4 ms·
Isn’t one of the major rationales for allowing this so cheaply for economic uses that it creates jobs and other spinoff economic activity? I can see why the go
by MattGaiser 5y ago
Isn’t one of the major rationales for allowing this so cheaply for economic uses that it creates jobs and other spinoff economic activity?
I can see why the government wouldn’t be pleased if someone did nothing with it.
They expected not only rent payments, but payroll taxes, job creation, etc.
- sp332 5y agoSure, but the alternative here is also pretty good. Conserving the land and not putting more oil on the market is also an outcome worth subsidising.
- Spivak 5y agoI mean if you're an environmentalist of course you would think that -- I think that. But it's a little naive to think anyone else really cares when it's that or cheaper gas and employment.
- hunterb123 5y agoIt depends, for example the Ducks Unlimited organization restores and saves a lot of marsh land that may be used for development but generally an oil/gas company wouldn't find the land very useful.
- MattGaiser 5y agoExcept the government is interested in renewables out competing oil, not starving the market of energy before the world transitions. The latter leads to higher prices and discontent.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Spivak 5y agoYeah, the subtext here is that BLM isn't really selling the land for any purpose but allowing extraction if you want. They're selling the land specifically for someone to start drilling. There's not really a good way around this because even if there it was ruled that BLM couldn't refuse the lease next time they would just change the lease terms to be really really expensive, far more than conservationist movements could afford, and then offer a rebate once extraction began.