<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Oil Tops $100</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.terrarossa.com/index.php/oil-tops-100/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.terrarossa.com/oil-tops-100/</link>
	<description>Where Conservatives Consider a New Energy Future</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Schock</title>
		<link>http://www.terrarossa.com/oil-tops-100/#comment-18261</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Schock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.terrarossa.com/oil-tops-100/#comment-18261</guid>
		<description>Whit,
I completely agree with you on the need to transition from oil, but can we PLEASE stop calling oil inexpensive? The only way oil can qualify for that term is if we don't account for all of the associated costs that come with it. T. Boone Pickens recently said: "the nation's wealth is being plundered by oil exporters and the U.S. faces a potential financial disaster if our energy policy is not reformed." That sounds expensive to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whit,<br />
I completely agree with you on the need to transition from oil, but can we PLEASE stop calling oil inexpensive? The only way oil can qualify for that term is if we don&#8217;t account for all of the associated costs that come with it. T. Boone Pickens recently said: &#8220;the nation&#8217;s wealth is being plundered by oil exporters and the U.S. faces a potential financial disaster if our energy policy is not reformed.&#8221; That sounds expensive to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
