<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will Obama Go Back to 1984 on Keystone XL?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.nwf.org/2013/03/will-obama-go-back-to-1984-on-keystone-xl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/03/will-obama-go-back-to-1984-on-keystone-xl/</link>
	<description>The National Wildlife Federation&#039;s blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 00:20:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sky Hiatt</title>
		<link>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/03/will-obama-go-back-to-1984-on-keystone-xl/comment-page-1/#comment-18130</link>
		<dc:creator>Sky Hiatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nwf.org/?p=75489#comment-18130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Perfectly happy?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perfectly happy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Shook</title>
		<link>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/03/will-obama-go-back-to-1984-on-keystone-xl/comment-page-1/#comment-17846</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Shook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nwf.org/?p=75489#comment-17846</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t know about anyone else, but I would be perfectly happy with a compromise.  Something in the order of &quot;Build your pipeline with two changes, no more than 15&quot; in diameter, and all of the finished Texas refined product must stay in North America.&quot;  My guess is that the pipeline would never be built with such constraints, yet Obama would have a reasonable compromise to point to.  It would say to Canada that we don&#039;t want to screw them entirely, but that the Tar Sands must not expand.  If the small pipeline does get built, then Canadian environmentalists would be in a much better position to stop any monster pipelines going west or east.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know about anyone else, but I would be perfectly happy with a compromise.  Something in the order of &#8220;Build your pipeline with two changes, no more than 15&#8243; in diameter, and all of the finished Texas refined product must stay in North America.&#8221;  My guess is that the pipeline would never be built with such constraints, yet Obama would have a reasonable compromise to point to.  It would say to Canada that we don&#8217;t want to screw them entirely, but that the Tar Sands must not expand.  If the small pipeline does get built, then Canadian environmentalists would be in a much better position to stop any monster pipelines going west or east.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Weekly News Roundup – March 1, 2013 : Wildlife Promise</title>
		<link>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/03/will-obama-go-back-to-1984-on-keystone-xl/comment-page-1/#comment-17836</link>
		<dc:creator>Weekly News Roundup – March 1, 2013 : Wildlife Promise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nwf.org/?p=75489#comment-17836</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] For more, read our latest blog post on this issue: &#8220;Will Obama Go Back to 1984 on Keystone XL?&#8220; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] For more, read our latest blog post on this issue: &#8220;Will Obama Go Back to 1984 on Keystone XL?&#8220; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
