Not long ago, environmental groups were heralding natural gas as a “bridge fuel to a more climate-friendly energy supply.” Today, New York “progressives” are leading the charge to demonize it as a “bridge to nowhere” — producing “water contamination, air pollution, global warming and fractured communities.” Why the flip-flop?

The New York Times rattled energy markets this week with a Sunday front page story asserting that many "insiders" in the natural gas industry harbor serious doubts about the long-term viability of the natural gas market.

The Times is a great newspaper--the only remaining consistently reliable news outlet in this country, and probably the best in the world. Thankfully it has the integrity to wash its dirty laundry in public. That should make for quality journalism going forward.

The forlorn and increasingly desperate climate campaign achieved a new level of ineptitude last week when what had looked like a minor embarrassment for one of its critics​—​the Chicago-based Heartland Institute​—​turned out to be a full-fledged catastrophe for itself. A moment’s reflection on the root of this episode points to why the climate campaign is out of (greenhouse) gas.

With the shale boom radically altering the energy chessboard, panicked ideologues are resorting to a tired ploy: pitting natural gas against alternative sources as if generating energy is a zero-sum game.

Ethanol is a losing proposition, but fuels from algae may be the path to cutting our dependence on imported oil.

Contrary to popular belief, vastly expanding our use of ethanol fuel would increase food prices, greenhouse gas emissions, and local air and water pollution.

AEI resident scholar Kenneth P. Green's interview on The Reef Tank about his contributions to climate change education.