4 ms·

We should charge oil companies an extra environmental tax and use it to pay for the cleanup. It should increase the price of oil, something more inline with th

We should charge oil companies an extra environmental tax and use it to pay for the cleanup. It should increase the price of oil, something more inline with the actual cost. The earth is our only home we cannot afford to f—k it up.

smileysteve 8y ago
Instead we have federal maximums and corporate structures that prevent responsibility.
- mbostleman 8y ago
  Not familiar with the details but that's too bad. Taylor Energy should be paying for all of it. And if that makes them insolvent, so be it. I can see maximums to put sanity around things like slip and fall lawsuits putting mom and pop operations out of business, but not something like this.
  - vkou 8y ago
    > slip and fall lawsuits putting mom and pop operations out of business A sufficiently bad slip and fall can put the falling person out of employ-ability. I've had the pleasure of slipping and falling, when a neighbourhood restaurant was cleaning their floors... In near-freezing weather. The soapy water ran out onto the (highly inclined street), and as soon as I stepped on it, I fell flat on my ass. Now, since I'm a healthy twenty-something-year-old, I got up, cursed for a few minutes, and kept going. If I weren't, and were a manual laborer, that one fall could have left me seriously injured, and destitute. I don't care that the perpetrator in question was a mom & pop shop. Negligent behavior can destroy a life.
    - sathackr 8y ago
      I generally watch where I'm walking, particularly on highly inclined streets, and would recognize a soapy water covered slope and know that it might be slippery. Are you saying they should have put up a sign to advise you that the street was wet and might be slippery? And it was their negligence that caused your fall, not your negligence to properly observe your surroundings?
      - vageli 8y ago
        > I generally watch where I'm walking, particularly on highly inclined streets, and would recognize a soapy water covered slope and know that it might be slippery. > Are you saying they should have put up a sign to advise you that the street was wet and might be slippery? And it was their negligence that caused your fall, not your negligence to properly observe your surroundings? Dumping water on a street in freezing weather without a sign is negligent. Would we be having this conversation if a kid slipped and fell in the same place? If you are making a place hazardous, it's generally on you to provide warning and failing to do so is negligent.
        sathackr 8y ago
        Dumping water in the middle of a street in freezing weather is different than your first post in which in near freezing weather, soapy water ran out into the street due to floor cleaning. Regardless, I can't subscribe to that line of thinking in either instance. Every normal person is capable of assessing their environment and plotting a safe course through it. If you tripped over a curb, it wouldn't be the person that put the curb there's fault. You can't expect someone else to make your world safe for you. Your line of thinking is how a thief can sue when he gets injured breaking into your house -- you failed to make it safe for him [1][2] Parents are responsible for the safety of their children, not random shop owners. IANAL but I believe the legal standard that would be applied is reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a person, traversing a highly-inclined street, in freezing weather, to expect the street not to contain any frozen patches of water. My stance is known -- I'm responsible for my and my children's safety, but I concede that your line of reason seems to be prevalent in society today. There is a line of reasonableness that could be cross in which I would blame the other party. Ice on a street in freezing weather could be expected. A land mine would not be expected. Nor would a chunk of ice falling from an airplane. Those are situations in which I could reasonably find fault with another party. [1] http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-11-17/news/0340390083_1_shasta-district-skylights-bodine http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-11-17/news/03403900... [2] https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/ https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-sky...
nightski 8y ago
What's the evidence that would change the behavior of the oil companies? Like you said, it would just be passed on to the consumer as an increase in price. Which may result in a decrease in consumption, true, but in reality I feel like it would just hurt the poor.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  The problem right now is that oil is artificially cheap because its costs are externalized to society at large. If you charged oil companies in line with the social cost of their product, two things would happen: 1. They would try and run cleaner than their competitors to reduce their margins. 2. Whatever costs are passed on to the customer would affect customer behavior, reducing energy usage or making low impact energy more attractive.
- mbostleman 8y ago
  Yea, just another consumption tax, all of which is always paid by the consumer. And since the price doesn't discriminate by an individual consumer's income, it becomes in practice regressive. It would be great here if the individual companies could be better held liable as opposed to an across the board tax.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Consumption taxes are paid by declining demand (due to a price point movement) but in the case of an inelastic good that ends up being forced on the consumer. So in this specific case I think a tax would be a mistake and end up being regressive in practice, but adding a large tax on automobiles might be a good alternative, with the aim of slowly decreasing the demand side and encouraging alternate transportation... Honestly though, the US could just start funding public transit properly so that the alternative isn't so dismal.
  - ghouse 8y ago
    Individual companies will set up bankruptcy remote subsidiaries for each oil platform. Instead, they should be required to purchase insurance. Yes, this will increase the cost to produce where it is most risky. But isn't that the point?
blvirp7 8y ago
How about we just shut them down and seize their assets? There’s virtually no more capacity left for additional CO2 production as it is.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  Who is this "we" that you refer to?
  - blvirp7 8y ago
    We, the people of the world, acting democratically through our governments via legislation, courts, and law enforcement.
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      No need to wait for elections. We can all agree to stop driving gas cars tomorrow.
fredgrott 8y ago
hmm do u really know how eff'd up it is? US Oil gets income subsidies some as great as 95% of income taxes not paid but given tax credits instead..no big Oil in US pays over 5% in income taxes
paulcole 8y ago
> The earth is our only home we cannot afford to f—k it up. IMO this ship has sailed. It’s pretty clear society enjoys cheap stuff quite a bit more than anyone anticipated. The cost of the way we live is insane but we just like it too much. That plus the fact we’ll all be dead in < 100 years and someone else is going to pay the price means that nothing meaningful is going to change.

smileysteve 8y ago

Instead we have federal maximums and corporate structures that prevent responsibility.

mbostleman 8y ago
Not familiar with the details but that's too bad. Taylor Energy should be paying for all of it. And if that makes them insolvent, so be it. I can see maximums to put sanity around things like slip and fall lawsuits putting mom and pop operations out of business, but not something like this.
- vkou 8y ago
  > slip and fall lawsuits putting mom and pop operations out of business A sufficiently bad slip and fall can put the falling person out of employ-ability. I've had the pleasure of slipping and falling, when a neighbourhood restaurant was cleaning their floors... In near-freezing weather. The soapy water ran out onto the (highly inclined street), and as soon as I stepped on it, I fell flat on my ass. Now, since I'm a healthy twenty-something-year-old, I got up, cursed for a few minutes, and kept going. If I weren't, and were a manual laborer, that one fall could have left me seriously injured, and destitute. I don't care that the perpetrator in question was a mom & pop shop. Negligent behavior can destroy a life.
  - sathackr 8y ago
    I generally watch where I'm walking, particularly on highly inclined streets, and would recognize a soapy water covered slope and know that it might be slippery. Are you saying they should have put up a sign to advise you that the street was wet and might be slippery? And it was their negligence that caused your fall, not your negligence to properly observe your surroundings?
    - vageli 8y ago
      > I generally watch where I'm walking, particularly on highly inclined streets, and would recognize a soapy water covered slope and know that it might be slippery. > Are you saying they should have put up a sign to advise you that the street was wet and might be slippery? And it was their negligence that caused your fall, not your negligence to properly observe your surroundings? Dumping water on a street in freezing weather without a sign is negligent. Would we be having this conversation if a kid slipped and fell in the same place? If you are making a place hazardous, it's generally on you to provide warning and failing to do so is negligent.
      - sathackr 8y ago
        Dumping water in the middle of a street in freezing weather is different than your first post in which in near freezing weather, soapy water ran out into the street due to floor cleaning. Regardless, I can't subscribe to that line of thinking in either instance. Every normal person is capable of assessing their environment and plotting a safe course through it. If you tripped over a curb, it wouldn't be the person that put the curb there's fault. You can't expect someone else to make your world safe for you. Your line of thinking is how a thief can sue when he gets injured breaking into your house -- you failed to make it safe for him [1][2] Parents are responsible for the safety of their children, not random shop owners. IANAL but I believe the legal standard that would be applied is reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a person, traversing a highly-inclined street, in freezing weather, to expect the street not to contain any frozen patches of water. My stance is known -- I'm responsible for my and my children's safety, but I concede that your line of reason seems to be prevalent in society today. There is a line of reasonableness that could be cross in which I would blame the other party. Ice on a street in freezing weather could be expected. A land mine would not be expected. Nor would a chunk of ice falling from an airplane. Those are situations in which I could reasonably find fault with another party. [1] http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-11-17/news/0340390083_1_shasta-district-skylights-bodine http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-11-17/news/03403900... [2] https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/ https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-sky...

nightski 8y ago

What's the evidence that would change the behavior of the oil companies? Like you said, it would just be passed on to the consumer as an increase in price. Which may result in a decrease in consumption, true, but in reality I feel like it would just hurt the poor.

village-idiot 8y ago
The problem right now is that oil is artificially cheap because its costs are externalized to society at large. If you charged oil companies in line with the social cost of their product, two things would happen: 1. They would try and run cleaner than their competitors to reduce their margins. 2. Whatever costs are passed on to the customer would affect customer behavior, reducing energy usage or making low impact energy more attractive.
mbostleman 8y ago
Yea, just another consumption tax, all of which is always paid by the consumer. And since the price doesn't discriminate by an individual consumer's income, it becomes in practice regressive. It would be great here if the individual companies could be better held liable as opposed to an across the board tax.
- munk-a 8y ago
  Consumption taxes are paid by declining demand (due to a price point movement) but in the case of an inelastic good that ends up being forced on the consumer. So in this specific case I think a tax would be a mistake and end up being regressive in practice, but adding a large tax on automobiles might be a good alternative, with the aim of slowly decreasing the demand side and encouraging alternate transportation... Honestly though, the US could just start funding public transit properly so that the alternative isn't so dismal.
- ghouse 8y ago
  Individual companies will set up bankruptcy remote subsidiaries for each oil platform. Instead, they should be required to purchase insurance. Yes, this will increase the cost to produce where it is most risky. But isn't that the point?

blvirp7 8y ago

How about we just shut them down and seize their assets? There’s virtually no more capacity left for additional CO2 production as it is.

lamarpye 8y ago
Who is this "we" that you refer to?
- blvirp7 8y ago
  We, the people of the world, acting democratically through our governments via legislation, courts, and law enforcement.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    No need to wait for elections. We can all agree to stop driving gas cars tomorrow.

fredgrott 8y ago

hmm do u really know how eff'd up it is? US Oil gets income subsidies some as great as 95% of income taxes not paid but given tax credits instead..no big Oil in US pays over 5% in income taxes

paulcole 8y ago

> The earth is our only home we cannot afford to f—k it up. IMO this ship has sailed. It’s pretty clear society enjoys cheap stuff quite a bit more than anyone anticipated. The cost of the way we live is insane but we just like it too much. That plus the fact we’ll all be dead in < 100 years and someone else is going to pay the price means that nothing meaningful is going to change.