<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Energy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/energy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Worse than Keystone</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/worse_than_keystone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/worse_than_keystone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 16:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12922121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Environmentalists are focused oil and gas, but a bigger carbon disaster may be brewing in the Pacific Northwest]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Coal is without question our dirtiest fuel source: When burned, it <a href="http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/nonco2/" target="_blank">dumps toxins</a> like mercury and nitrogen oxides into the air and packs an outsize punch when it comes to carbon emissions. Since America has a lot of it, though, we've tended to use a lot: Historically, <a href="http://205.254.135.7/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_where_ghg_come_from" target="_blank">around half our electricity</a> has been generated by coal combustion plants. But as a result of sustained <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/04/beyond-coal-plant-activism" target="_blank">anti-coal activism</a>, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-17/coal-turns-ugly-as-tumbling-gas-cuts-demand-to-20-year-low-energy-markets.html" target="_blank">low prices for natural gas</a>, and <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/27/nation/la-na-epa-emissions-20120328" target="_blank">new EPA regulations</a> on power plant emissions, Americans are using <a href="http://grist.org/list/u-s-power-companies-could-use-14-percent-less-coal-this-year/" target="_blank">a lot less coal</a> than we used to, and the future of the sooty stuff in this country is looking dim. So the U.S. coal industry is pinning its hopes on China. While historically most of our exported coal has gone to Europe, U.S. exports to China <a href="http://powerpastcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/WORC-Exporting-PRB-Coal-Risks-and-CostsFINALFINAL9-111.pdf" target="_blank">increased 176 percent</a> between 2009 and 2010, and that number is likely to keep rising as the Asian market for coal <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-happens-to-us-coal-if-we-dont-burn-it/2012/04/09/gIQAEuxw5S_blog.html" target="_blank">continues to expand</a>. The prospect of shipping coal across the Pacific is even more appealing considering that Western states like Wyoming and Montana have vast coal reserves in the Powder River Basin, one of the largest coal deposits in the world.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/worse_than_keystone/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/worse_than_keystone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We don&#8217;t need new roads</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/we_dont_need_new_roads/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/we_dont_need_new_roads/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12806101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[America's love affair with cars is finally waning. Investing in more highways is bad policy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interstate 70 in Colorado, one of the nation's best-known arteries, is the latest thoroughfare to incite an archetypal fight. Running at capacity as it cuts through Denver, this gateway to the Rocky Mountains is about to be expanded over the objections of residents whose low-income neighborhoods will be sliced apart.</p><p>No doubt, the road will probably win -- as roads almost always do in these battles. Indeed, the story of I-70 summarizes the 60-year tale of urban development in modern America: Instead of beefing up public transit, cities build neighborhood-destroying highways, cars fill up those highways, cities then build more highways to alleviate traffic, and then yet more cars flood the roads, creating even more traffic. Known as the "fundamental law of highway congestion," this cycle perfectly embodies the "if you build it, cars will come" axiom confirmed in 2011 by researchers at the University of Toronto.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/we_dont_need_new_roads/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/we_dont_need_new_roads/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The rules that should govern energy subsidies</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/05/the_rules_that_should_govern_energy_subsidies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/05/the_rules_that_should_govern_energy_subsidies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil Industry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12803571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be propping wealthy fossil-fuel companies whose products we want less of]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Along with “fivedollaragallongas,” the energy watchword for the next few months is: “subsidies.” Last week, for instance, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez <a href="http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=9d10e72a-accb-40b2-b61b-c7d11833c8ba">proposed</a> ending some of the billions of dollars in handouts enjoyed by the fossil-fuel industry with a “Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act.” It was, in truth, nothing to write home about -- a curiously skimpy bill that only targeted oil companies, and just the five richest of them at that. Left out were coal and natural gas, and you won’t be surprised to learn that even then it <a href="http://www.app.com/article/20120329/NJNEWS10/303290097/Menendez-bill-to-halt-big-oil-tax-breaks-fails">didn’t pass</a>.</p><p>Still, President Obama is now <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/29/454666/obama-goes-on-offense-against-oil-companies-accuses-them-of-gouging-taxpayers-for-profits/">calling for</a> an end to oil subsidies at every stop on his early presidential-campaign-plus-fundraising blitz -- even at those stops where he’s also promising to “drill everywhere.” And later this month Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/27/1058706/-Bernie-Sanders-proposes-to-ax-fossil-fuel-subsidies-and-add-10-million-sun-powered-rooftops">will introduce</a> a much more comprehensive bill that tackles all fossil fuels and their purveyors (and has no chance whatsoever of passing this Congress).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/05/the_rules_that_should_govern_energy_subsidies/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/05/the_rules_that_should_govern_energy_subsidies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The new oil reality</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/13/the_new_oil_reality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/13/the_new_oil_reality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil Industry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12671471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Get used to $4 a gallon. The cost of extracting and refining petroleum is higher than ever -- and that won't change]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oil prices are now higher than they have ever been -- except for a few frenzied moments before the global economic meltdown of 2008. Many immediate factors are contributing to this surge, including Iran’s threats to <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175496/michael_klare_hormuz-mania">block oil shipping</a> in the Persian Gulf, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/business/oil-price-would-skyrocket-if-iran-closed-the-strait.html">fears</a> of a new Middle Eastern war and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/world/africa/prices-and-anger-rise-in-nigeria-presaging-more-strikes.html">turmoil</a> in energy-rich Nigeria. Some of these pressures could ease in the months ahead, providing temporary relief at the gas pump. But the principal cause of higher prices -- a fundamental shift in the structure of the oil industry -- cannot be reversed, and so oil prices are destined to remain high for a long time to come.</p><p>In energy terms, we are now entering a world whose grim nature has yet to be fully grasped.  This pivotal shift has been brought about by the disappearance of relatively accessible and inexpensive petroleum -- “easy oil,” in the parlance of industry analysts; in other words, the kind of oil that powered a staggering expansion of global wealth over the past 65 years and the creation of endless car-oriented suburban communities. This oil is now nearly gone.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/13/the_new_oil_reality/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/13/the_new_oil_reality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>122</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s most dangerous foe: High gas prices</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/23/obamas_most_dangerous_foe_high_gas_prices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/23/obamas_most_dangerous_foe_high_gas_prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12413981</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's energy speech calls for a review of his record. He gets a B+ overall, but an F on climate change]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looking for the biggest threat to Obama's reelection? Hint: It's probably not Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul. The president's most lethal opponent lurks wherever you choose to fill up your gas tank: high gas prices.</p><p>This week, the average price of a gallon of gas in the United States <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-rising-gas-prices-sink-obama/2012/02/21/gIQAUCVXRR_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein">hit $3.57.</a> That's the highest prices have <em>ever</em> been in February, a fact that is all the more sobering when one considers that prices usually rise in the summer, so more pain is likely on the way. And while it has been <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/risks-to-obama-in-oil-price-instability/#more-6838">reasonably well-established</a> that high gas prices, in and of themselves, don't necessarily sound the death knell for an incumbent, there is definitely a link between the cost of energy and the health of the economy. And since the health of the economy this summer will probably be the single most important factor determining who wins the White House, the equation becomes pretty simple. If high gas prices derail the current economic recovery, Obama becomes more vulnerable.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/23/obamas_most_dangerous_foe_high_gas_prices/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/23/obamas_most_dangerous_foe_high_gas_prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>104</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If the Iranian powder keg explodes</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/if_the_iranian_powder_keg_explodes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/if_the_iranian_powder_keg_explodes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. foreign policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12269751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Closing the Straight of Hormuz could ignite a war and a global depression. Oil's only one part of the picture]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ever since December 27th, war clouds have been gathering over the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow body of water connecting the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean and the seas beyond. On that day, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi warned that Tehran would block the strait and create havoc in international oil markets if the West placed new economic sanctions on his country.</p><p>“If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports,” Rahimi <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/27/iran-threatens-to-cut-off-oil-exports-if-sanctions-imposed-over-nuclear-activity">declared</a>, “then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz.” Claiming that such a move would constitute an assault on America’s vital interests, President Obama reportedly <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/world/middleeast/us-warns-top-iran-leader-not-to-shut-strait-of-hormuz.html">informed</a> Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Washington would use force to keep the strait open.  To back up their threats, both sides have been <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/world/la-fg-us-persian-gulf-20120113">bolstering</a> their forces in the area and each has <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/22/irans-navy-to-hold-drill-in-international-waters/">conducted</a> a series of provocative military exercises.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/if_the_iranian_powder_keg_explodes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/if_the_iranian_powder_keg_explodes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada&#8217;s other pipeline project</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/canadas_other_pipeline_project/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/canadas_other_pipeline_project/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GlobalPost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil Industry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12196091</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After Keystone, Prime Minister Harper fights to keep the U.S. out of the Alberta oil sands debate]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TORONTO, Canada — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has lashed out at American groups opposed to a pipeline that would allow oil from Alberta’s tar sands to be shipped to Asian and U.S. markets.</p><p><a href="http://www.globalpost.com/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_globalPostInline.gif" alt="Global Post" align="left" /></a></p><p>Harper capped a week-long attack on U.S. environmentalists with a nationally televised interview Monday night, essentially telling American opponents of the proposed pipeline to butt out of Canada’s affairs.</p><p>The 731-mile Northern Gateway pipeline would run west from the massive oil sands deposits of northern Alberta — across pristine wilderness and more than 700 rivers and streams — to a proposed supertanker port on the Pacific coast of British Columbia.</p><p>Harper accused American groups of hijacking public hearings by a federal regulatory agency, which is assessing the environmental impact of the $6.6 billion pipeline project. Decisions on the development of Alberta’s oil sands should be left to Canadians, he said.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/canadas_other_pipeline_project/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/canadas_other_pipeline_project/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The real beneficiaries of energy subsidies</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/the_real_beneficiaries_of_energy_subsidies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/the_real_beneficiaries_of_energy_subsidies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12189191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don't buy the GOP's claims. Oil companies, not green alternatives, are making a killing from the government]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Listen to the typical conservative rhetoric about energy being thrown around on talk radio or in Republican presidential debates, and you're likely to hear that our government primarily uses its regulatory and financial power to create a destructive green energy boondoggle -- one that enriches a few politically connected Solyndra executives, appeases a bunch of wild-eyed tree huggers, but hides the fact that renewables supposedly can't stand on their own in the private sector.</p><p>In the face of catastrophic climate change and dwindling fossil fuel resources, this cartoonish narrative has gained traction because it invokes the moment's most powerful political metonyms, from implicit allegations of crony capitalism to hippie-themed epithets about environmentalists to "free market" fundamentalism. The underlying idea -- which will only be more amplified in the wake of the Obama administration's <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71598.html">pipeline decision Wednesday</a> -- is that fossil fuels are being persecuted by the American government.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/the_real_beneficiaries_of_energy_subsidies/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/the_real_beneficiaries_of_energy_subsidies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Our looming energy wars</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/our_looming_energy_wars/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/our_looming_energy_wars/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12026961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three contested oil troves are on the brink of conflicts that could devastate the global economy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to an edgy world where a single incident at an energy “chokepoint” could set a region aflame, provoking bloody encounters, boosting oil prices and putting the global economy at risk. With energy demand on the rise and sources of supply dwindling, we are, in fact, entering a new epoch -- the Geo-Energy Era -- in which disputes over vital resources will dominate world affairs. In 2012 and beyond, energy and conflict will be bound ever more tightly together, lending increasing importance to the key geographical flashpoints in our resource-constrained world.</p><p>Take the Strait of Hormuz, already making headlines and shaking energy markets as 2012 begins. Connecting the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, it lacks imposing geographical features like the Rock of Gibraltar or the Golden Gate Bridge. In an energy-conscious world, however, it may possess greater strategic significance than any passageway on the planet. Every day, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, tankers carrying some <a href="http://www.eia.gov/cabs/world_oil_transit_chokepoints/full.html">17 million barrels</a> of oil -- representing 20 percent of the world’s daily supply -- pass through this vital artery.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/our_looming_energy_wars/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/our_looming_energy_wars/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cities, the new hydrofracking victims</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/cities_the_new_hydrofracking_victims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/cities_the_new_hydrofracking_victims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10248107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite devastating health risks, both parties are pushing to allow more drilling near urban areas]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the relatively rare occasions that city folk and suburbanites previously had to think about oil and gas drilling, many probably conjured images of grasshopper-esque rigs dotting remote landscapes like Wyoming's mountain range, Alaska's tundra or Oklahoma's wind-swept plains. Most probably didn't equate drilling with the bright lights of their big city, but they should have because urban America is fast becoming ground zero for the same fights over energy that have long threatened the great wide open.</p><p>With our nation's still unquenchable (and still <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html">highly subsidized</a>) thirst for fossil fuels, the false comfort of NIMBY-ism and the fairy-tale notions of "safety in numbers" is quickly vanishing in our cities, as controversial oil and gas exploration projects creep into metropolitan areas. Incredibly, this geographic trend is accelerating just as new drilling techniques are evoking serious concerns about excessive <a href="http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_f3d7c170-b96b-11e0-b1c1-001cc4c002e0.html">air pollution</a> and about adverse effects on limited water supplies -- problems that have plagued rural energy-producing regions for decades, but are sure to be even worse as they hit densely populated areas.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/cities_the_new_hydrofracking_victims/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/cities_the_new_hydrofracking_victims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The toxic corporations that run America</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_toxic_corporations_that_run_america/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_toxic_corporations_that_run_america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AlterNet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10245518</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Five energy companies that are buying their way out of being held accountable for egregious environmental abuses]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Four days after the April 5, 2010, explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, the 300 family members keeping vigil finally learned that the last of the missing miners had been found and there were no survivors among them. The explosion killed 29 men, and severely injured one. The mine was run by Performance Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey Energy. Massey's Chairman Bobby R. Inman called it a "<a href="http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/04/04/massey-chairman-bobby-inman-calls-upper-big-branch-explosion-a-natural-disaster/">natural disaster</a>," but it was anything but natural.</p><p><a href="http://www.alternet.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_alternetInline.jpg" alt="AlterNet" align="left" /></a>Like the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf that would steal the nation's attention (and 11 lives) just two weeks later, Upper Big Branch was the inevitable outcome of regulators turning a blind eye to a greedy corporate culture that puts profit above human lives. But this is nothing new. Coal, oil and gas companies in the U.S. have been getting away with murder for years. Sometimes it is just less obvious -- the slow poisoning of our air, water and food; the deterioration of human health, the loss of homes and jobs, the obliteration of whole communities and ecosystems.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_toxic_corporations_that_run_america/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_toxic_corporations_that_run_america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Forget about peak oil</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/yergin_the_question_interview/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/yergin_the_question_interview/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Pulitzer-winner Daniel Yergin, the fossil-fuel tipping point is a myth. He explains what that means]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember summer 2008? OK, maybe you'd rather not. It was a rough time for American drivers. An oil crisis had shot gas prices up to a wincing all-time high of $4.11 per gallon, squeezing our wallets and causing widespread panic. For many people, it was a troubling sign that America's oil addiction was becoming harder and harder to sustain. And although prices have scooted down (and up, and back down) since, for many of us, it was a wake-up call that gas prices are not only hard to predict -- but that the world's oil supply seems to be rapidly dwindling away.</p><p>In <a href="http://click.linksynergy.com/deeplink?mid=36889&amp;id=FYUtulI7nw4&amp;murl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2Fbooksearch%2FISBNInquiry.asp%3FEAN%3D9781594202834%26">"The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the World,"</a> Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "The Prize," tackles both this anxiety and its root causes. &#160;The book is an enlightening and detailed historical survey of how man has discovered and harnessed various energy sources, from oil to wind, electricity to shale gas. Although Yergin focuses on the people behind these discoveries -- we learn, for example, how a 19th-century mountaineer's obsession with understanding why the sky is blue led to the discovery of the greenhouse effect -- he adeptly explains the often-complicated political and economical backdrop to these revolutionary feats.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/yergin_the_question_interview/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/yergin_the_question_interview/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solyndra&#039;s China syndrome</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/china_and_solyndra/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/china_and_solyndra/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works//2011/09/23/china_and_solyndra</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While Republicans seize upon a solar power fiasco to attack green energy, the Chinese get even more ambitious]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When faced with a panel of out-for-blood House Republicans, keeping mum is probably a prudent idea. But the sight of Solyndra's corporate executives pleading the fifth amendment at Friday morning's Congressional hearing certainly didn't inspire confidence. Whatever one thinks of the merits of industrial policy targeted at green energy, Solyndra's failure is a grade A debacle. While the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/us/politics/in-rush-to-assist-solyndra-united-states-missed-warning-signs.html?_r=1">reports today</a> that there is no evidence yet of direct political favoritism, it probably wasn't a good idea for Solyndra executives to be telling Congress that the company was doing fine just five weeks before declaring bankruptcy.</p><p>The Times makes a convincing argument that the White House misjudged the state of the world solar power market in its eager push to get Solyndra's loan guarantee guaranteed. Thas a shame -- in a perfect world, we would all wish for a government that never made a bad investment, and never backed a loser. But the hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue is absurd. The economics of nuclear power are so dicey that private insurers refused to offer policies on nuclear power plants <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2011/03/18/nuclear_power_preemptive_bailout/index.html" class="storyLink">until Congress passed a law</a> limiting nuclear power utility liability and putting the taxpayer on the hook for the costs of a meltdown. But Republicans <em>love</em> loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/china_and_solyndra/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/china_and_solyndra/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Obama got right on green jobs</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/antisolyndra/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/antisolyndra/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2011/09/23/antisolyndra</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The weatherization program creates jobs and helps poor people. So why is it on the chopping block?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With Solyndra-gate stretching into <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63795.html">another week</a>, it seems like a good time to point out that not only is the bankruptcy of the California solar start-up an <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/?story=/politics/feature/2011/09/16/solyndra" class="storyLink">intentional distraction</a> from larger questions about U.S. solar policy, it is also a distraction from other green jobs programs, one of which is doing pretty well.</p><p>The federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), created in 1976 to save energy in the midst of the first oil crisis, offers a comprehensive array of weatherization services to 8 million low-income households. Funded through Community Action Agencies (CAAs), created by Lyndon Johnson' War on Poverty, the WAP is the anti-Solyndra, a symbol of what the Obama administration got right on green jobs.</p><p>Double-glazed windows and insulated water heaters lack the luster of mammoth solar farms, high-tech innovation funds and shiny new photovoltaic panels. But the process of making the homes of low-income families more energy-efficient by conducting energy audits, installing insulation, sealing gaps and cracks, replacing drafty windows and doors, sealing air ducts and improving ventilation has proven effective in saving money and energy while creating jobs.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/antisolyndra/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/antisolyndra/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Green energy, the cost-efficient option</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/green_energy_truth/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/green_energy_truth/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alternative Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/09/21/green_energy_truth</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite huge subsidies for fossil fuels, eco-friendly alternatives are making headway]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Among the standard epithets often leveled at green energy is the one about subsidies. As the conservative myth goes, green energy is allegedly not "cost competitive" with dirty energy sources like coal or natural gas. This, we are led to believe, makes green energy just another wasteful taxpayer-supported boondoggle for dominant special interests. In this version of the story, big, bad all-powerful solar, wind and insulation companies are supposedly getting government handouts to unfairly oppress the earnest mom-and-pop oil and gas industry.</p><p>As laughable as it is to portray oil, gas and coal companies -- some of the wealthiest corporations in the world -- as underdogs, the narrative's Machiavellian brilliance should be obvious. For both the global fossil fuel industry and a conservative political movement underwritten by oil barons like the Koch brothers, the mythology self-servingly casts environmentally friendly alternatives as inherently ill-suited to free market economics. In the process, it convinces millions of consumers and entrepreneurs that even if they want to go green, they can't do so in any sort of economically viable way, meaning they should just keep guzzling as much fossil fuel as ever.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/green_energy_truth/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/green_energy_truth/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The lessons of Solyndra</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/16/solyndra_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/16/solyndra_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2011/09/16/solyndra</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The controversy shows what Germany knows: Renewable energy needs to be funded wisely]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent declaration of bankruptcy by the solar power company Solyndra and investigation into the circumstances of the company's loan approval has both the left and right in a tizzy. Republicans are attempting to use the incident to discredit any government investment in clean energy. Democrats are trying frantically to distance themselves from the decision altogether. As investigators sort out the murky details, it important to remember, the incident is ultimately a distraction from the actual task of building a strong solar industry.</p><p>Yes, $534 million is a lot of money, and 1,100 jobs is a lot of jobs, but Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of the Department of Energy's loan portfolio. America's investment in renewables, and particularly solar, lags behind that of many other G-20 countries as a percentage of GDP. Yet sheer investment isn't enough to ensure a robust renewable sector; it has to be smart investment. And that doesn't mean fussing over individual companies; instead of picking the right companies, we need to pick the right policies. We need to look at what's worked elsewhere, particularly in Germany, which continues to blaze the trail in solar innovation, production and installation.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/16/solyndra_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/16/solyndra_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>139</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solyndra&#8217;s industrial policy power failure</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/solyndra_goes_bankrupt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/solyndra_goes_bankrupt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[How the World Works]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works//2011/08/31/solyndra_goes_bankrupt</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2010 Obama touted the Silicon Valley solar startup as a green jobs powerhouse. But China had other plans]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For green technology fans, the news that the thin-film solar startup Solyndra is going belly up is one heck of a bummer. Purely in symbolic terms, the failure of the highly touted Silicon Valley showcase is a disaster. Headquartered in Fremont, Calif., Solyndra was backed by name-brand venture capitalists and received half a billion dollars in loan guarantees from the Obama administration. In a visit in 2010, Obama personally touted the company as a source of green jobs. Oops.</p><p>Conservatives always warn liberals that "industrial policy" is misguided because the government doesn't have the capacity to successfully pick winners. Solyndra would seem to offer dramatic support for that view. But the real story isn't quite so simple.</p><p>As usual, ace green tech reporter Todd Woody <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/08/31/what-solyndras-bankruptcy-means-for-silicon-valley-solar-startups/">provided one of the best early takes on what it all means</a>:</p><p>The key graph:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/solyndra_goes_bankrupt/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/solyndra_goes_bankrupt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The return of Neil Bush</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/28/neil_bush_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/28/neil_bush_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/08/28/neil_bush</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even in the Great Recession, the dim bulb of a dynasty manages to cash in on the family name]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the global economy has tanked in recent years, international companies have sought every advantage they can muster in seeking to score business deals abroad. One tactic, especially favored by big energy firms, is to retain the services of a middleman or "fixer." These obscure but vital players use clout, brains and wiles to broker deals between industry and third-world leaders, and to generally grease the gears of the global oil and gas trade.</p><p>Which on the surface makes it hard to understand why U.S. and foreign firms continue to seek the services of Neil Bush. The son of one president and brother of another, Neil's political clout has declined since Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush in 2009, and neither brains nor wiles is Neil's strong suit. Two decades ago, the Washington Post observed that his business ventures had "a history of crashing and burning in spectacular fashion," and time, alas, seems not to have improved his record.</p><p>Neil claims to have 30 years in the <a href="http://txoilltd.com/AboutTXOil/OfficersDirectors/NeilBush.aspx">energy industry</a>, though at least 10 people from the Texas oil patch I spoke with said they had never heard of him playing any notable role in the energy business. Of the former first sibling, one international oil executive and consultant said, "I can't imagine anything he could bring to the table."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/28/neil_bush_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/28/neil_bush_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>57</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s big dirty oil test</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/25/obama_s_keystone_problem/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/25/obama_s_keystone_problem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[How the World Works]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works//2011/08/24/obama_s_keystone_problem</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Keystone pipeline protests have galvanized the environmental community. Is the president listening?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sometime before the end of this year, the State Department will decide whether to approve the 1,700-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline, intended to connect the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, with the refineries of southern Texas. For many environmentalists, the fate of the world, literally, depends on the Obama administration's yea or nay.</p><p>"The Keystone Pipeline," wrote global warming activist Bill McKibben, <a href="http://www.tarsandsaction.org/invitation/">in a letter</a> urging concerned citizens to join a two-week protest in front of the White House, would be "a fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet ..." In an essay titled <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2011/20110603_SilenceIsDeadly.pdf">"Silence Is Deadly,"</a> NASA climatologist James Hansen declared that if the tar sands are fully exploited for their oil deposits, "it is essentially game over" for the planet.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/25/obama_s_keystone_problem/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/25/obama_s_keystone_problem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>93</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to sell Big Oil on the Web</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/chevron_social_media_today/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/chevron_social_media_today/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/07/19/chevron_social_media_today</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Salon Exclusive: A new media marketing firm creates a novel greenwashing strategy for Chevron]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
    <strong>[UPDATED BELOW]</strong>
  </p><p>The oil giant Chevron, with $6.2 billion in <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/us-chevron-idUSTRE73S35520110429">profits</a> in the first quarter of 2011, has for the past year been engaged in an intense branding <a href="http://www.chevron.com/weagree/">campaign</a> called "We Agree," which presents Chevron as a model corporate citizen and steward of the environment. Trying to soften the public image of a company without actually changing destructive business practices is known as "greenwashing" -- and Chevron has been at it for <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-juhasz21-2008nov21,0,1838635.story">a while</a>.</p><p>But in today's media universe, billboards, TV ads, and even Web videos, are no longer enough. That's where the New Jersey firm Social Media Today steps in.&#160;I was accidentally sent a confidential presentation for Chevron from a Social Media Today representative I'd earlier corresponded with on another story. It pitches the oil company on a&#160;project to build an entire website that apes journalistic outlets in form and appearance but is ultimately committed to advancing Chevron's goals. The presentation offers a window into the frontiers of greenwashing and corporate messaging on the Web.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/chevron_social_media_today/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/chevron_social_media_today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

