“Aspirational” may be an overly-generous term for describing the new New Mexico Land Office logo being put out by Stephanie Garcia-Richard’s office which fails to include a single image relating to the oil and gas industry.
Considering that (as seen below) more than 93% of New Mexico’s State Land Office revenues are derived from oil & gas (as opposed to less than 0.01% from wind and other “renewables” it is a glaring omission to say the least. Of course, this is the first avowedly anti-oil and gas Land Commissioner in New Mexico history….
You can compare the new logo with the previous Commissioner’s.
8 Replies to “New Mexico’s Laughable New Land Office Logo”
This logo is ridiculous. NM is totally dependent on a thriving oil and gas industry to pay our bills and our new “pin-head” commissioner decides to highlight wind energy on our state logo.
She’s obviously never even operated a lemonade stand or met a payroll.
God save us.
By law income from State lands, administered by the State Land Office (SLO) is directed primarily to schools. I was told by a senior SLO staff member that the largest source of of that income is the oil & gas industry; next is ranching; then commercial leases.
Observing the new SLO logo and the loud and clear message it sends, perhaps the new Commissioner can participate in an upcoming advanced Pre-K class for 4 year-olds to learn enough math to understand all “green” energy income probably wouldn’t pay for anything more than Pre-K and kindergarden.
Seriously? You have nothing better to write about?
How much revenue will New Mexico lose because the image of a big oily-faced resource-sucker is not on the Land Office logo? Any estimates? Best guess: None.
Cheers to the Garcia Richard and the green gang for aspiring to something that is a bit more helpful than playground name-calling and ridiculous appeals to some unseen force that floats above the CO2 soup we once called an atmosphere. The kids won’t learn, certainly, when they can’t breathe.
You make no sense here. Kids can’t breathe? Are you talking about 1840’s London?
Not sure if any of this will make sense either, but give it a try, amigo.
I just don’t see it, sorry. Lots of doom and gloomers over the years predicting the end of the world. There may be challenges to overcome, but we’ll muddle through. Even if we had a much clearer agreement on this issue, I don’t think we could actually stop the release of massive amounts of carbon if we wanted to with China and India demanding modern life.
Do you support nuclear energy? Even a rapid deployment won’t get us there in a decade, but it is at least possible to make a dent unlike wind and solar.