<?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>Sightline InstituteFish vs. Coal - Sightline Institute</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.sightline.org/2012/09/19/fish-vs-coal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.sightline.org/2012/09/19/fish-vs-coal/</link>
	<description>News and Views for a Sustainable Northwest</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:54:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>daily</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3</generator>
	
		<item>
		<title>Fish vs. Coal</title>
		<link><![CDATA[https://www.sightline.org/2012/09/19/fish-vs-coal/]]></link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:40:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[The Corps of Engineers blows it. | The Army Corps of Engineers has some explaining to do. They&#8217;ve just announced that, at least for the time being, Ambre Energy&#8217;s proposed coal export terminal on the Columbia River only needs to do an environmental assessment, rather than a full environmental impact statement. Which means, as Scott Learn from The Oregonian writes, that Ambre&#8217;s project &#8220;is staying on the fast track.&#8221; It&#8217;s hard not to think that the Corps is caving...]]></description>
					</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
