2 ms·

They should have to put up a huge, long term, refundable bond that can be drawn on to remediate environmental damage for the next several decades. There are 10

They should have to put up a huge, long term, refundable bond that can be drawn on to remediate environmental damage for the next several decades. There are 100+ year old gold mines in northern Canada that are an environmental problem and the companies (and super wealthy families) that benefited are long gone. We should switch to a model that assumes the rich are externalizing long term costs and collect money from them upfront to pay for those costs.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
That'd cost shareholders potential revenue. There's no chance of any action that isn't prying it from the hands of those in charge of the company's bottom line
- uoaei 4y ago
  So what you're saying is, if we want to protect the environment, giving veto power to shareholders regarding the scope of remediation plans is a bad idea. Consider how many people will be unable to perform valuable (economy-driving) outcomes as a result of the injuries to their bodies and to the lands where they work and play -- surely more opportunity cost borne by the national economy than one company paying out damages and/or getting folded into a nationalized governance and ownership scheme. Investments are risks. Sometimes you gotta take the fall to keep from delegitimizing the entire system on which your sustenance depends.
B4CKlash 4y ago
There actually is precedence to this, albeit not in transportation. If you own a superfund site, the owner or operator of each facility must establish financial assurance for closure of the facility. Many times that assurance comes in the form of a surety bond. Here's a link to a random website that I have no dealings or affiliation -> https://suretybondsagency.com/surety-bonds/contract-bonds/environmental-bonds/ https://suretybondsagency.com/surety-bonds/contract-bonds/en...
aejnsn 4y ago
You just described the entirety of the US coal mining business. The wealthy families who owned these companies have massively benefited, but the state and federal governments are now paying entirely for the reclamation and cleanup of their mine sites. Privatize profits, socialize costs.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago

That'd cost shareholders potential revenue. There's no chance of any action that isn't prying it from the hands of those in charge of the company's bottom line

uoaei 4y ago
So what you're saying is, if we want to protect the environment, giving veto power to shareholders regarding the scope of remediation plans is a bad idea. Consider how many people will be unable to perform valuable (economy-driving) outcomes as a result of the injuries to their bodies and to the lands where they work and play -- surely more opportunity cost borne by the national economy than one company paying out damages and/or getting folded into a nationalized governance and ownership scheme. Investments are risks. Sometimes you gotta take the fall to keep from delegitimizing the entire system on which your sustenance depends.

B4CKlash 4y ago

There actually is precedence to this, albeit not in transportation. If you own a superfund site, the owner or operator of each facility must establish financial assurance for closure of the facility. Many times that assurance comes in the form of a surety bond. Here's a link to a random website that I have no dealings or affiliation -> https://suretybondsagency.com/surety-bonds/contract-bonds/environmental-bonds/ https://suretybondsagency.com/surety-bonds/contract-bonds/en...

aejnsn 4y ago

You just described the entirety of the US coal mining business. The wealthy families who owned these companies have massively benefited, but the state and federal governments are now paying entirely for the reclamation and cleanup of their mine sites. Privatize profits, socialize costs.