44% of PROFITS, not gross income.

Which means that even if companies were actually charged for the mess they made, they would be operating in the black AND their profits would still be 66% of normal.

So, they'd still be wildly profitable, then?

Huh.

Huh that's very reasonable actually. Generous even. Now let's see what they can pay workers.

So, 44% of their profits are in fact 100% of our futures? That money didn't come from nowhere. All of us will pay that debt. Reporting needs to start reflecting that, and legislation needs to be enacted to get restitution. Until then, it's all toothless.

So what are we waiting for? Fuck em

Oh no not 44% of profits! Won't somebody please think of the margins!

Sounds like a win win

Boo fuckin' hoo. Pay up, shitbags.

So 44% of corporate profits are subsidized by the fact they don’t have to pay for waste disposal.

Oh no, not 44% of the extra money that goes into the pockets of already obscenely wealthy people

So in other words, they can afford to pay damages for it. Make them pay!

Narrator: ... and so they never did and also got away with it.

Oh shit what will I do if a couple ceos don't get paid hundreds of millions of dollars?? Won't someone think of the billionaires and their profit margins???

Lol every single cent of profit above 250 million should be taken from them and that's being generous

Even with the fine, their huge profits hardly change. This shows that the penalty isn't enough to discourage pollution. Stronger actions are necessary to make companies responsible.

And what if everyone were honest about what these "damages" should be?

Even this fantasy scenario of consequences is an incredibly low-balled Cost of Doing Business of murder.

So it means we could start saving the world if corporations let go of less than half of their profits?

Fossil fuels are the main actors in this. Corporations can only use the energy we provide them with.

Fossil fuel producers will never pay damages for climate change due to political donations. You may get the odd instance now and again, where there is selective scapegoating and that will be that. The tobacco industry (AFAIK) has never paid for the damages they have caused. They poured billions into politics and offset the argument against them for decades. Fossil fuel companies are doing exactly the same thing.

So rather than finger point towards specific actors, we should be sorting our political systems out. Political donations need to be banned. Campaigns should only be allowed to run through a single channel that is funded by the country. All other types of political advertising should be stopped. It is well known that the most successful campaigns have a price tag attached. Therefore it is easy to buy votes with campaigns. Moreso in a FPTP system. While we allow political donations we will never stop egregious profiteering without consequences.

They would still be insanely wealthy, even with 44% less profit.

Yes please!

It's one of the things that infuriates me when I hear refusals to address climate change: the "business as usual" way of doing things entails externalising countless costs, meaning comparing costs is an apples-and-oranges endeavour.

It's called internalizing the externalities, and desperately needs to happen.

Who gets paid the damages? Countries that will just keep subsidising these industries to the detriment of everyone?

Corporate pollution and your pollution are the same thing

Good.

I haven't read the article, but it sounds fair that they should pay for it. Fuck em.

But don't forget, the climate crisis is a hoax, but if it isn't then it's your fault for not recycling hard enough

Here's a simple idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle

Speaking from experience, it can also make teens more responsible with alcohol if they know who will have to clean up in case of overdoing.