• catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

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

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 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.

  • robocall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 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.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.eeBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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!

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 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?