149
These are the same companies who got massive tax payer funded subsidies: So much for The Free Market I guess.
Privatized profits and socialized losses are such bullshit.
They sure are, it's almost like the free market is a made up fantasy that does not exist today (if it ever existed at all).
Its free market when a corpo fucks you...
That's about it
Maybe cleanup costs should be baked into the price of a building permit...
Yes. If your work requires environmental cleanup, you should be required to post bond to cover it.
From what I understand often they do. And often the bond isn't anywhere close to the actual costs.
So in practice they don't!
IDK about Texas, but in Alberta there's an Orphan Well fund that every company contributes to as part of their royalties that covers expected cleanup. And that's only bankrupt companies, if a solvent company shuts down a well, they pay to restore the land or the province does it and sues them for it.
It's not even that they "can't" fund their own cleanup. The put down a cleaning deposit before operations begin and just walk away when the cleanup costs more than they originally put down.
I'd say they give the finger while walking but they need their hands to count their profits
"Too big to fail" == "Too big to care".
They know that they can't be held responsible so they literally don't care about the consequences of their actions
If these companies can't afford to pay for insurance to cover their asses, then they're a failed business that shouldn't be allowed to operate.
Why pay for insurance if you can just buy some politicians? They're pretty cheap.
Ultimately, the Carbon Tracker analysts conclude, policymakers must decide between developing new, rigorous alternatives, or sending the bill to taxpayers by default. That will likely involve compelling resource-rich firms to start setting aside savings from their profits now.
Workers have taxes withheld from their paychecks. Seems fair a similar mechanism should exist for oil profits to fund orphaned-well cleanups. But -- we really need to transition away from fossil fuel entirely! Does this create a motive for the government to insure a company or two are profitable enough to subsidize all the poorer companies cleanup costs, therefore motivating increased use of fossil fuels?
I have thought about this for a while now, before any natural resource can be exploited the following needs to be done:
- An environmental restoration fund needs to be set up qith an initial payment and an aditional 2% of the value of the resource exploited anually throughout the life time of the facility, this money of controlled by the government and used to fund environmental restoration once the the facility is closed.
- 10% of the annual value of the resource extracted will go to the local government, and be spent on upkeep and quallity of life for the local citizes, 10% of the annual value of the resource extraxted will go to the country government.
In total that is 22% so the company gets to keep 78%, seems resonable to me.
Um, seriously fuck that.
I'm MUCH Happier with my Tax Dollars going to these companies first to Drill the Wells and then to Clean the Wells. It's a MUCH better use of Tax Dollars then Feeding STARVING AMERICAN CHILDREN!
Have you ever seen an American child? 'Cause they thicc.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
149 points (99.3% liked)
News
23287 readers
1694 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS