Republicans disregarded Nate Silver and other empiricists, and lost badly. Almost everyone is ignoring the empirical data of climate scientists -- and our losses could be catastrophic.
Several reports have suggested that a carbon tax could be part of a budget deal. John Boehner laughed and laughed.
So far in 2012, the average temperature has been 3.4 degrees above average, and 1.1 degrees above the previous warmest year ever. Also, the drought continues.
Lisa Jackson at EPA, Steven Chu at the Dept. of Energy, and Ken Salazar at Interior are all rumored to be on the way out. Who might replace them?
Michiganders voted down a requirement for 25 percent clean power by 2025. Blame a torrent of dirty-energy spending, which we'll be seeing more of in the future, says David Roberts.
In the New York Times today is a handy overview of environmental politics over the course of Obama’s first term, focused on the new, post-Sandy reality. Just getting up to speed after, like, a Rip van Winkle-sort-of thing? Read it. Well, everyone else might want to take a look, too; that’s why I’m putting up this goldurn post about it. From “A Change in the Weather on Wall Street”, by Tina Rosenberg: In March, 2009, the White House invited leaders of environmental organizations to a meeting. The invitees thought they were going to hear about the president’s strategy on climate …
A big climate bill won't pass Congress, but there's a lot Obama can do through executive action if he wants to build up a clean energy economy.
Democrats did surprisingly well, winning a number of races enviros had focused on. But those gains won't likely lead to strong climate action.
Because Washington remains terrible, last night notwithstanding.