<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.0.0 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:07:10 GMT--><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rss="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"><rss:channel rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/"><rss:title>Local Energy News</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/</rss:link><rss:description></rss:description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><dc:date>2008-10-11T17:07:10Z</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.squarespace.com/">Squarespace Site Server v5.0.0 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</admin:generatorAgent><rss:items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/pnm-stock-tumbles-7-percent-in-one-day.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/electricity-for-santa-fes-water-supply.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/creating-local-energy-markets.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/25/pnm-wants-a-rate-increaseagain.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/25/oil-and-gas-industry-damaged-by-hurricane-ike.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/ike-and-the-oil-rigs.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/expect-record-high-heating-bills-this-winter.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/as-natural-gas-declines-drilling-rises.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/waiting-for-hurricane-ike.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/5/drilling-offshore-in-the-age-of-hurricanes.html"/></rdf:Seq></rss:items></rss:channel><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/pnm-stock-tumbles-7-percent-in-one-day.html"><rss:title>PNM Stock Tumbles 7 Percent in One Day</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/pnm-stock-tumbles-7-percent-in-one-day.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-10-03T06:52:25Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Electricity</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-left"><span><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/images/headers/crash.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1223016801710"></span></span>Shares of PNM Resources, the holding company that owns the subsidiary that provides electricity to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, <a href="http://www.thestreet.com/quote/PNM.html">tumbled </a>more than 7 percent today to close at just $9.63 per share. A number of electric utilities are taking a bath on Wall Street, in part due to their heavy reliance on credit markets that are now “clogged” because of “troubled assets”. But PNM’s stock has been falling for a year and a half, and has lost 70 percent of its value since its high of $32.55 just 18 months ago. The company is also undergoing an <a href="http://www.daily-times.com/news/ci_10604092">investigation </a>by the New Mexico Environment Department after a reported release of fly-ash at the San Juan Generating Station in Waterflow.<br><br>Although the falling stock price is undoubtedly hurting some New Mexico residents who invested in PNM Resources, the bulk of the <span>stock is held </span>by global investment funds. The largest voting stake is held by Bill Gates, who owns about 9 percent of the company. Other funds, including the trillion-dollar Barclays Global, have smaller stakes. Investment funds have a singular purpose, which is to make piles of money into larger piles of money, and they seemed to be pretty good at it – at least until recently.<br><br>The meltdown on Wall Street will increase the cost of capital for the $1.3 billion in projects that PNM is planning over the next five years. Those higher costs will flow through to ratepayers, while PNM will reap a guaranteed 10.1 percent return on the investment. As a first step in paying for the projects, PNM <a href="http://www.abqjournal.com/news/appnm09-22-08.htm">filed for a rate increase</a> of $123 million, to take effect next year, which would raise rates by 18 percent. Residential customers would see an increase in their bills of about 23.5 percent. These increases will be on top of this year’s two rate increases: PNM was awarded a $33 million increase in April, and in May they were given the right to raise rates as needed, without public hearings, to cover increases in their fuel costs. This allowance is expected to cost ratepayers an additional $62 million a year.<br><br>Could it be time to consider an alternative energy supply for Santa Fe?<br></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/electricity-for-santa-fes-water-supply.html"><rss:title>Electricity for Santa Fe’s Water Supply</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/electricity-for-santa-fes-water-supply.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-10-03T06:47:35Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Electricity</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-left"><span><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/images/headers/water.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1223016735344"></span></span>Santa Fe recently <a href="http://www.santafenewmexican.com/SantaFeNorthernNM/Buckman-Direct-Diversion-Project-will-boost-power-demand">announced </a>their intention to award PNM a contract for the 27 million kilowatt-hours of electricity needed per year to pump drinking water from the planned Buckman Direct Diversion to Santa Fe. Were the operating cost estimates for this system calculated using last years electricity price, this years price, or next years? What escalation rate for electricity prices was used in the forward projection of costs? Based on the recent and proposed rate hikes, an increase of 17.5 percent per year may be reasonable. Will the proposed 9.5 percent per year increase in water rates be enough to cover that?<br><br>Norm Guame, the City’s consultant on the project, said that alternatives to awarding PNM the electricity contract were unfeasible, risky, and uncertain.</p><p> Does is seem odd that our least risky alternative is to entrust our drinking water supply to a company with a plummeting stock price, that is owned by global investment firms, that has raised rates by 17 percent this year and is seeking another 18 percent hike next year, and that is under investigation by the State Environment Department?<br><br>Could it be time to consider an alternative energy supply for Santa Fe?<br></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/creating-local-energy-markets.html"><rss:title>Creating Local Energy Markets</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/10/3/creating-local-energy-markets.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-10-03T03:35:09Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Economics Commentary</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-left"><span><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/images/headers/Sardella_KUNM.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1223004974021"></span></span><em><strong>This commentary aired October 1, 2008 on KUNM.</strong></em><br></p><p><em><strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.localenergy.org/media/Podcasts/2008_10_01_Power-of-Markets.mp3">Listen to Commentary</a> </strong></em>(Quicktime, 3.5Mb)</p><p>One of the greatest myths of our time is that renewable energy isn’t quite ready to compete with so-called “conventional” sources of energy. More research is needed, we are told, because renewables are still too expensive. So onward we march, powering our homes with coal and filling our gas tanks with imported go-juice, all the while shipping bagfuls of cash out of our communities to pay for it.<br><br>There is a lot of evidence that this myth about renewable energy is false. Many countries smaller than ours are installing renewables faster than we are, creating jobs and increasing their self-reliance while lessening their environmental footprint. So, why does the myth still play so well in the United States?<br><br>One reason is that the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear companies here are actively engaged in energy policymaking, and they repeatedly tell the myth to lawmakers at all levels of government. Using carefully crafted messages backed by well-funded research, they tell the same story again and again: We wish we could...we look forward to the day when we can...but right now, we just can’t.<br><br>The key to telling a lie is delivering it alongside the truth. And it is, in fact, true that we haven’t figured out how to turn bloated, investor-owned monopolies and their overpaid executives into agents of community sustainability. If that were the plan, renewable energy would never be ready.<br><br>There is, on the other hand, a way to roll out renewables right now that would stabilize energy prices, create good jobs, retain energy-dollars in the local community, and provide secure and sustainable energy for the long term. It isn’t being proposed by either of the major party candidates for president, who instead keep insisting that renewables aren’t enough, and that we need to develop nuclear power as well as some strange substance they are calling “clean coal”.<br><br>No, it turns out that renewables can serve all of our needs, and the transition can happen quickly if we would just provide one thing that’s missing: a market. If we set up a market whereby independent energy suppliers could trade with independent energy consumers, we’d be all done.<br><br>Now, there have already been many attempts to create local markets for energy, but nearly all of them have been shut down by incumbent energy suppliers. I know this one guy who was trying to sell high-efficiency cogeneration systems, until one day he discovered that the utility was offering cut-rate electricity to his prospective customers in exchange for an agreement that they don’t buy one of his systems. He sued the utility, but as soon as the utility realized they were going to lose the case, they settled out of court. Did the utility retreat in shame, and amend their practices? Hardly! Instead, they drafted a law making what they were doing legal, and persuaded their state legislature to enact the law. Now, whenever a customer even thinks about putting in a clean, efficient, on-site system to generate their own power, utilities can offer something called a “load-retention rate” to entice them not to do it. That’s just one of their tricks – the list is long.<br><br>If lawmakers and regulators are unwilling to keep incumbent energy suppliers from obstructing the market for local, independent renewable energy, we’ll need to create this new market ourselves. All we need to do is organize all the energy consumers who already want to buy clean, locally generated power and heat, and form alliances with the local, independent energy producers. The only hard part will be fighting against an enormous, entrenched opposition of dirty energy suppliers, but in reality, we have all the power we need to pull this off.<br><br>Because next year, as we set out to spend another two-trillion dollars meeting our energy needs, we can simply decide to give the money to independent energy companies right here in our community.</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/25/pnm-wants-a-rate-increaseagain.html"><rss:title>PNM Wants a Rate Increase...Again</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/25/pnm-wants-a-rate-increaseagain.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-09-25T20:45:15Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Electricity</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-left"><span><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/images/headers/grid.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1222375662288"></span></span>Now that the 5-year moratorium on increasing electricity rates has ended, PNM has filed for one rate increase after the next. The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) approved a $33 million rate increase for PNM in April – then <a target="_blank" href="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/6/19/albuquerque-asks-for-reconsideration-of-pnm-rate-case.html">tripled the award </a>to around $100 million after PNM protested that the increase was too small. This week, the utility filed a request for <a target="_blank" href="http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1565394/pnm_wants_18_hike/">another $123 million</a> on top of that, which will raise residential electricity bills by another 23.5 percent next year if approved.<br><br>In addition to the rate increases granted by the PRC, PNM was awarded the right to <a target="_blank" href="http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/299213opinion04-09-08.htm">raise its rates as needed</a> to cover increases in their fuel costs.<br><br>Ratepayers should not only expect PNM’s new rate request to be granted, they should expect similar rate increases every year for awhile as PNM works to recover the $1.3 billion it plans to spend on its system over then next five years.<br></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/25/oil-and-gas-industry-damaged-by-hurricane-ike.html"><rss:title>Oil and Gas Industry Damaged by Hurricane Ike</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/25/oil-and-gas-industry-damaged-by-hurricane-ike.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-09-25T20:24:14Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Oil Natural Gas</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-left"><span><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/images/headers/Damaged_Rig.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1222375188556"></span></span>Reports of damage caused by Hurricane Ike to oil and gas infrastructure are still coming in, but so far the <span>U.S. Minerals Management Service</span> is <a target="_blank" href="http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/hurricane/2008/ike.html">reporting </a>that 52 offshore oil and gas platforms were totally destroyed and another 62 were badly damaged. Most of the 3800 offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are still shut down – oil production is currently <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/news/hurricane-damage-leaves-us-oil-and-gas-levels-low/20017574432.htm">operating at 38 percent of its normal level</a>, and natural gas is operating at 43 percent of normal. Six gas transmission pipelines were reportedly damaged, but reports of damage to underwater oil pipelines are not yet available.<br><br>Ten <a target="_blank" href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/6007773.html">oil spills have been reported</a> so far – three on land and seven in the water. The land-based spills, reported by the company that lost the oil, were said to have totaled more than 1000 barrels. No estimates were given for the seven spills in the water.<br><br>Damage caused by the storm is adversely affecting natural gas prices, with wholesale natural gas prices <a target="_blank" href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp">up 18 to 28 percent</a> over the past week in the region hit by the storm.</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/ike-and-the-oil-rigs.html"><rss:title>Ike and the Oil Rigs</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/ike-and-the-oil-rigs.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-09-11T22:20:06Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Oil Natural Gas</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-left"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fheaders%2FIke_and_Oil_Platforms.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1221171818277',355,600);"><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/thumbnails/2005160-1907963-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1221171818285"></a></span></span>Hurricane trackers at the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/index.shtml">National Hurricane Center </a>continue to update the path of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day#contents">Hurricane Ike</a>, which now looks as if it will graze the area of the Gulf that has the densest concentration of oil and gas platforms. Click the thumbnail to see the path of the storm overlaid on a map of oil platforms.</p><p>Ike is still a category 2 hurricane with winds of 100 mph, but is expected to strengthen into a "major" category 3 hurricane before making landfall at around midnight Friday (tomorrow).</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/expect-record-high-heating-bills-this-winter.html"><rss:title>Expect Record-High Heating Bills This Winter</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/expect-record-high-heating-bills-this-winter.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-09-11T06:20:20Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Natural Gas</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-left"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fheaders%2Fnatgasprice.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1221114085560',663,913);"><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/thumbnails/2005160-1905576-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1221114088148"></a></span></span>Heating a home in Santa Fe with natural gas this winter will be more expensive than ever before, according to the nonprofit <a target="_blank" href="http://www.localenergy.org/">Local Energy</a>. The cost of heat generated by a typical natural gas furnace, including tax, is expected to be $16.35 per MMBTU, which is about 16 percent higher than last year. Don’t expect that record to last, however. For the past ten years, the cost of heating with natural gas in Santa Fe has been rising at an average rate of nearly 14 percent per year.<br><br></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/as-natural-gas-declines-drilling-rises.html"><rss:title>As Natural Gas Declines, Drilling Rises</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/as-natural-gas-declines-drilling-rises.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-09-11T06:16:26Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Natural Gas</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-left"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fheaders%2Fnatgas_drilling.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1221113860857',679,960);"><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/thumbnails/2005160-1905575-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1221113860868"></a></span></span>New gas wells just aren’t what they used to be. Even after drilling more than 300,000 new natural gas wells over the last 35 years, the U.S. produces less natural gas now than it did back in 1973. Putting more holes in the ground doesn’t make more gas – in fact, quite the opposite. Just ten years ago, the U.S. was drilling about 11,000 new wells per year to maintain a production rate of 20 Quads of gas per year – a rate that hasn’t changed in more than thirty years. Today, drillers must complete three times that many wells to produce the same amount of gas.<br><br>Despite the furious pace of drilling, the amount of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/ngs/ngs.html">natural gas in storage</a> for winter is about 5 percent lower than it was at this time last year, according to the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">Energy Information Administration</a>. If the injection season finishes poorly, or drilling platforms and pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico sustain a big hit from <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day#contents">Hurricane Ike</a> this weekend, the price of natural gas could skyrocket this winter <a href="http://www.localenergy.org/pdfs/Document%20Library/LE%20Natural%20Gas%20Prices%20Will%20Climb.pdf">the way it did back in 2001</a>. The difference this time is that our ability to respond with increased drilling is limited.</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/waiting-for-hurricane-ike.html"><rss:title>Waiting for Hurricane Ike</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/11/waiting-for-hurricane-ike.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-09-11T06:12:09Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Natural Gas</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-left"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fheaders%2FIke.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1221113970044',480,720);"><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/thumbnails/2005160-1905562-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1221113970052"></a></span></span>Forecasters at the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/index.shtml">National Hurricane Center </a>continue to update the projected path of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?5day#contents">Hurricane Ike</a>, and now it looks as if it may pass directly through the heart of the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cruisebruise.com/gulf_of_mexico_oil_platorms.jpg">Gulf of Mexico’s oil and gas rigs</a>. Ike is a giant, slow-moving storm with hurricane-force winds extending outward up to 115 miles from its center. Currently a category two storm with 100 mph winds, it is expected to strengthen before making landfall in Texas late Friday night.<br><br>About two-thirds of the natural gas production in the Gulf <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aOc.mUzpiuHk&amp;refer=home">remains shut</a> since last week, when <span>Hurricane Gustav</span> passed through. <br><br>
</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/5/drilling-offshore-in-the-age-of-hurricanes.html"><rss:title>Drilling Offshore in the Age of Hurricanes</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/9/5/drilling-offshore-in-the-age-of-hurricanes.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Mark Sardella</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-09-05T05:20:03Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Commentary</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: yui-tmp;"><span class="full-image-float-left"><span><img  src="http://www.localenergynews.org/storage/images/headers/Sardella_KUNM.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1220592165746"></span></span><strong><em>This commentary aired September 2, 2008 on KUNM.</em></strong><a target="_blank" href="http://kunm.org/news/audio/090308SARDELLACOMMENTARYOFFSHORE.mp3"><span tag="a" class="-a"><em><span style="font-family: yui-tmp;"><br></span></em></span></a></p><p style="font-family: yui-tmp;"><a target="_blank" href="http://kunm.org/news/audio/090308SARDELLACOMMENTARYOFFSHORE.mp3"><span tag="a" class="-a"><strong><em><span style="font-family: yui-tmp;">Listen to Commentary</span></em></strong><br></span></a></p><p>There’s nothing quite like a hurricane bearing down on the world’s largest collection of oil and gas rigs to remind you just how bad an idea it is to drill offshore. Now, I know Hurricane Gustav was no Katrina or Rita, the pair that delivered the one-two punch to the Gulf in 2005, opening up 600 separate oil spills and dumping 750,000 gallons of crude oil into a fragile, coastal waterway. What’s that? You didn’t hear Katrina and Rita left behind one of the worst environmental disasters of all time? Well, a lot of news outlets reported that not a drop of oil was spilled, and Presidential candidate John McCain recently repeated this myth when he cited those two hurricanes as evidence that it’s now “safe” to drill offshore.<br><br>Even Barack Obama, in his acceptance speech last week, said that we need to do more drilling offshore. At least he called it a “stop-gap measure”, and boy, is it ever. We are already drilling fifty thousand new oil and gas wells a year in the United States, and the amount of oil and gas we produce STILL declines every year. We can’t possibly put holes in the ground fast enough to increase our domestic production of oil and gas. Every new well we drill simply offsets declining production from the other wells. Ten years ago we were offsetting those declines with about 15,000 new wells a year. Now it’s 50,000, and ten years from now, if you follow the trend, we’ll need 150,000 new wells a year. It’s like running on a treadmill...you can’t possibly win.<br><br>Perhaps the greatest reason of all for not expanding our drilling efforts in the United States is that scientists have discovered a clear link between the rate at which we un-earth carbon-based fuels and the rate at which our climate is destabilizing. Here again, there’s been a lot of confusion about this. From all the reports, you’d think climate change was caused by not having enough air in your tires, or using the wrong kind of light bulbs. But it’s not. Climate change doesn’t care how efficiently we use energy, or what we decide to do with it. The only thing that matters is how fast you dig up the buried carbon resources and release them into the atmosphere.<br><br>With this in mind, how can we say we are serious about addressing our climate problem while we push for more drilling? Instead of lamenting the fact that our domestic oil and gas reserves are depleting, shouldn’t we celebrate it? Are we finally getting a look at the end of oil, when we stop unearthing the carbon that is destabilizing our planet? I’m ecstatic!<br><br>Now, I’m fully aware of all the dire predictions about how our country would come apart if we stop buying energy from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear companies. But seriously, if we took the two-trillion dollars we will give them this year and instead built a public infrastructure to harness and distribute renewable energy, would everyone have enough? <br><br>Isn’t it possible that the assertion that nothing else is feasible, that we have to keep handing two-trillion dollars a year to the companies that make dirty energy based on non-renewable, planet-killing fuels, is false?<br><br>To fix our climate, we need to start leaving carbon-based fuels in the ground. I say we set them aside, declaring them “protected wilderness areas”. The legislation for doing that is already in place – we do it all the time. You just say, “This area must be left untouched so that our children can have a decent future,” and your all done.<br><br>Now, if you still feel like you need more reasons to not drill offshore, check out the National Hurricane Center website. There are three reasons right on the home page, and their names are Hanna, Ike, and Josephine, and they’re headed for our shores.<br></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item></rdf:RDF>