<?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: Government Studies, Postage Stamps and the True Cost of the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/07/15/government-studies-postage-stamps-and-the-true-cost-of-the-waxman-markey-energy-tax/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/07/15/government-studies-postage-stamps-and-the-true-cost-of-the-waxman-markey-energy-tax/</link>
	<description>Institute for Energy Research</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:06:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abracadabra Energy Policy: Are the Generating Alternatives to Coal-Fired Electricity Ready for Waxman-Markey Targets? &#171; American Energy Freedom Center</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/07/15/government-studies-postage-stamps-and-the-true-cost-of-the-waxman-markey-energy-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-713</link>
		<dc:creator>Abracadabra Energy Policy: Are the Generating Alternatives to Coal-Fired Electricity Ready for Waxman-Markey Targets? &#171; American Energy Freedom Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/07/15/government-studies-postage-stamps-and-the-true-cost-of-the-waxman-markey-energy-tax/#comment-713</guid>
		<description>[...] the cap and trade section of the bill would only cost $175 a year in 2020, but this claim has been thoroughly debunked. The real question is how much confidence should we have in the modeling assumptions that the CBO [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the cap and trade section of the bill would only cost $175 a year in 2020, but this claim has been thoroughly debunked. The real question is how much confidence should we have in the modeling assumptions that the CBO [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Institute for Energy Research &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Abracadabra Energy Policy: Are the Generating Alternatives to Coal-Fired Electricity Ready for Waxman-Markey Targets?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/07/15/government-studies-postage-stamps-and-the-true-cost-of-the-waxman-markey-energy-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-706</link>
		<dc:creator>Institute for Energy Research &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Abracadabra Energy Policy: Are the Generating Alternatives to Coal-Fired Electricity Ready for Waxman-Markey Targets?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/07/15/government-studies-postage-stamps-and-the-true-cost-of-the-waxman-markey-energy-tax/#comment-706</guid>
		<description>[...] the cap and trade section of the bill would only cost $175 a year in 2020, but this claim has been thoroughly debunked. The real question is how much confidence should we have in the modeling assumptions that the CBO [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the cap and trade section of the bill would only cost $175 a year in 2020, but this claim has been thoroughly debunked. The real question is how much confidence should we have in the modeling assumptions that the CBO [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

