debate team would learn from and any English teach concerned about Language Intelligence would be well advised to read it and consider incorporating it into their educational program.

Unusually, after having read a book, my intent is to read it again — soon. I also intend to have my children read it and will recommend other family members read it.  I recommend that you do so as well.

I think the readability — and rereadability — is one of the things that distinguishes this book from other books on rhetoric.

Persuasive communications is a subject everyone wants to master — since most of us spend more of our waking life communicating than any other single activity.

While you can’t get language intelligence from reading just one book, I do discuss in the conclusion other strategies you can pursue.

Finally, Nobelist Al Gore tweeted out a recommendation for my book, and posted this blog entry titled ”Win the Conversation”:

Read more

Jordan, via Flickr

by Corey Barnes, via Rocky Mountain Institute

America spends approximately $1.6 billion on public housing energy payments every year. To put that into perspective, that’s equal to:

• 15.7 percent of the annual budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• 95.7 percent of U.S. investment in energy-efficiency programs and renewable energy research
• 110 percent of the operating expenses of the U.S. Agency for International Development
• 60 times as much as we spend on National Public Radio.

Yet multi-family public housing projects, on average,use 38 percent more energy than the typical U.S. home. To put it simply, our public housing buildings are leaking our money.

If we made affordable housing 30 percent more efficient, we could use the dividends to double the current federal budget for building energy-efficiency research and generate greater future energy savings. But we can go even further.

There are case studies showing that some of our oldest buildings can be 50 percent more efficient. This energy efficiency comes none too soon, because energy conservation codes are demanding more energy efficiency more quickly than ever beforein American history.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the 3,300 public housing authorities (PHAs) that develop and operate public housing are on the hook for (at least a part of) the utility bills of all 1.2 million public housing units. In traditional apartment rentals, energy efficiency is hampered by the curse of split incentives – the landlord builds and owns the apartments, but the tenant pays the energy bills.

However, in the case of public housing, the landlord (the PHA, with support from HUD) is responsible for putting up the building and for paying the utility bills, removing the split-incentives barrier. So, why is there still inefficiency within our portfolio of public affordable housing units? This is one of the questions RMI seeks to answer with the Residential Energy Efficiency Leaders (REEL) working group.

This group is composed of 10 PHAs dedicated to bringing superefficiency to public housing. Members have signed a commitment to identify impediments and solutions to increased energy-efficiency, meet regularly to discuss relevant topics, and share resources and ideas freely. REEL Working Group members include: Albany Housing Authority, British Columbia Housing, Boston Housing Authority, Denver Housing Authority, Home Forward (Portland Housing Authority), Housing Authority of the City of El Paso, Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, San Antonio Housing Authority, Seattle Housing Authority, and Tacoma Housing Authority. Read more

CraneStation, via Flickr

by Joe Mendelson, via Wildlife Promise

By now our news media has probably made you aware of the historic drought that is gripping the country. Almost 80 percent of the nation’s agricultural land is experiencing drought conditions not seen since the 1950′s. In mid-July, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated this year’s corn harvest will drop by 12% and food prices for all of us will start to rise. But hardly anyone is connecting the dots to the fossil fuel producers who pollute our atmosphere, bank record profits, and pay none of the costs of climate change.

The drought is the latest manifestation of the extreme weather that is gripping the U.S. and placing a striking economic toll on our country. And as pre-eminent NASA climate scientist James Hansen has recently stated (and backed up with peer-reviewed science):

Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change (watch Dr. Hansen explain here).

Rising Costs to All of Us

The costs to all of us resulting from the drought and other extreme weather (watch extreme weather video) continue to mount.  Consider some of these numbers:

• The USDA says that by 2013, consumers will see a 2.5 to 5 percent spike in prices for beef, pork, eggs and dairy products because of the crop failures from the drought.
• Munich Re, the reinsurance giant, says that 85% of the $12B in the world’s insured losses from extreme weather during the first half of 2012 occurred in the U.S.
• The House of Representative just voted to slash conservation programs in order to pay out $383 million inemergency payments to U.S. cattle and sheep ranchers who lost livestock in the drought.

And yes, these are mere bullets in the growing price tag. Whether it is the direct human toll caused by recent heat waves, property damage from the wildfires that have raged in Colorado, New Mexico or Oklahoma (to note a few), or losses to the outdoor economy as sportsmen see fish dying by the thousands because of warming streams, the year’s full cost of climate change fueled extreme weather is staggering.

Climate Change Free Loaders

What should strike all of us is how these rapidly escalating costs are shining a spotlighting on our country’s major free rider problem. In economics, a free rider is someone who enjoys the benefits of an activity without paying for it. When it comes to the extreme weather costs of climate change, fossil fuel producers are the poster children for the free ride.

In the fiscal year of 2011, major energy companies extracted the following fossil fuels from federal lands—those are lands that are the property of all of us taxpayers:

Read more

New analysis finds “taking a proclimate stand appears to benefit candidates more than hurt them with registered voters”

As polls continue to show that talking about climate change is a politically beneficial issue among registered voters, some candidates are responding.

Looking to get her seat in Congress back, former New Hampshire Democratic Representative Carol Shea-Porter is the most recent politician to make climate change part of her campaign. In a recent letter to supporters, Shea-Porter lambasted “climate change deniers in Congress” who are spreading misinformation and blocking action:

America and the world have had quite an awful time the past few years with wild weather–drought, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wind, heat. Many people in our country have died in these natural disasters, and New Hampshire has had its share of trouble. While we use the word “natural,” most people now believe that these disasters are a result of global warming, also called climate change. However, there are still too many climate change deniers in Congress, and this is preventing the United States from moving forward, even as time is running out to slow down climate change.

On this issue, Shea-Porter has backing from many Republicans in the state. New Hampshire has an active group of Republican climate hawks who are working to get their party to seriously address the problem. When presidential hopefuls were flocking to the state during primary season, two prominent Republicans penned an op-ed calling on the candidates to address climate during their campaigns:

There is little doubt in the scientific and political community that climate change is the environmental challenge of our time. The effects of climate change are real, measurable, and requires strong presidential leadership to bring about real solutions.

It is a mistake to view climate change, or conservation issues in general, through a partisan lens. A recent poll of New Hampshire voters conducted by the Mellman Group found that over 70 percent of Republican primary voters see global warming as a serious threat.

And these findings are backed up nationwide. A new report from George Mason University analyzing recent surveys of registered voters shows that talking about climate action is a positive for candidates.

According to a March survey from George Mason, 55 percent of voters said they will consider candidates’ positions on climate change in upcoming elections. The survey also found that independent voters lean far more toward climate action, with 68 percent saying we should take medium or large-scale action to address the problem.

Most importantly, talking about climate change is not likely to lose a candidate votes.

Read more

Friends With Words: A Review of Joe Romm’s New Book Language Intelligence

by Rep. Ed Markey, via HuffPost

In the war of words, it’s the words that win the war. And Joe Romm likes his words short, rhetorical, repeated and repeated again (and again).

Joe’s new book, Language Intelligence, is GPS for modern day communicators.

Two decades in development, mining 25 centuries of rhetorical work, Language Intelligence will help readers simplify and sharpen their skills of persuasion. Whether to sway a room the size of the Coliseum, or a boardroom filled with executive gladiators.

Joe masterfully takes us through the main pillars of effective rhetoric. He scripts ways to master the metaphor, and incorporate irony. Solutions the reader can use for speeches, social media, or just winning the debate around the kitchen table.

In fact, Language Intelligence could not come at a better time. Chances are you may come face-to-face with a Romney supporter at the water cooler today, eager to discuss vice presidential selection Paul Ryan and his infamous budget. Joe wants you armed with short, simple words that pack a punch. For example, The Ryan Plan: It robs Grandma’s Medicare to pay for millionaires’ tax breaks. It cuts 90 percent from clean energy while allowing big oil companies to keep $40 billion in tax breaks.

Joe’s language is language for the average Joe. Not typically what one would expect from a writer with a Ph. D in physics from MIT. Joe also happens to be one of the world’s foremost experts in climate change, and those who devour his groundbreaking blog Climate Progress have spent years marveling at his ability to give complex science the Don Draper treatment.

While Language Intelligence is not specifically a book about climate change, Joe’s frustration with the current debate is clear. The planet is experiencing record heat, droughts, wildfires and floods. Yet an army of the world’s top scientist find themselves simply overmatched by partisan PR firms and the climate denier industry schooled and committed to the art of language.

To help fight back, Joe enlists some of the world’s most gifted rhetoricians: Clinton, Bush, Shakespeare, Churchill, Bob Dylan and Lady Gaga. They make up an ensemble cast that electrifies the stage in Language Intelligence.

But the true hero in the book may indeed be Joe himself. Crusading to rescue rhetoric from the flogging it has taken in modern times. As he points out: “Many law schools don’t even offer electives in rhetoric. It’s as if MIT trained its physics students without calculus.”

Centuries ago, Saint Jerome translated the Bible from the ancient Hebrew into the modern language of the day, bringing scripture from the source to the society. With Language Intelligence, our modern-day Saint Joe Romm crafts smart language solutions for those long on facts and longer on syllables. Because when it comes to winning the debate, short is sweet, short is tweet, and short is a lesson we should all repeat.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) is the Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee. This is reprinted from HuffPost with permission.

AP Photo

I have a piece at Time.com comparing the speechmaking of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

I use the three criteria for a good speech based on my review of the greatest speeches in history in my book, Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln and Lady Gaga. The most memorable and effective speeches make use of:

1. Short words
2. Repetition
3. Key figures of speech, especially metaphor

As I note in the article and my book, a 2005 study examined the use of metaphors in inaugural addresses of three dozen presidents who had been independently rated for charisma. The conclusion: “Charismatic presidents used nearly twice as many metaphors (adjusted for speech length) than non-charismatic presidents.” When students were asked to read a random group of addresses and highlight passages they viewed as most inspiring, “even those presidents who did not appear to be charismatic were still perceived to be more inspiring when they used metaphors.”

You’d need Superman’s ears to hear either Obama or Romney use an inspirational metaphor, let alone repeat it. This may be the single biggest failing in Obama’s campaign. His recent slogans, “winning the future” and “forward” are blandly literal and literally bland. Romney is no better.

The bottom line:

Obama may be credited as being a great speechmaker, but for most of his first term, he apparently left much of his speech-writing to people who aren’t very good at it. Fortunately for Obama, presidential elections are graded on a curve, and he just needs to have superior language intelligence to Romney, who could use a serious lesson in language arts.

You can read the whole thing here.

When it comes to the stimulus, presumptive GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan was against it before he was for it.

Or, to be more precise, he was for it at the same time he was against it.

According to documents obtained by the Boston Globe, Rep. Ryan (R-WI) lobbied the Department of Energy for tens of millions of dollars in stimulus grants for Wisconsin energy initiatives at least four times — even while calling the stimulus a “wasteful spending spree.”

The Globe reports:

“This trillion dollar spending bill misses the mark on all counts,” said Ryan in a statement from his office. “This is not a crisis we can spend and borrow our way out of – that is how we got here in the first place.”

But later that year, once the bill was passed and signed into law, Ryan sought to make sure his constituents benefited.

On October 5, 2009, he wrote a letter to Chu on behalf of the nonprofit Energy Center of Wisconsin, which was applying for a grant under the Recovery Act’s Geothermal Technologies Program.

Under the grant program the center received a total of $240,000, according to its president, Frank Greb.

The same day Ryan sent another letter advocating for a grant application, in which the Energy Center partnered with Milwaukee Area Technical College, for training building technicians and operators in energy-saving techniques. For that program, the government provided $740,364, according to federal records.

But the biggest payoff came for the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation. Ryan predicted the $20 million grant would be able to “create or retain approximately 7,600 new jobs over the three-year grant period and the subsequent three years.”

Yet in an interview with MSNBC two years later, Ryan again bashed the stimulus package.

Ryan is best known for his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee. He’s well liked within the Tea Party for his strong rhetoric on slashing federal spending (cutting everything except the military and fossil fuel subsidies) — a key reason why he was chosen by the Romney campaign.

However, according to the documents, Ryan requested millions of dollars for a variety of programs under the stimulus package, including $5.4 million for bus services and tens of millions of dollars for renewable energy and efficiency programs.

Read more

by Kristina Curtis and Matt Patsky

Texas is oil country, but in recent years, another energy resource has swept across the state: wind. Over the past decade, wind power turbines have cropped up throughout the Panhandle and along the Gulf Coast. In just a few years, Texas has become the nation’s largest wind power producer, boasting seven of the U.S.’s 10 biggest wind farms.

As investors, we look for growth stories, and wind power has been a great one. The U.S. is generating 20 times more electricity from wind than it did in 2000, and nearly nine gigawatts – the equivalent of nine nuclear power stations – is under construction. Wind power provides more than 10 percent of power generation in five states and more than 20 percent in South Dakota. That’s good news for the economy, the planet, and for investors looking to build a cleaner energy future.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

In this case, it comes down to policy. For years, the federal government has supported innovation in the energy sector, funding everything from advanced drilling techniques to more efficient turbine design. In the case of wind power, the U.S. provides a tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of wind power produced, known as the Production Tax Credit. This credit has increased energy diversity and reduced our reliance on fossil fuels. It has also helped to stimulate productivity and innovation in the renewable energy economy and keep electricity costs low for consumers. Indeed, innovation has driven the cost of wind power down more than 90 percent, resulting in wind being competitive on its own in a number of places and near that level in many others. And unlike other energy sources, as wind prices drop they stay low: The fuel is free.

President George H.W. Bush originally signed the Production Tax Credit into law in 1992. However, after decades of bipartisan support, it’s set to expire at the end of this year. If lawmakers do not act, it could bring the wind power economy nearly to a halt, putting thousands of jobs on the line. And with each day of inaction the problem grows larger.

Read more

AP Photo/Nick Ut

Gov. Jerry Brown often rails against the “declinists” in California, those who argue the state’s best years are behind it. Now, Brown is turning his ire to climate-change “deniers” in a new government-sponsored Web page announced by Brown’s office Monday. [Los Angeles Times]

The government will buy up to $170 million worth of pork, lamb, chicken and catfish to help drought-stricken farmers, the White House said Monday as President Barack Obama brought his re-election campaign to rural voters in Iowa. [Washington Post]

Wildfires have destroyed dozens of homes and threatened hundreds more in several western U.S. states, including Idaho, where an on-duty firefighter was killed by a falling tree. [New York Times]

The United States will suffer a series of severe droughts in the next two decades, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Moreover, global warming will play an increasingly important role in their abundance and severity, claims Aiguo Dai, the study’s author. [Washington Post]

For the third straight month, imports of Chinese solar cells and panels into the United States decreased year-over-year, according to the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM). [Renewables Biz]

A designer and manufacturer of solar power mounting systems plans will set up its U.S. headquarters in Shelby, N.C. and create more than 300 jobs at a production and distribution facility. [Bloomberg Businessweek]

The recent examples of extreme weather across China – such as the heavy rain in Beijing last month – have highlighted climate change issues, China’s chief climate change negotiator said on Monday. [China Daily]