Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (49877)	5/17/2004 9:16:03 PM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Splashes in the Pacific destroy a LOT. They don't just provide a one-off good wave for some surfers at La Jolla. Sure they are very damaging on exposed coasts - waves went right over the Sydney Heads in relatively recent time it seems... Raise the sea level by a few metres and they will cause just as much damage as before just further inland compared to the current coast. I agree also that they will be hard to protect against.... but really one isn't connected to the other. Not clear which is easier to defend ourselves against. We should make an effort to do both I think... Taxing oil imports would displace people to using coal, conservation and other ways of life than burning oil, so the net carbon production would reduce, despite a small increase in CO2 from coal burning, plus it would benefit USA producers rather than Saudi terrorists. Well it depends on elasticities, relative carbon coefficients etc..