4 ms·

I think they're looking for someone else to foot the bill for that site. The government that caused the incident is no longer around, and Ukraine is left to pic

by tremon 6y ago

I think they're looking for someone else to foot the bill for that site. The government that caused the incident is no longer around, and Ukraine is left to pick up the pieces. Present-day Russia doesn't seem like the type of country that would be happy to pay restitutions (and then to Ukraine, of all states). The site does need to be preserved and maintained, just not because of its cultural value.

mschuster91 6y ago
Personally, I believe the UN should deal with disaster sites of this scale and effects to neighboring countries (presently, that means Chernobyl and Fukushima). Both sites are way too much to handle for the local government (Chernobyl) or the local government just can't be trusted to cut corners (Fukushima, where the Japanese government plans to release the contaminated water into international sea). The problem is: the UN countries can't even be bothered to put up the small sum of money for feeding refugees (delinquent payments and resulting food cuts were the major trigger for the 2015 migration) or for relinquishing patents for COVID-19 vaccines... it will end up in a similarly disastrous state as it already is - and possibly even worse, given the UN's reputation as an useless paper tiger. The obvious fix would be a permanent funding stream for the UN via its own taxes - say, for example, a 0.5% tax on all individual incomes (no matter if from employment or capital gains) of all membership countries. That could fund stuff like handling refugees, fights against pandemics, restructuring after disasters, or peacekeeping interventions without nations dooming operations (cough USA vs WHO) for political "gain".
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  > The obvious fix would be a permanent funding stream for the UN via its own taxes - say, for example, a 0.5% tax on all individual incomes (no matter if from employment or capital gains) of all membership countries I wouldn't appreciate this at all. The UN isn't comprised of elected officials. Many of the members represent authoritarian regimes. I don't want them collecting taxes (and enforcing it) or making decisions for and around my country. The original goal behind the UN's creation was to maintain lines of communication between superpowers during tense periods and to create basic standards like defining basic human rights. I would like that to remain its purpose.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > The original goal behind the UN's creation was to maintain lines of communication between superpowers during tense periods and to create basic standards like defining basic human rights. I would like that to remain its purpose. The problem is: we, as collective humans, now have pressing urgent problems that can only be solved collectively and not on a national level. Climate change as the most obvious elephant in the room, international tax evasion and other issues relating to international mega corporations, erosion of trust in media and science, religious and ethnic extremism sending many countries into conflict, enormous poverty and wealth disparity, countries essentially taken over by criminal gangs - solving these conflicts needs some form of international cooperation. And right now, there is only the UN as some sort of global discussion forum we have. The time for stalling is over, the world needs action.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't even have industries with disaster modes that can't be handled by insurance companies. As it is now, it is just another example of private entities (obviously not in the case of Chernobyl) taking the revenue from good years, while big losses are transferred to the taxpayers.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Fukushima, where the Japanese government plans to release the contaminated water into international sea Been doing that since day one. Don't forget the US' unlined nuclear waste vault on an atoll.

by tremon 6y ago

mschuster91 6y ago

Personally, I believe the UN should deal with disaster sites of this scale and effects to neighboring countries (presently, that means Chernobyl and Fukushima). Both sites are way too much to handle for the local government (Chernobyl) or the local government just can't be trusted to cut corners (Fukushima, where the Japanese government plans to release the contaminated water into international sea). The problem is: the UN countries can't even be bothered to put up the small sum of money for feeding refugees (delinquent payments and resulting food cuts were the major trigger for the 2015 migration) or for relinquishing patents for COVID-19 vaccines... it will end up in a similarly disastrous state as it already is - and possibly even worse, given the UN's reputation as an useless paper tiger. The obvious fix would be a permanent funding stream for the UN via its own taxes - say, for example, a 0.5% tax on all individual incomes (no matter if from employment or capital gains) of all membership countries. That could fund stuff like handling refugees, fights against pandemics, restructuring after disasters, or peacekeeping interventions without nations dooming operations (cough USA vs WHO) for political "gain".

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
> The obvious fix would be a permanent funding stream for the UN via its own taxes - say, for example, a 0.5% tax on all individual incomes (no matter if from employment or capital gains) of all membership countries I wouldn't appreciate this at all. The UN isn't comprised of elected officials. Many of the members represent authoritarian regimes. I don't want them collecting taxes (and enforcing it) or making decisions for and around my country. The original goal behind the UN's creation was to maintain lines of communication between superpowers during tense periods and to create basic standards like defining basic human rights. I would like that to remain its purpose.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > The original goal behind the UN's creation was to maintain lines of communication between superpowers during tense periods and to create basic standards like defining basic human rights. I would like that to remain its purpose. The problem is: we, as collective humans, now have pressing urgent problems that can only be solved collectively and not on a national level. Climate change as the most obvious elephant in the room, international tax evasion and other issues relating to international mega corporations, erosion of trust in media and science, religious and ethnic extremism sending many countries into conflict, enormous poverty and wealth disparity, countries essentially taken over by criminal gangs - solving these conflicts needs some form of international cooperation. And right now, there is only the UN as some sort of global discussion forum we have. The time for stalling is over, the world needs action.
Ma8ee 6y ago
Maybe we shouldn't even have industries with disaster modes that can't be handled by insurance companies. As it is now, it is just another example of private entities (obviously not in the case of Chernobyl) taking the revenue from good years, while big losses are transferred to the taxpayers.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Fukushima, where the Japanese government plans to release the contaminated water into international sea Been doing that since day one. Don't forget the US' unlined nuclear waste vault on an atoll.