<?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 > Alyssa Battistoni</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/alyssa_battistoni/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:22:48 +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>Will 2013 be the year we finally address climate change?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/31/will_2013_be_the_year_we_finally_address_climate_change/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/31/will_2013_be_the_year_we_finally_address_climate_change/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jacobin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hurricane Sandy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drought]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13157465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have this to thank for 2012's harsh droughts and epic hurricane: Our politicians are finally galvanized to act]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.jacobinmag.com"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/06/Jacobin.jpg" alt="Jacobin" align="left" /></a> As Hurricane Sandy bore down on the East Coast in late October, everyone from Bill McKibben to Andrew Cuomo declared the storm our wake-up call on climate change. Now we would finally have that serious conversation we’d been meaning to get around to; faced with apocalyptic images of flooded subways and decimated houses, we would be shocked out of complacency and into action. Damian Carrington’s column in the <em>Guardian</em> was typical:</p><blockquote><p>If Sandy – and this summer’s record US heat wave – end up blowing Obama back into the White House with enough wind in his sails to persuade him to make climate change a winning issue, it really could have positive global consequences. If not, I shudder to think what scale of apocalyptic disaster will be needed to destroy the political cowardice among world leaders that is stoking the ever greater climate change storms of the future.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/31/will_2013_be_the_year_we_finally_address_climate_change/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/31/will_2013_be_the_year_we_finally_address_climate_change/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Climate skeptics still not worried</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/climate_skeptics_still_not_worried/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/climate_skeptics_still_not_worried/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12951121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We asked climate skeptics for their opinions on recent extreme weather events. You can probably guess their answers]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With huge swaths of the mountain West in flames, chunks of the eastern seaboard suffering power outages after a massive storm, and nearly three-quarters of the lower 48 experiencing dry or drought conditions, extreme weather has been on everyone’s mind — with climate change not far behind.</p><p>Concerned scientists certainly saw an opportunity to get a message across: In a telephone briefing last week, Princeton geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer said, "What we're seeing is a window into what global warming really looks like. It looks like heat, it looks like fires, it looks like this kind of environmental disaster … This provides vivid images of what we can expect to see more of in the future."</p><p>Maybe this would be the moment that the visceral reality of disaster broke through the political fog. League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski thought it might, saying he hoped that “record-breaking temperatures, intense droughts and wildfires and other climate-related disasters” would act as “a wakeup call” for the dangers posed by climate change.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/climate_skeptics_still_not_worried/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/climate_skeptics_still_not_worried/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>77</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></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>The truth about Keystone</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/30/the_keystone_confusion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/30/the_keystone_confusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keystone XL pipeline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12766071</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Focus on the pipeline distracts from the real question: Whether we should be using tar sands oil in the first place]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When President Obama<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/politics/in-oklahoma-obama-declares-pipeline-support.html"> announced his support</a> for the southern half of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline last week in Cushing, Okla., it was a blow to the environmental groups that had worked to stop the pipeline from going forward and succeeded in delaying approval of its northern half. In particular, Obama's statement that his administration had already approved “enough new oil and gas pipelines to encircle the earth” seemed intended to remind anti-pipeline campaigners that Keystone XL is just one of many pipelines with the potential to transport Canadian tar sands oil to the United States, and TransCanada just one of many players in the energy game.</p><p>Cushing was a particularly appropriate setting to convey that message: It's the crossroads for much of the nation’s oil and gas infrastructure, and inadequate pipeline capacity has made the town a bottleneck for fossil fuels, particularly with the recent influx of oil coming from Alberta. At any given time, between <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DOESCROK:IND">30 and 40 million gallons </a>of oil sit there, awaiting transport to Midwestern or Gulf Coast refineries. This means that the chunk of the pipeline that connects Cushing's surplus to refineries along the Gulf Coast — the chunk of the project that’s moving forward — is the one that TransCanada really cares about in the short term.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/30/the_keystone_confusion/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/30/the_keystone_confusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>78</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keystone pipeline will spill, study predicts</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/keystone_pipeline_will_spill_study_predicts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/keystone_pipeline_will_spill_study_predicts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keystone XL pipeline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12687481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It\'s a  matter of when, not if, say Cornell economists]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Republicans have sought to frame the Keystone XL pipeline as a job-creating project being thwarted by “radical environmentalists.” Is it? A new <a href="http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/TarsandsPipelineSpill.html">Cornell University study</a> claims that the pipeline could actually have a negative impact on the economies of the states it would pass through.</p><p>“In the national debate, job creation has been set alongside environmental concerns in a rigid either-or fashion," says Sean Sweeney, one of the study’s authors, "But oil spills also kill jobs, they consume resources, they have an impact on health, and can also lead to a lower quality of life.”</p><p>The range of estimates of jobs vary widely. TransCanada claims the pipeline will create 20,000 jobs. A State Department report estimates that only 20 permanent operating jobs would be created in the six states along the pipeline route. By comparison, those same states are home to robust agricultural, ranching and tourist industries that are dependent on water and vulnerable to environmental contamination. Across the six states agriculture employs 571,000 workers and tourism 780,000; the total revenue from those sectors, respectively, is $76.3 billion and $67 billion.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/keystone_pipeline_will_spill_study_predicts/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/keystone_pipeline_will_spill_study_predicts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pipeline foes beat back bogus gas price claims</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/09/pipeline_foes_beat_back_bogus_gas_price_claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/09/pipeline_foes_beat_back_bogus_gas_price_claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keystone XL pipeline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12663061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two Capitol Hill victories show environmentalists' strength -- but they may be temporary]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ever since President Obama delayed the decision to grant TransCanada a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline pending further environmental review back in January, Republicans have been cooking up various schemes to force the project’s approval. A few weeks ago, Republican leaders stuck Keystone mandates into both the House and Senate drafts of the transportation bill. In response, anti-pipeline activists kicked into high gear and mobilized supporters to send over 800,000 messages to their representatives within 24 hours, and the president threatened to veto any bill containing a Keystone rider.</p><p>The House’s transportation bill is on the rocks, but the Senate’s version is moving along, and the pro-Keystone amendment sponsored by John Hoeven, R-N.D., went up for a vote yesterday. The Hoeven amendment would have bypassed the need for presidential approval, using Congress’ constitutional power to regulate international commerce to skip the review process and green-light the pipeline immediately. The amendment <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/215051-senate-blocks-keystone-pipeline-approval-plan">failed</a> in a close vote Thursday afternoon: a majority of senators, including 11 Democrats, voted in favor, but the 56 votes it garnered were just shy of the 60 needed to pass.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/09/pipeline_foes_beat_back_bogus_gas_price_claims/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/09/pipeline_foes_beat_back_bogus_gas_price_claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trench warfare rages over Keystone pipeline</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/trench_warfare_rages_over_keystone_pipeline/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/trench_warfare_rages_over_keystone_pipeline/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keystone XL pipeline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Congress]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12355251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The GOP tries every which way to undo the Greens' modest victory
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When the Obama administration announced last month that the Keystone pipeline project would be delayed pending a more thorough environmental review of its impacts, Keystone's opponents celebrated, but warned that the fight was far from over. Sure enough, pipeline politics remain front-and-center as those in favor of the pipeline seek to circumvent the longer review process while its opponents struggle to fend off attacks on their tenuous victory. The past few weeks have seen a burst of legislative maneuvering as Republicans seek a way to rubber-stamp the pipeline without the president’s approval.</p><p>The maneuvering is intense because the struggle over the 1,600-mile proposed pipeline has become a proxy battle in a larger war over climate change, corporate influence and the legacy of the Obama administration. Both sides agree that the fate of Keystone XL will influence more than just whether oil is transported from the tar sands of central Canada to the United States. It will signal whether the U.S. is moving away from the carbon-fueled economy or embracing it anew.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/trench_warfare_rages_over_keystone_pipeline/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/trench_warfare_rages_over_keystone_pipeline/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama punts the Keystone pipeline</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/obama_postpones_the_keystone_pipeline/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/obama_postpones_the_keystone_pipeline/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keystone XL pipeline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12192041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Facing a Republican-imposed deadline, he rejects approval -- for now]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dead or alive, the Keystone XL pipeline now runs through the heartland of American politics.</p><p>The Obama administration announced today that it has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-to-reject-keystone-pipeline/2012/01/18/gIQAPuPF8P_story.html">rejected</a> the proposed 1,700-mile pipeline that would link the tar sands of Alberta, where crude oil is extracted, with U.S. refineries along the Gulf. Republicans are promising to <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71619.html">step up their efforts</a> to build the pipeline, which was largely unknown to the public just six months ago.</p><p>The decision isn't exactly a surprise. Obama has <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/13/obama-issues-veto-threat-over-payroll-tax-cut/">repeatedly</a> <a href="#!/pfeiffer44">made clear</a> that he would not approve any attempts to force the pipeline through without an adequate environmental review. The State Department had also stated that it would not approve the pipeline if the time frame for the review was rushed, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198851-state-department-warns-that-gop-plan-wont-lead-to-keystone-pipeline-permit">warning in December</a> that the deadline imposed by Congress would “compromise the process.” Nevertheless, House Republicans <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/keystone_pipeline_as_gop_poison_pill/">inserted a provision</a> into the payroll bill passed last month requiring the administration to reach a decision on the pipeline by Feb. 21<sup>.</sup></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/obama_postpones_the_keystone_pipeline/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/obama_postpones_the_keystone_pipeline/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pipeline installed on Capitol Hill</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/19/pipeline_installed_on_capitol_hill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/19/pipeline_installed_on_capitol_hill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keystone XL pipeline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill McKibben]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tar Sands Action]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10659961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the Keystone project became central to the politics of the payroll tax holiday]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/keystone_pipeline_as_gop_poison_pill/singleton/">controversy over the Keystone XL</a> tar sands pipeline intensified Saturday when the <a href="http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/government/senate-passes-extension-of-payroll-tax-unemployment-benefits-7507.html">Senate voted to approve</a> a bill extending unemployment benefits and the payroll tax holiday that also included a rider that force the president to make a decision on the controversial Keystone pipeline in 60 days instead of allowing for the lengthier review of health and environmental impacts that President Obama mandated last month. But no matter how the tax holiday maneuvering turns out,  the environmental movement has achieved a victory by injecting the issue into the heart of the Washington political debate.</p><p>The Republican leadership is seeking to portray the environmental and health review of the Keystone project as a capitulation to fringe interests. <a href="http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9474022-gingrich-romney-paul-run-through-debate-gauntlet-in-iowa">Newt Gingrich described</a> the pipeline opponents as “left-wing environmental extremists in San Francisco,” while <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57344298-503544/keystone-pipeline-still-a-sticking-point-in-payroll-tax-talks/">Mitch McConnell said</a> the president shouldn’t “let a few radical environmentalists stand in the way” of a pipeline Republicans claim would create 20,000 jobs.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/19/pipeline_installed_on_capitol_hill/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/19/pipeline_installed_on_capitol_hill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keystone pipeline as GOP poison pill</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/keystone_pipeline_as_gop_poison_pill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/keystone_pipeline_as_gop_poison_pill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keystone XL pipeline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Boehner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10302164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Desperate Republican seeks to link pipeline approval to the payroll tax cut extension]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ever since the Obama administration announced it would delay its final decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline until 2013, Republicans in Congress have been plotting ways to get around the lengthier review process ordered by the president, which would include a rigorous assessment of health and environmental impacts by the State Department.</p><p>Last Wednesday, a group of Republican senators, including Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns, <a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/11/dick-lugar-wants-rush-keystone-xl">co</a><a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/11/dick-lugar-wants-rush-keystone-xl">-</a><a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/11/dick-lugar-wants-rush-keystone-xl">sponsored</a> <a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/11/dick-lugar-wants-rush-keystone-xl">a</a> <a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/11/dick-lugar-wants-rush-keystone-xl">bill</a> that would fast-track the pipeline, requiring President Obama to issue a decision on the pipeline within the next 60 days and precluding a more in-depth review of its impacts. Now, Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry, with support from House Speaker John Boehner, is seeking to attach a provision that would force a quick decision on the pipeline to a bill designed to extend unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts, which are currently set to expire Jan. 1 of next year.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/keystone_pipeline_as_gop_poison_pill/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/keystone_pipeline_as_gop_poison_pill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOP fights for dirty air</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/gop_fights_for_dirty_air/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/gop_fights_for_dirty_air/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10112722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[House Republicans target the Clean Air Act ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the passage of two bills rolling back federal regulations of industrial boilers and delaying regulation of cement kilns, House Republicans opened a new front in their war on the EPA on Thursday: The GOP majority is now waging war on the Clean Air Act.</p><p>One of the most enduring accomplishments of Republican President Richard Nixon, the Clean Air Act is a popular and effective law. The EPA estimates that the act saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone, and projects that the new standards targeted by these bills would prevent up to 9,000 premature deaths annually. As a result, policies to ensure clean air enjoy wide support in both parties and all regions of the country. A <a href="http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/cleanairpoll">recent nationwide poll</a>, conducted by Hart Research, found respondents favor air pollution protections by 60 percent to 22 percent. Three out of four people believe that the EPA, rather than Congress, should set air pollution standards.</p><p>But in Washington, industry interests have prevailed over popular sentiment among House Republicans, who voted almost unanimously in favor of both bills. The communities most affected by industrial pollution stand to suffer most from the bills now going before the Senate.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/gop_fights_for_dirty_air/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/gop_fights_for_dirty_air/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</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>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>Sarah Palin and profit-motive politics</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/05/palin_president/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/05/palin_president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/06/05/palin_president</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The logic -- and risks -- of faking a presidential campaign to build brand value]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since kicking off her "One Nation" bus tour, Sarah Palin has insisted that she's just on a road trip to see iconic places in American history, like the part of New Hampshire where Mitt Romney declared his presidential candidacy. Suspicious that even a Real American like Palin would need a bus bedecked with the Constitution for a simple family vacation, the media has been beside itself trying to figure out if this means Palin is running for president. But it's almost beside the point. Whether she&#8217;s testing the waters for a presidential bid or just testing a new reality show format, Palin wins either way.</p><p>Nothing she's done since resigning her position as governor of Alaska really suggests she's planning a serious presidential candidacy, nor are her current activities indicative of any real commitment to public service. What they do demonstrate is an understanding that outrageous statements, calculated controversy and the blurring of the line between candidate and celebrity are a sure route to lots of attention -- and <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002412-503544.html">lots of money</a>.&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/05/palin_president/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/05/palin_president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The upside of &#8220;puritanical&#8221; politics</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/strauss_kahn_puritanical/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/strauss_kahn_puritanical/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 13:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/05/20/strauss_kahn_puritanical</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Private behavior can reflect and reinforce cultural issues around gender, sex, and power]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The charges of sexual assault against former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn this week came not only a few days before revelations that Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a love child with a member of his household staff, but also just as one boor -- the Donald -- left the Republican presidential field and another one -- the Newt -- took his place.</p><p>All together that makes for a lot of Important Men in the news lately whose sexual proclivities and behavior toward women have come under scrutiny in the course of their public lives. Which makes this a good time to think about whether and how progressives can respect public figures' privacy while retaining a critical perspective on sexual politics. Should we not care how public figures conduct themselves privately so long as they don't stick their noses into our bedrooms? Or is the personal political? Is it even possible to stake out a position that acknowledges the importance of both perspectives?</p><p>To be clear up-front, leaving one's cancer-stricken wife <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/1984/11/newt-gingrich-shining-knight-post-reagan-right">for being too "frumpy"</a> (Newt) or ordering women to submit themselves to sexual appraisal (Trump) is hardly on a par with alleged sexual assault. And it&#8217;s not as if public office be reserved only for those who stay faithfully married to one other person forever or otherwise meet our standards for sexual propriety.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/strauss_kahn_puritanical/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/strauss_kahn_puritanical/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When conservatives choose God over science</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/29/battistoni_science/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/29/battistoni_science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/04/29/battistoni_science</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's tempting to respond with ridicule, but bite your tongue -- and be ready to admit that we don't know everything]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Texas Gov. Rick Perry officially declared three days last week to be "days of prayer" in response to the wildfires and droughts that have been plaguing the state, many progressives reacted with a mixture of disbelief and ridicule.</p><p>Calling for prayer while <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/in-texas-questions-of-drought-and-climate-change/?src=tptw">refusing to recognize</a> the EPA's regulations on greenhouse gases seemed like an act of willful ignorance, as if Texas were sticking its fingers in its ears and humming as loud as it could to drown out what amounts to a warning of a future climate-change-induced catastrophe.</p><p>For my part, I'll cop to having sent a disparaging tweet or two. But I shouldn't have. Ridiculing Texas for attempting to pray away drought is a bad idea -- and not just because it makes progressives seem like Al Gore when he sighed with exasperation at George Bush in the 2000 presidential debate. The bigger issue is that, as the effects of climate change become more tangible, weather more unpredictable, and ordinary conditions more disastrous, progressives will have to offer more than sniggers to those who feel threatened by changes they don't understand.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/04/29/battistoni_science/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/29/battistoni_science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>319</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why is it so hard to raise taxes on the rich?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/14/obama_budget_income_inequality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/14/obama_budget_income_inequality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/04/14/obama_budget_income_inequality</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As budget solutions go, almost nothing polls better than asking the wealthiest to pay more]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In his <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obamas-deficit-speech-transcript/237274/">speech on the budget</a> Wednesday afternoon, President Obama finally came out unequivocally in support of higher taxes for the rich. As <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/repeal-bush-tax-cuts-for-wealthy">many</a> <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/taxing-the-rich/?src=tptw">commenters</a> <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-schaller-20110405,0,1215.column">have</a> <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/16/recih_andrew_leonard/index.html">pointed out</a>, taxing the rich is a no-brainer for progressives, the rare proposal that's politically popular in addition to being good policy. So why has it taken so long for Democrats to make a push for increasing the highest marginal tax rates? And why is it that, as <a href="http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&amp;year=2011&amp;base_name=the_divided_democratic_party">Jamelle Bouie writes</a>, "vanishingly few elected Republicans are interested in anything approaching egalitarianism, but a non-trivial number of Democrats support deep spending cuts and oppose tax increases"?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/04/14/obama_budget_income_inequality/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/14/obama_budget_income_inequality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>150</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Brits are furious: Why aren&#8217;t we?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/31/battistoni_uk_protests/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/31/battistoni_uk_protests/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/03/31/battistoni_uk_protests</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The puzzle of why our economic crisis has caused Americans to demand public sector cuts]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Depending on whom you ask, between a quarter- and half-million people <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/26/anti-cuts-march-police-rioters?intcmp=239">marched through the streets</a> of central London last weekend to protest against cuts to public services. Organized by trade unions but attended by people of all backgrounds -- mothers against the closing of childcare centers, students protesting hikes in education fees, pensioners dismayed at the elimination of senior centers and health services -- the demonstration was the largest in the U.K. since a 2003 march against the Iraq War, and one of the largest in British history.</p><p>For an American observer, it was an impressive showing that made it hard not to wonder why the only movement with any steam in the U.S. these days is the Tea Party. Why is it that our economic crisis has prompted people to beg for more public sector cuts instead of fewer, for more austerity instead of less? Is a movement against the continued ravaging of state services even possible here?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/03/31/battistoni_uk_protests/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/31/battistoni_uk_protests/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>303</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The dirty secret of public-sector union busting</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/24/battistoni_public_employees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/24/battistoni_public_employees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wisconsin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Labor Movement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/02/24/battistoni_public_employees</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Look a little closer at who really stands to lose if Scott Walker gets his way: Women and minorities]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amid all the rightful outrage over Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to do away with collective bargaining rights for public sector unions in Wisconsin, one important point has been neglected: The demise of public sector unions would be most detrimental to women and African-Americans, who make up a disproportionate share of the public sector workforce.</p><p>Much has been made of Walker's decision to exempt from his plan firefighter, police and state trooper unions -- conveniently, the only three public sector unions that endorsed him. But as Dana Goldstein <a href="http://www.danagoldstein.net/dana_goldstein/2011/02/the-wisconsin-labor-fight-an-attack-on-women-too.html">points out</a>, not only are the exempted unions largely Republican-leaning, they&#8217;re also overwhelmingly male -- <a href="http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_74.html">over 70 percent</a> of law enforcement personnel are male, as are <a href="http://ohsonline.com/articles/2008/05/report-nations-firefighting-ranks-are-96-percent-male.aspx">over 96 percent</a> of firefighters. On the other hand, many of the non-exempt unions represent professions that are disproportionately female -- approximately <a href="http://www.ncei.com/POT05PRESSREL3.htm">80 percent of teachers</a> are women, for example, as are <a href="http://www.minoritynurse.com/minority-nursing-statistics">95 percent of nurses</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/02/24/battistoni_public_employees/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/24/battistoni_public_employees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>57</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Brooks&#8217; bias toward elite values</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/18/battistoni_david_brooks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/18/battistoni_david_brooks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Brooks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/02/18/battistoni_david_brooks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Too often, the New York Times columnist is unwilling to explore the very real implications of economic policy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David Brooks enjoys a rarefied spot in the political discourse -- a conservative with crossover appeal among liberals. But this is a function of style, not substance. Brooks deserves credit for not reflexively hewing to a Fox News-friendly interpretation of the news, but he also doesn't engage substantively with the political and economic issues he comments on.</p><p>His <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/opinion/15brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks">column earlier this week</a>, on "The Experience Economy," demonstrates this vividly. It bears all the hallmarks of a Brooks classic. Reference to the hot policy book of the moment? Got it: Tyler Cowen's "The Great Stagnation" -- and in the first sentence, no less. Substitution of "values" explanations for political, economic and historical context? Check. A set of generically benign character traits anthropomorphized into an "average" (ostensibly white, middle class, male) American? Not just one, but two.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/02/18/battistoni_david_brooks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/18/battistoni_david_brooks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
