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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (71807)	6/12/2008 11:17:31 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542147

Every time? Certainly not. There is a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done in each situation. I disagree both with those who would drill everywhere and those who would put everything new off limits. Personally, the fact that there is $1.3 trillion in oil sitting on a few thousand acres now puts it on drilling side of the analysis. If this oil was at the bottom of the Grand Canyon or in the Everglades, I would still be on the no-drill side of the equation. Every situation is different. Honestly, with that much money at stake, I think you could craft a proposal that would make everybody happy. For example, you could create a carbon tax that was revenue neutral due to the offsetting oil revenue. Sure, the caribou might suffer, but the rest of the planet would be better off. Sounds like a decent trade to me. let's take away some of the benefits already given to big oil. Sign me up. I would never support a windfall tax, but the current subsidies are ludicrous....and that is true both for oil and farming. Slacker