3 ms·
Agreed. At this point I'm more inclined to follow the "seize their assets and jail their leaders" doctrine rather than a "let them continue to profit" one.
by nickserv 7y ago
Agreed. At this point I'm more inclined to follow the "seize their assets and jail their leaders" doctrine rather than a "let them continue to profit" one.
- PeterStuer 7y agoI'd suggest, if you go that route, just revoking their drilling licence. I find it highly unlikely as current governments, with few exceptions, seem hell bent on extracting even more, even if that means using grotesqly environmental destructive practices such as fracking.
- coliveira 7y agoCorrect, we need to largely regulate these companies out of existence.
- parasubvert 7y agoWhat country would ever vote for such a policy? It is immensely impractical. This level of radicalism is how you get right wing populists who will rather happily jail the environmental radicals. Most of the world continues to rely on fossil fuel for the essentials of life. Change that before throwing execs in jail.
- thrower123 7y agoThis is moronic. Unless we are going to massively step up building of nuclear plants, you cannot eliminate fossil fuel usage, for transport, for heat, and most of all electricity. Renewables don't cut it. That would just be suicidal.
- jpttsn 7y agoBet your jail runs on oil.