Back in February, a new Harvard study found that "when the entire life-cycle of coal is considered -- extraction, transport, processing, and combustion," they add up to a cost to the American people of "roughly US$300 to US$500 billion dollars annually."  Then, in April, we wrote about our interview with Professor Michael Hendryx of West Virginia University, whose research has found that coal mining "is a loser economically, environmentally, and in terms of public health." Now we've got yet another economic analysis coming to the same conclusions.

In spite of all the news media hype and political hot air with regard to the Solyndra story, in fact the rapid growth in clean energy continues unabated, with impressive projections for wind and solar from the  U.S. Energy Information Administration out to 2035:

An AP article by Charles J. Hanley does a tremendous public service by tracing the history of America's "allergy" to global warming. Here's an excerpt, which makes crystal clear why that is the case:

For more information on this graphic, see The Solar Foundation's press release ("National Solar Jobs Census 2011 Finds Solar Companies Hiring Faster Than Rest of Economy"). Also note that between August 2010 and August 2011, while jobs in the U.S. solar sector expanded at a rapid, 6.8% rate, "jobs in the overall economy grew by a mere 0.7 percent, while fossil fuel electric generation lost 2 percent of its workforce." No wonder why the fossil fuel industry sees solar as a threat!

As this article illustrates, the worldwide consensus is growing that fossil fuel subsidies need to go, and that a price on carbon pollution would be an effective way to combat climate change while also accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy.

With all the hot air being spewed around these days regarding the Solyndra situation by anti-clean-energy politicians, you've just got to love stories like this.

Much of the media coverage and political commentary surrounding the Solyndra bankruptcy story would have us believe that this wasn't a specific set of circumstances impacting one specific firm, but that it somehow implies broad problems in the U.S. solar industry.  In reality, as Stephen Lacey of Climate Progress explains, nothing could be further from the truth.

As the U.S. government nears a decision on whether or not to give the green light to the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline - and the dirty, destructive, greenhouse gas-spewing tar sands that will move through the pipeline from Canada south to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast - the forces pushing for the pipeline are accelerating their propaganda efforts. For instance, here's a story on what an astroturf group in Nebraska ("Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence") is up to these days. An excerpt from the group's "push poll" will give you a flavor of the arguments being made in support of the pipeline project: