<?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: Who will be the next American Idle?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.terrarossa.com/index.php/who-will-be-the-next-american-idle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.terrarossa.com/who-will-be-the-next-american-idle/</link>
	<description>Where Conservatives Consider a New Energy Future</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim Davis</title>
		<link>http://www.terrarossa.com/who-will-be-the-next-american-idle/#comment-208</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.terrarossa.com/?p=98#comment-208</guid>
		<description>I agree with the idea of local government exploring the use of renewable fuels.  However I dont believe that conservation is the path toward energy independence.  First, the cost of not idling must be weighed against the cost of idling.  Another problem with conservation is that is drives down the cost of oil which make alternative fuels less competitive and promotes the use of more oil since it is now cheaper.

It seems there are three issues which get keep getting tangled up in the debate, they are global warming, energy independence, and conservation (because we are running out of oil).  We need to decide what we really want and work toward that goal.  To me, this means energy independence since our security as a nation depends on it.  Global warming is a bunch of nonsense so I see no point in spending time and money on that issue.  Conservation just delays the inevitible so whats the point.  This does not mean we should wontonly waste, but to stop idling our engines, drive 55mph, or run out and buy fluorescent light bulbs is really just feel good that does little to get us to energy independence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the idea of local government exploring the use of renewable fuels.  However I dont believe that conservation is the path toward energy independence.  First, the cost of not idling must be weighed against the cost of idling.  Another problem with conservation is that is drives down the cost of oil which make alternative fuels less competitive and promotes the use of more oil since it is now cheaper.</p>
<p>It seems there are three issues which get keep getting tangled up in the debate, they are global warming, energy independence, and conservation (because we are running out of oil).  We need to decide what we really want and work toward that goal.  To me, this means energy independence since our security as a nation depends on it.  Global warming is a bunch of nonsense so I see no point in spending time and money on that issue.  Conservation just delays the inevitible so whats the point.  This does not mean we should wontonly waste, but to stop idling our engines, drive 55mph, or run out and buy fluorescent light bulbs is really just feel good that does little to get us to energy independence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
