<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
  xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  >

<channel>
  <title>Green Options &#187; Economist</title>
  <link>http://greenoptions.com/tag/economist</link>
  <description>Posts tagged 'Economist'</description>
  <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 16:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
  <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
    <title>New Fuel Economy Standards are Not Counterproductive</title>
    <link>http://gas2.org/2009/05/21/new-fuel-economy-standards-are-not-counterproductive/</link>
    <comments>http://gas2.org/2009/05/21/new-fuel-economy-standards-are-not-counterproductive/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 16:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Nick Chambers</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Fuel economy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Economy]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/2009/05/21/new-fuel-economy-standards-are-not-counterproductive/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2428 aligncenter" src="http://go635254.s3.amazonaws.com/gas2/files/2009/05/vermont_roads.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="272" /></p>

<p>Listening to NPR&#8217;s Morning Edition yesterday, there was a segment in which some <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104334336" target="_blank">environmentalists lamented Obama&#8217;s new fuel economy standards</a> as being a small drop in the bucket for what needs to be done to solve our climate problems.</p>
<p>While this is true, two comments made by Harvard University Professor, <a href="http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~rstavins/" target="_blank">Robert Stavins</a>, during that segment struck me as weird and based in something less than reality — a kind of academic fantasy if you will. At the time, I was driving and the comments slid out of my mind. But last night an old friend from college brought it up again in a Facebook thread and it got me thinking more in depth about it.</p>
<p><a href="http://gas2.org/2009/05/21/new-fuel-economy-standards-are-not-counterproductive/" class="more-link">Read more of this story &#187;</a></p>
]]></description>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://gas2.org/2009/05/21/new-fuel-economy-standards-are-not-counterproductive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>A Plea to Paul Krugman for Help</title>
    <link>http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/03/24/a-plea-to-paul-krugman-for-help/</link>
    <comments>http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/03/24/a-plea-to-paul-krugman-for-help/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:36:27 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Rhonda Winter</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[localization]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/03/24/a-plea-to-paul-krugman-for-help/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<h3><strong>Why isn&#8217;t Nobel prize-winning economist <a title="Paul Krugman" href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/" target="_blank">Paul Krugman</a> the Secretary of the Treasury?</strong> More and more people are starting to ask that question. Jonathan Mann, the creator of <a href="http://www.rockcookiebottom.com/">Rock Cookie Bottom</a>, writes a song every single day; last week he wrote this catchy and moving plea to <a title="NY Times columnist" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html" target="_blank">NY Times columnist</a> Krugman to come to the aid of our nation&#8217;s scorched and pillaged economy .</h3>
<p style="text-align: center">This post contains additional media. <a href="http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/03/24/a-plea-to-paul-krugman-for-help/">Click here to view the full post</a>.</p>
]]></description>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/03/24/a-plea-to-paul-krugman-for-help/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Tech Today or Tech Tomorrow? Energy Debate 2</title>
    <link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/01/tech-today-or-tech-tomorrow-energy-debate-2/</link>
    <comments>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/01/tech-today-or-tech-tomorrow-energy-debate-2/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Michelle Bennett</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[alternative energy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/01/tech-today-or-tech-tomorrow-energy-debate-2/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cleantechnica.com/files/2008/08/unlikely-friends.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-988" src="http://go635254.s3.amazonaws.com/cleantechnica/files/2008/08/unlikely-friends.jpg" alt="Unlikely Friends in a Debate" width="244" height="172" /></a>This is Part Two on a debate by <a href="http://www.economist.com/"><em>The Economist</em></a>. The official debate concluded earlier this week, but <a href="http://www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?action=hall&#38;debate_id=11">you can still vote</a> and leave comments or critique. The question was:</p>
<h3>“Can we solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations?”</h3>
<p>Though we often envision debates as pitting two opponents against each other, hopefully in an intense battle of wit and wordsmithing, this one was not so. Both sides found themselves agreeing with each other more often than not, and parried with points on implementation.
<p><a href="http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/01/tech-today-or-tech-tomorrow-energy-debate-2/" class="more-link">Read more of this story &#187;</a></p>
]]></description>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/01/tech-today-or-tech-tomorrow-energy-debate-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- 160 queries in 0.475 seconds. -->