Politically, this week was all about President Obama's first State of the Union speech Wednesday. The blogosphere is too big to be limited to just that though, so keep reading for the round-up on the federal government for efficiency, DiCaprio & Friends for climate, and Dr. Seuss… for coal?

-- By New York City Climate Precinct Captain Emily A. Fano.

I’m tired of fat cat bureaucrats and politicians gambling away our survival. Aren’t you? Copenhagen was a let-down, despite an impressive and coordinated effort by the global climate action movement. The deals hammered out in the UN talks would let CO2 increase well above the 350 ppm -- the magic number to avoid catastrophe. Not good.

I just finished listening to President Obama's first State of the Union address to Congress, and I was glad to hear him speak strongly about the need to address the global threat of climate change. Clearly, he recognizes that transitioning to clean energy will create much-needed jobs and boost our ailing economy.

Yesterday, we drew straws here at the office to decide who would get stuck with take on the assignment of blogging about Sarah Palin's latest post about energy on Facebook.

I lost.

Sigh.

As the ultimate fate of health care reform is debated while key senators continue to push for a climate bill this year, an important new study released last week highlights the connection between strong climate policy and public health:

The benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation policies are likely to outweigh the near-term costs of implementing those policies, according to a new study.

Coming on the heels of the international climate talks in Copenhagen and a proposal earlier this month by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to tighten smog standards, new research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison suggests that climate change policies should be assessed on the basis of potential benefits as well as initial costs.

First post by 1Sky Policy Fellow Julie Erickson. – Alex B.

Last week, 1Sky fought back against Senator Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) extreme efforts to gut the Clean Air Act. Joining us were a host of committed allies and some especially outspoken "Clean Air" senators who are joining us in the fight against big polluters.

2010 is proving to be a turbulent year, filled with new challenges. Last week climate advocates across the country rallied to defend the Clean Air Act in the wake of disappointing election results from Massachusetts and a Supreme Court ruling that could unleash an unprecedented wave of corporate cash into the November elections. While addressing climate is still a top priority for many senators this spring, it is unclear where it will fit in amidst the fickle election year schedule.

Lots happened this week with big events in Congress as well as the Supreme Court. But that's not all that was thrown around the blogosphere. Microsoft founder Bill Gates spoke up for climate action and Clean Energy Works released a great video primer for starters. Read on for more on this week in climate-talk online.

Today, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations to spend obscene amounts of money to sway federal elections. In a 5-4 ruling this morning, the Roberts Court sided with powerful corporate interests, giving them even more voice in the political process and further stifling the voice of the American People in the Citizens United v. FEC case. This Court’s decision is historic and has the potential to distort and corrupt the political process.

-- By Dr. John Stanley, editor for A Buddhist Response to the Climate Emergency and website director at Ecological Buddhism.