<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Library</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.secureourfuels.com/research/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.secureourfuels.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:43:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CEA joins Environment Minister of Alberta, Consumer Groups and Policy Experts for Boston Forum on LCFS &#171; Secure Our Fuels</title>
		<link>http://www.secureourfuels.com/research/comment-page-1/#comment-263</link>
		<dc:creator>CEA joins Environment Minister of Alberta, Consumer Groups and Policy Experts for Boston Forum on LCFS &#171; Secure Our Fuels</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fuel.njidev.com/?page_id=3#comment-263</guid>
		<description>[...] Following the myriad of concerns highlighted by the LCFS forum panelists, Northeasterners can only hope that the 11 governors from Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States currently considering an LCFS don’t follow the Golden State’s model. After seeing the potential economic harm that California may suffer through if they continue on their path implementing A.B. 32 and the law’s LCFS provisions, states would clearly be wiser to say no to the prescription laid out by an LCFS—higher fuel costs and increased imports from unstable regions of the world. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Following the myriad of concerns highlighted by the LCFS forum panelists, Northeasterners can only hope that the 11 governors from Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States currently considering an LCFS don’t follow the Golden State’s model. After seeing the potential economic harm that California may suffer through if they continue on their path implementing A.B. 32 and the law’s LCFS provisions, states would clearly be wiser to say no to the prescription laid out by an LCFS—higher fuel costs and increased imports from unstable regions of the world. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Playa Del Carmen &#171; Secure Our Fuels</title>
		<link>http://www.secureourfuels.com/research/comment-page-1/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Playa Del Carmen &#171; Secure Our Fuels</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fuel.njidev.com/?page_id=3#comment-73</guid>
		<description>[...] it will be incumbent upon our policy-makers to take a close look at the work that Mr. Difiglio and other credible sources have done in this area, and decide whether the stated goals of an LCFS align with the actual [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] it will be incumbent upon our policy-makers to take a close look at the work that Mr. Difiglio and other credible sources have done in this area, and decide whether the stated goals of an LCFS align with the actual [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
