• _haha_oh_wow_
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    These are the same companies who got massive tax payer funded subsidies: So much for The Free Market I guess.

      • _haha_oh_wow_
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 months ago

        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).

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes. If your work requires environmental cleanup, you should be required to post bond to cover it.

      • ironhydroxide
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        From what I understand often they do. And often the bond isn’t anywhere close to the actual costs.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    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

  • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    “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

  • robocall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    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?

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I have thought about this for a while now, before any natural resource can be exploited the following needs to be done:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.