this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
149 points (99.3% liked)

News

36909 readers
2613 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 44 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Privatized profits and socialized losses are such bullshit.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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).

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 4 points 2 years ago

Its free market when a corpo fucks you...

That's about it

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Maybe cleanup costs should be baked into the price of a building permit...

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 9 points 2 years ago

So in practice they don't!

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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 13 points 2 years 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 11 points 2 years 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 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Why pay for insurance if you can just buy some politicians? They're pretty cheap.

[–] Corvidae@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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?

[–] Hobbes@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago

Um, seriously fuck that.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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!

[–] YaDownWitCPP@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago

Have you ever seen an American child? 'Cause they thicc.