Welcome back to the Week in Green Politics, where I know that most of you are sick of politics by now. So I'll keep it quick.

Obviously the most timely issue in the climate world is Hurricane Sandy. If you're on the East Coast, I hope you're staying safe.

From a political point of view, one pressing question is whether the candidates will mention climate change in the context of extreme weather. And that brings us to our first headline:

[ Read More... ]

Financial Heavyweight Warns of Global Food Crisis

Hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, whom Joe Romm calls "one of the few leading financial figures who gets both global warming and growing food insecurity" has released a new analysis on the global food crisis.

[ Read More... ]

Lawmaker Proposes Carbon Pricing Bill

The big news this week: Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced legislation that would…wait for it…tax carbon emissions. McDermott's plan, the Managed Carbon Price Act, would set a price per quarter-ton of CO2, creating an economic incentive to cut pollution. Of the revenue produced, 25 percent would go toward deficit reduction, and 75 percent would go back to the public.

[ Read More... ]

Romney, Obama Surrogates Debate Energy Policy

On Wednesday, Dan Reicher of the Obama camp squared off with Romney representative Linda Gillespie Stuntz. The topic (for once) was energy policy. Here are the highlights.

Keystone XL: Romney would approve it on "day one"; Obama is "very much moving toward a decision" in the first quarter of 2013. Nothing new there.

[ Read More... ]

Clean Air Act Regulations Upheld

On Tuesday, a Washington, D.C. federal appeals court upheld EPA's finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and should therefore be regulated. The Washington Post has the story:

The opponents, including Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II (R), argued that EPA rules setting emissions standards for cars and light trucks, and requiring construction and operating permits for the nation’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases, such as coal-fired power plants, were based on a faulty interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and therefore capricious and heavy handed.

But the court rejected the challenge, calling EPA's interpretation "unambiguously correct." In particular, the judges scorned the opponents' complaint that EPA relied on climate science to make a decision about… climate science. In an amusingly sarcastic opinion, the court said, "This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

[ Read More... ]