This is just so petty of these huge, extremely wealthy companies. It would cost them a pittance of their wealth to restore disturbed or removed wetlands. Doing so could even give them some “we’re a good neighbor” PR.
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
79 points (100.0% liked)
Climate
8515 readers
422 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They really don't want a precedent of being liable for environmental damage.
Plus they're of the "rather spend a million in court than spend a thousand on environmental mitigation" school of parasites.
US supreme "court". (Their words not mine). They are not a court of law. They just play dressup.
Sink baby sink