Premium Energy Corp. (PPTL)

[troubled]

February 19, 2009, 6:30 am
Obama and Canada’s Controversial Oil Patch
By Ian Austen

Reuters

A poster in Ottawa bids President Barack Obama to end U.S. purchase of oil from Canada’s oil sands. President Obama is visiting the Canadian capital on Thursday.
In the unlikely event that Barack Obama has some free time during his first trip to a foreign country as president on Thursday, he can take in Ottawa’s first Tar Sands Film Festival.

It is just one of several events organized this week by environmentalists in Canada and the United States, as well as native groups, to encourage the new administration to put pressure on Canada over pollution from Alberta’s huge oil-extraction projects.

The tar sands — or oil sands, as the industry prefers to call them — have made Canada the United States’ largest supplier of imported crude oil. But they also generate more greenhouse gases than conventional oil sources as well as large, toxic tailings ponds. For many environmentalists, the oil sands are the epitome of dirty oil.

“Our approach has been that the tar sands need to be cleaned up or shut down,” said Rick Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defence, a group based in Toronto, during one of several anti-oil sands conference calls with journalists this week.

Alberta is the political base of Canada’s current Conservative government and the home to Canada’s oil and gas industry. After coming to power in 2006, the government abandoned Canada’s earlier climate change pledges, replacing them with a new system which, among other things, allows the oil sands operators to increase their overall level of greenhouse gases — so long as they lower the rate at which they emit them through efficiencies.

Since President Obama’s election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has suggested that Canada would like to participate in any climate change initiatives by the new American administration as a continental partner. The catch is that Mr. Harper also appears to be seeking exemptions for the oil sands.


“The tar sands need to be cleaned up or shut down.”

— Rick Smith,
Environmental Defence
David Collyer, the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, was also busy speaking with reporters in advance of the presidential visit. While he acknowledged that the industry must reduce emissions, he also emphasized that the United States must take a “more balanced approached” to the oil sands debate — one that also factors in the value of having a nearby source of oil in a politically stable ally.

Unsurprisingly, that idea isn’t shared by environmentalists.

“You can’t really talk about energy security unless you’re talking about climate security,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, the director of the Canada program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Our climate really is on the brink of disaster.”

Comments by President Obama during an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, suggest that both sides may be disappointed following his quick trip to Ottawa.

At one point, the president acknowledged that “oil sands creates a big carbon footprint.” But he also echoed an argument of the oil industry and the Canadian government in adding that their problems are not unique or insurmountable.

“I think that it is possible for us to create a set of clean energy mechanisms that allow us to use things not just like oil sands, but also coal,” he said. “The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we have our own homegrown problems in terms of dealing with a cheap energy source that creates a big carbon footprint.”
E-mail This Print Share
Close Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
My Space
Yahoo! BuzzPermalink
Climate Change, Conventional Energy, Energy Business, Energy Economics, Energy Politics, Environmental Politics, General Pollution, alberta, barack obama, environmental defence, NRDC, oil sands, stephen harper, tar sands Related Posts
From Green Inc.
Alberta Addresses Oil Sands’ Gigantic Footprint
Q&A: Energy Independence, Obama and Canada’s Oil Sands
Unconventional Oil on the March
Efficiency Help Wanted
A Climate Pass for Oil Sands?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous post

Alberta Addresses Oil Sands’ Gigantic Footprint
Next post

Will the Stimulus Help Wind and Solar?
From 1 to 25 of 53 Comments
1 2 3 Next »
1. February 19, 2009
7:24 am

Link
“Our approach has been that the tar sands need to be cleaned up or shut down,” said Rick Smith.
Are these people nuts? So Mr. Smith would rather send our money to the middle east, forment the financing of Iran, help radical islam, and greatly contribute to the economic woes of not only everyday American’s but the world’s peoples!
Oh, so I guess that ethonal is okay, let’s triple crop prices and starve millions so that we can claim we are cleaning up the planet.

— Bill

2. February 19, 2009
7:44 am

Link
Yeah, let’s shut all that horrible stuff down, bankrupt the main companies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, get rid of the tens of thousand of jobs and watch the price of oil go to $500/bbl. Hellooo….

— Brad

3. February 19, 2009
7:50 am

Link
Greenhouse gases? Obama and Pelosi are traveling the world in massive jets. The King and Queen can do what they want. Bread and circus

— Lyle Vos

4. February 19, 2009
7:52 am

Link
We need to draw a line in the “sand”…Our climate is our future — and energy sourcing is simply one component of what we contribute (or don’t) to our environmental climate.

Additionally, the issue is compounded by the fact that our economy is inextricably bound with energy sourcing. Until the US resolves its energy dependencies, we will never recover from the current economy debacle.

We cannot sell out our long-term climate future by short-term solutions to our energy issues.

In short, oil should be used primarily for lubrication and hydraulics — and not be burned up in combustible fuel engines. A typical car can be lubricated with a gallon of oil while it uses over $400 of oil to simply move it the 3,000 miles during oil changes.

We must begin a major, immediate shift to alternative energy, to any energy source that reduces our use of carbon-based fuels, such as coal or oil, the COIL fuels. And coal and tar-sands are absolutely the worst ingredient for preserving our environment. Let’s save these diminishing resources to a time 1,000 years from now when we really need them. The US is ALSO where the largest natural gas deposits are, as well — and natural gas burns very clean.

Yes, we will have short-term problems and inconveniences as we shift our sourcing and get our national electric grid into place — but we will have started. In a moment’s breath of eternigy, the issue will be resolved.

Forget the conventional practices of the past, it’s the future we must address intelligently and creatively.

— seth j hersh nyc

5. February 19, 2009
8:08 am

Link
To Seth:
Actu intelligently and creatively requires also to act practically with a plan that can be implemented. Natural Gas does meet many of those standards.

— Bill

6. February 19, 2009
8:09 am

Link
Furthermore, I can just imagine what the US reaction would be if Stephen Harper (you do know the Canadian Prime Minister don’t you?) came down here and told us to stop our coal production or oil shale development. I see Hypocrisy at work. Has anyone ever heard of Sovereignty? Now we have the right to oversee developments in other countries?

— Brad

7. February 19, 2009
8:14 am

Link
i dont think too many americans really understand the environmental impact of the tar sands operations. sometime if you are flying over alberta you might get it -

— canadian woman

8. February 19, 2009
8:25 am

Link
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones. The US is the world’s number one polluter, so maybe we should clean up our own act first such as getting rid of the coal burning electricity generating plants.

After Three Mile Island, this country went back to generating electricity using dirty coal: each plant that burns coal generates more pollution than all the tar sands plants put together, and, we have scores of these power stations. As most of the coal is shipped from Wyoming to the east, the freight trains hauling the stuff generate more pollution than the tar sands plants. The UK, France and Germany generate about 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants yet we insist on dumping tons of pollution in the air every day.

My guess is the President understands this plus he most likely prefers having a friend like Canada be our major energy provider rather than terrorist supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia.

— KJ

9. February 19, 2009
8:29 am

Link
Seth, you need to do some basic research. The US is running low on it’s natural gas reserves. Take a look at the BP Statistical Review. The biggest natural gas deposits, by far, are in Russia, Iran and Qatar. And I think before we tell our neighbors to clean up their act the US should set the example. Best would be to start with you and the citizens of New York. We can start by halting all deliveris of oil, oil products and coal-based electricity. We should also stop all oil trading and related activities in the City. When your survival is threatened it is possible that you may well change your tune. Isn’t it easy to tell others what to do?

— Brad

10. February 19, 2009
8:33 am

Link
so far Obama has done very well so theres no reason to think he won’t do something smart here.
We as americans need to stop our overuse of oil and coal and start to take environmental concerns seriously because we are getting very close to the edge of disaster but all you need do is read comment 1 and 2 to see greed and a unwillingness to make even the slightest compromise to lifestyle far outweighs brains in this country. I really don’t care how many oil companies suffer the loss of billions of dollars in profits because the oil companies care little to none at all about human suffering they cause everyday with their polluting coal and oil nor do they care about the immense environmental damage they have cause world wide!
A good start would be to cut the amount of “dirty oil” we buy from these sources till we buy none at all, if gas goes up a dollar or so who cares? I drive a high millage car and car pool everyday, anyone who unwilling to make sacrifice in their lifestyle will be out of luck and out of money, tough! The time is now to start saving the environment and eliminating oil sands is a good start.

— norm

11. February 19, 2009
8:39 am

Link
Worries about security of supply for oil are not really paramount if we are going to stop using oil. So, buying our oil from anywhere during the market glut we create by cutting our consumption will not be a big issue.

Tar sands are irreducibly expensive to produce because about 20% of the final energy output is needed to extract them. Since we are going to be getting off of oil, it makes sense to avoid oil sources that are expensive since our reduced consumption will make low cost oil more plentiful.

It seems hard to make a business case or a security case for tar sand oil.

— Chris Dudley

12. February 19, 2009
8:46 am

Link
The president said, “I think that it is possible for us to create a set of clean energy mechanisms that allow us to use things not just like oil sands, but also coal.” This is impossible.

It simply won’t happen.

We’re addicts. As long as we’re getting our fix, we’ll sit apathetically on our butts waiting for the next fix. We have to get away from oil altogether before we can expect new technology. If the government said “No” to dirty oil and coal, and if consumers still demanded and paid for energy, then and only then would technological advances and industry step up. Our money is important to people who want it.

As consumers, we have to reduce our dependence on dirty coal and oil.

As voters, we have to contact legislators and executives to turn away from old ways and embrace new technology and regulations.

As people, we need to recognize and redress our addiction–circle up the chairs and call the teevee, people, we need an intervention!
http://www.salamanderpoints.com

— Rr Salamander

13. February 19, 2009
8:55 am

Link
Norm: Just what is “overuse”? Is that everything over and above your specific needs Norm? How close are we to “the edge of disaster”? What makes you think that the oil companies care “little to none” about human suffering? Can you please quantify and qualify these statements? Otherwise these statements are nonsense. You always state “they”. Sorry but “they” is us!

Can you imagine the massive death that would take place if we ceased the production of hydrocarbons? You need some basic Science and Physics courses. Clearly you have no concept of the magnitude of energy we require to maintain a civilized population of 6-odd billion individuals. And you are at the top of the heap when it comes to energy consumption. I suggest you go live in some place like D.R. Congo where you can get an idea of what it is like in a low-energy society.

Thus. if you can’t apportion goods through the market the government has to allocate. And all we have to do is look at the failed Socialist and Communist examples to see how well that was done.

I probably use far less energy that you do but I certainly don’t want you to be telling me how much I should be using. Just what form of Government are you suggesting?

— Brad

14. February 19, 2009
9:13 am

Link
In response to Seth of NYC — I was with you right up until you included natural gas as part of the solution. On the contrary, natural gas is part of the problem. Although natural gas is somewhat cleaner burning than oil, it hardly ” burns very clean.” First, it emits more than 70% of the CO2 that oil does to produce the same amount of energy. Add to that the fact that methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and that it escapes during the production process from intentional venting, leaky pipes, etc.; when this is factored in, the greenhouse benefits of natural gas are either greatly reduced or (more than) completely eliminated, depending which studies you believe.

Finally, the shale gas deposits that have people like Boone Pickens and Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon declaring that natural gas is the bridge to our energy future are yet another unconventional fossil fuel; like the tar sands in the main article above, production of shale gas requires much greater investments of energy and exacts terrible environmental costs. As we speak, shale gas production is threatening the NYC watershed, the Wild and Scenic Upper Delaware, and much of Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New York with the same destruction it has visited upon much more remote parts of the West. Let’s move to a truly carbon-free economy and not sacrifice these areas to a misguided energy policy.

— Tom

15. February 19, 2009
9:17 am

Link
If you put this into the context of the larger environmental differences between the US and Canada, it becomes ridiculous. Canada is so far more green in every other way, that to ask the US to oppose the Tar Sands is like asking China to insist that Norway use greener technology in its North Sea oil rigs.
http://www.boldizar.com

— Boldizar

16. February 19, 2009
9:22 am

Link
Tom, it is easy to pontificate on this issue. Please explain the reality of how we can move to a “carbon free” economy. It is an impossibility. Perhaps we could have a less carbon-intensive economy but never a “carbon-free” economy. Have you ever taken a basic course in Organic Chemistry? Let’s stop the nonsense here and speak in real terms. It would be nice to see all of you stop the sound bite speak and discuss facts.

How do we get to a less carbon intensive economy from here without freezing to death or dying from starvation? What is the transition strategy you propose?

No more euphemistic platitudes please…..

— Brad

17. February 19, 2009
9:23 am

Link
If less time and money was wasted on hyping wind and solar as our answer to our oil needs, and directed them instead into an already active hydrogen economy, we wouldn’t need to be extracting oil from Canadian oil sands. And since hydrogen can be produced locally from sewage treatment plants, it will be a cleaner source of energy that doesn’t require large trucks or ships to transport the product all over creation.

— U.S. Common Sense

18. February 19, 2009
9:37 am

Link
U.S Common sense. What?!! Just where do you think this hydrogen comes from? It is stripped from hydrocarbons and the byproducts are CO2 and a lot of wasted energy. Specifically, the hydrocarbon the hydrogen is stripped from after microbial decay in a sewage treatment plants is methane: CH4. Hasn’t anyone here ever taken a basic Chemistry course???

And why don’t you make a minor calculation and let me know how many sewage treatment plants if would take to power the United States? Like I said earlier - let’s get real here.

— Brad

19. February 19, 2009
9:54 am

Link
Brad (#9),

There has been proved reserve growth in natural gas in recent years and also increased estimates of the technically recoverable gas resource. The current midrange estimate given by an industry group is 88 years of natural gas at the current rate of production while their high estimate is 118 years of natural gas.
http://www.cleanskies.org/upload/MediaFiles/Files/Downloads2/finalncippt2.pdf

In terms of energy production (but not volume production) US coal production has been stagnant or decreasing since 1998 while gas has been rising. It could be that we are past the sweet spot for coal production but we are hitting our stride for gas production. Certainly it is gas and wind that dominate new electricity generation.

— Chris Dudley

20. February 19, 2009
10:21 am

Link
Brad I think you need to get real be fore you bash New York City. If you look at the statistics New Yorkers use far less energy on a per person basis than the rest of the country. Yes the city uses a lot of energy but then we have over 8 million people living here. That’s a greater population than all but eleven states. I ride my bike to work unless the weather is bad and then use mass transit on those days. Can you say the same. I also live in a 400 sq ft apartment. Where more americans live in houses of over 2,500 sq ft. Whose residence do you think uses more energy to heat and cool? I think before you bash New York you should start thinking about the efficient use of energy that compact living promotes.

— Bobby

21. February 19, 2009
10:51 am

Link
Chris I agree with the exception that the term “reserve” is an economic term. And with the price of gas now being so low, those reserves that were quoted at an earlier date, with a higher natural gas price- basis, are now dropping. Additionally, there will most likely be a rather harsh impact on gas (and oil) prices due to the current shut-in of production and easing off of exploration.

Generally, it is not economically advantageous to produce either oil or gas at current prices - most certainly not for marginal producers like shale gas and relatively unproductive oil wells. Most of the gas the US has been putting on line of late was shale gas and these wells are fairly prolific but only for relatively short period of time.

Hence, when demand and supply get temporarily into balance additional supplies will simply not be available going forward from that point due to decreased development activity and the unrelenting gravity of resource depletion.

Current princing is uneconomic and this cuts capital investment into the sector. Because of depletion a constant stream of capital investment is needed to maintain even a diminishing supply and this has been lacking due to the difficulty of obtaining finance.

So at some point we are going to have another energy crisis. And this is why I get nervous when I hear everyone whinging about living in a “carbon-free” world and shutting off the supply hydrocarbons at a critical juncture.

Most people do not understand the economic dynamics, and the underlying thermodynamics of the energy sector. They are also clueless about how dependent we really are on a smoothly functioning global energy market.

The recent economic shock to the global financial system has upset the dynamics of the global supply of energy. This may well, for quite a few people, end up being a matter of life and death - purely on a survival basis. I hope I an wrong because the political ramifications do not bear consideration. We need a safety margin. And when we have a 70% dependency on imported oil, have an extremely energy intensive suburban and exurban infrastructure and a populaton lacking in a basic understanding of the production, use and transformation of the natural resources allowing for such a structure - it is a recipe for political chaos.

— Brad

22. February 19, 2009
11:04 am

Link
Bobby, that was not the point. And actually, though I am an American, I have been residing in Switzerland for the past twenty years. Contrary to the US, and even NYC, the infrastructure here is far more energy efficient than it is there. And though I do have a slightly larger habitation in a small viillage it has a 300 year design life and is exceptionally energy efficient. And from this village I can get anywhere in Europe without a car using clean, reliable and punctual public transport. I am not a proponent of controlling how other people live or dictating their lifestyles - that is a personal choice dependent on personal enlightenment. You have made a personal choice to live that way and if you are happy with it - fine. If you want to force people to live like you do then you might have a problem.

— Brad

23. February 19, 2009
11:24 am

Link
“It seems hard to make a business case or a security case for tar sand oil.” - Chris Dudley

Ok, I’ll take a shot. But it would help my case if they would let journalists show us the flag draped coffins.

The US has used a large part of its military might, political will, and diplomacy to protect and ensure us of cheap oil for our growth. The euphemism is “strategic interests”.

Terrorist hate us because we fought a political battle with Russia in Afghanistan and oil battles in Kuwait and Iraq. We are actively pursuing a middle east made in our image. Our oil money corrupts their leaders and their religions.

Economically, the price of “cheap” oil that went to 140 a barrel caused a major shock to our economy that exposed weaknesses in our lending practices.

Venezuela represents another enemy of the US as long as it can “afford” to be,.through the sale of oil, to us!?

Finding oil in a country directly adjacent to ours that is arguable our best friend in the world is a godsend. We have an opportunity to have oil price and political stability along with a lot of great jobs and stable supplies for midwest refineries.

If we can assure Canada of a customer willing to pay a premium for their product, they can clean up the process and keep the ducks out…

The civil discourse between us and the Canadians is a breath of fresh air from a major oil supplier. Eh?

— Mark - Dallas

24. February 19, 2009
11:26 am

Link
Brad, at no point in my post did I say that I feel this is the way everyone should live. I was pointing out the energy efficiency of this way of life. Something you seemed to be saying was not the case when you suggested cutting off all energy supplies to New York. Perhaps you are not aware of the progress NYC has made in the last few years in cleaning up it’s bus fleet and promoting green living. Also having traveled quite a bit in Europe I am aware of it’s far superior rail system. That being said it is not true that you can get anywhere in Europe by mass transit. Believe me as a person who has never liked driving and tries to avoid automobiles at all cost, I’ve tried and there are places that you can not get to with out one.

— Bobby

25. February 19, 2009
11:56 am

Link
OK - I’ll give you that -I am wrong and you are correct with regard to getting to specific locations in Europe. Personally, it is tough sometimes, but I have not had all that much of a problem. But I can see how that may be true since I have not gone everywhere in Europe. However, there are few places in Switzerland that can not be reached using public transport. With one pass you can have access to all public transport. And the entire rail system is electric and that idependent power grid is supplied by hydroelectricity from the Alps. As a country it is very efficient. And fortunately, it is not part of the EU.

And I can accept the great strides NYC has made regarding the use of energy. Again, that was not the pint. The point I was making had more to do with the fact that Seth, contrary to your post, was trying to get other people, in another soveriegn nation to do what he felt was in his best percieved interest. As a sovereign nation, Canadians have the right to decide for themselves what they do without undue interference from their Southern neighbors. If some Americans don’t want to buy oil derived from tar sands then they should reduce their personal consumption. And since oil is a fungible commodity, if the US won’t buy it - it can be sold, or swapped elsewhere in international markets. So, much like the fact that we ended up with Middle Eastern oil through third parties during the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970’s we would most likely end up with Canadian oil. Thus, the whole concept of complaining about Canadian energy production does not make much sense anyway.

— Brad

1 2 3 Next »Add your comments...
Your Name Required

Your E-mail Required, will not be published

Your Comment
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.



Ads by Google what's this?

Bill Gross's Blog
Thoughts on Business, Innovation, & Energy Challenges the World Faces
www.BillGross.com
Energy Saving Switches
Save On Electric Bills w/ D-Link's Energy Saving Switches. Buy Now!
www.DlinkShop.com/Green_Switches
Reducing Oil Dependence
Commuting Strategies for Saving Gas & Reaching Energy Independence
www.icfi.com/conservegas

Search This Blog Previous Post:
Alberta Addresses Oil Sands’ Gigantic Footprint
Next Post:
Will the Stimulus Help Wind and Solar?
NEW SECTION
Visit the New Energy & Environment Section

Comment of the Moment
“ Aaahhhhh, smart legislators doing smart things with their money.”
— Tim
Q&A: Ontario's Green Energy Plan Markets
03/03/2009 2:11 PM ET
ENERGY AND POWER INDEXESNASD Clean Edge
113.13
+1.44%+1.61
ISE Green Energy
16.16
+1.57%+0.25
NYSE Energy
7,544.20
+0.83%+61.75
03/03/2009 2:11 PM ET
Get Quotes My Portfolios »
TIPS & SUGGESTIONS
Talk to Green Inc.
Got a hot tip on breaking green news, or a suggestion for areas of coverage? Email us directly at [e-mail].
Green Inc. Staff
Tom Zeller Jr.
Editor
After a year as an editor at large for National Geographic magazine, Tom returned to The New York Times in July 2008 to help expand the paper's coverage of sustainable energy development and green business. He has spent much of the last decade as a reporter and editor covering a variety of topics for The Times – from technology and cyberfraud to culture and politics.
Posts | Profile

Kate Galbraith
Reporter
Ms. Galbraith joined The New York Times in June 2008 to write about renewable energy. She spent the previous year as a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, and before that she was the Southwest correspondent for The Economist based in Austin, Tex. She is an avid runner and hiker, having grown up camping most summers in the Sierra Nevada.
Posts | Profile

James Kanter
Reporter
Mr. Kanter has been a staff correspondent for The International Herald Tribune in Paris and Brussels since 2005, covering European business affairs and the business of green. His previous experience includes four years in Southeast Asia, where he was the editor in chief of The Cambodia Daily in Phnom Penh and oversaw coverage of environmental issues like uncontrolled logging.
Posts | Profile

Senior Contributors
Felicity Barringer, San Francisco; Clifford Krauss, Houston; Micheline Maynard, Detroit; Jad Mouawad, New York; Matthew L. Wald, Washington
Other Correspondents
Leora Broydo Vestel, Nick Chambers, Azadeh Ensha, Jared Flesher, Joe Hutsko, John Lorinc, Erik Olsen, Libby Tucker
On the Web: Energy & Environment
Earth2Tech
Tendril Dials Up Cell Phone Energy Tool
AutoblogGreen
Geneva 2009: Clever EDAG "Light Car Open-Source" is like safety television for tailgaters
greenthinkers.org
BPA-Free: Aladdin's Recycled Recyclable Tumbler
Mongabay.com news
With landmark agreement by 35 villages, Papua New Guinea creates first nature reserve
News.blog: Apple (CNET News.com)
Nintendo: DSi is no iPod rival
What's This?

Powered by Blogrunner
Latest From Green Inc.
Experiments in District Heating (0 comments)
More Shakeups in the Solar Industry (1 comment)
Carbon Footprint Wars: Brown vs. Sarkozy (1 comment)
Greening the Prison-Industrial Complex (2 comments)
NRG Puts Exelon on Notice (0 comments)
About Green Inc.
How will the pressures of climate change, limited fossil fuel resources and the mainstreaming of "green" consciousness reshape society? Follow the money. From renewable energy policy to carbon markets to dubious eco-advertising, our energy and environment reporters track the high-stakes pursuit of a greener globe.
Email | Twitter | Facebook | RSS | Atom
Blogroll
Blogs
AutoBlog Green Blue Marble Blog Bright Green Blog, Christian Science Monitor Conscious Consuming Cool Green Science, The Nature Conservancy Dominion Energy's E-Conserve Blog Environmental Economics gGadget.org GoodCleanTech Green Business Green Trust Sustainability Groovy Green Joel Makower Los Angeles Times: Greenspace Sustainablog The Inspired Economist The Inspired Economist The Oil Drum Wall Street Journal: Environmental Capital World Changing Consumers
Climate Ark Green-e Greener Choices Grist Jamble Magazine MetroGreen+Business National Geographic Green Guide Solar Buzz The Daily Green Treehugger Institutions
Climate Matters @Columbia DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Star European and Chicago Climate Exchanges European Commission Directorate General for Environment European Federation for Transport and Environment International Energy Agency National Renewable Energy Laboratory United Nations Environment Program United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change US Department of Energy World Meteorlogical Association Jobs
EcoEmploy Green Dream Jobs GreenCareers from Monster GreenJobs from Treehugger Grist Jobs Renewable Energy Jobs News Sources
Alternative Energy Investments Alternative Energy News BBC News: Global Climate Change Climate Biz Climate Change News Digest CNet: Green Tech Consumer Reports: Greener Choices Environmental News Network Green Business News Green: From the Washington Post GreenBiz.com Greentech Media Greenwire Point Carbon Renewable Energy World Yale Environment 360 Organizations
American Wind Energy Association Association for the Study of Peak Oil Carbon Disclosure Project Environmental Defense Friends of the Earth Independent Energy Producers Association Interstate Renewable Energy Council National Biodiesel Board Rocky Mountain Institute Solar Energy Industries Association Sustainable Buildings Industry Council The Pew Center on Global Climate Change The Post Carbon Institute United States Energy Association Feeds
Archive Select Month March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 Ads by Google what's this?

Norfolk Energy Audit
Call Us For Thorough Home Energy Auditing and Save On Utilities.
www.AffordableEnergySolution.com
Domestic Energy Resources
Find out how much oil exists within the United States
EnergyTomorrow.org
Energy Audit Franchise
America's Original and Largest Energy Audit Company
EnergyDoctors.Org


HomeWorld U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times CompanyPrivacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Media Kit Site Map