<?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>Crikey &#187; ACF</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crikey.com.au/topic/acf/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crikey.com.au</link>
	<description>now with extra source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:23:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Tackling climate change: targeted investment vs handouts</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/20/tackling-climate-change-targeted-investment-vs-handouts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/20/tackling-climate-change-targeted-investment-vs-handouts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bernard Keane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emission target]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power plant emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Australian Conservation Foundation report clinches the case for switching the focus of assistance from cash and permit handouts to targeted investment, writes <b>Bernard Keane</b>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/20/tackling-climate-change-targeted-investment-vs-handouts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Push polling! ACF climate survey rigs itself</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/19/push-polling-acf-climate-survey-rigs-itself/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/19/push-polling-acf-climate-survey-rigs-itself/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just because they’re green and they want to save the planet doesn’t mean ACF can get away with push polling, writes <b>Stephen Downes</b>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/19/push-polling-acf-climate-survey-rigs-itself/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Budget loophole on company cars must be closed</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/09/budget-loophole-on-company-cars-must-be-closed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/09/budget-loophole-on-company-cars-must-be-closed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ACF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australian Conservation Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget 08]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics government]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the upcoming budget, it is crucial the Government signals a restructure of the FBT rules for company cars, writes <b>Charles Berger</b>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/09/budget-loophole-on-company-cars-must-be-closed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why should green groups take the leap of faith for Rudd?</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/08/13/why-should-green-groups-take-the-leap-of-faith-for-rudd/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/08/13/why-should-green-groups-take-the-leap-of-faith-for-rudd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal exports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Australia's peak greens are in a hot spot. Labor's climate policy is 
vague and lacking urgency, short-term emissions and renewable energy targets. And it is committed to new coal mines and increasing coal exports. Anxious for a Labor victory, what does a good green do? writes David Spratt.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/08/13/why-should-green-groups-take-the-leap-of-faith-for-rudd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
