5 ms·

This seems like a good law that encourages companies to explore for natural resources. The author of the article seems to think that companies should get enviro

This seems like a good law that encourages companies to explore for natural resources. The author of the article seems to think that companies should get environmental review before they even prospect for resources. I disagree and think that prospecting should be fairly easy for companies, with greater plans needed to actually do the extraction.

ok_dad 3y ago
But they take the minerals for free. Why not make them pay for the resources they’re exploiting? Instead, the American public and native reservations get nothing, except they lose access and use of that land. That should be remunerated somehow.
- mark_up 3y ago
  [dead]
- dogsgobork 3y ago
  I don't think the public gets nothing, we'll also get to fund cleanup and remediation once the mines are no longer profitable.
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    You mean like the 40k+ (HARD ESTIMATE) abandoned mines are have strewn all over the US right now? The ones that pose both environmental and human health dangers every second they exist? I’m glad you’re aware, but I think few people are actually aware of just how much actual bullshit mining companies get away with. They’re basically consequence free by default.
    - landemva 3y ago
      > few people are actually aware of just how much actual bullshit mining companies get away with. They’re basically consequence free by default. Have you worked at a mine in USA in the past four decades? Pollution controls in all industries improve over time. Piston aircraft still use leaded fuel. Humanity is a process of progression and innovation.
- justrealist 3y ago
  Because they are citizens of the country, not sharecroppers. Why should the federal government be in the business of extracting all possible rent? I didn't vote for that. We do, however, have equal protection, and you are welcome to go find those resources for yourself.
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    Nobody alive today “voted” for that, but put it on a ballot and I’m willing to bet a few people would have opinions.
- opportune 3y ago
  There are broadly two places a corporation’s money goes: expenses and profits. Expenses are either paid directly to individuals as income, or to other companies, where the money still ends up as either expenses or profits. There’s also the fact that everything a corporation sells is generally considered valuable enough by someone else to be a good deal at that price, so all the revenue they generate also represents value being provided to their counterparty. In economics there is a thing called deadweight loss, which is the value lost when some kind of policy (like an inefficient tax) distorts the quantity supplied:quantity demanded relationship. When you tax only income and profits, you generally avoid deadweight loss because you shift the taxation to be “after” the supply:demand has already been determined; by allowing for expenses paid to other companies to be deducted, value isn’t taxed twice because ultimately that money always ends up as someone else’s income or profits. If you’re purely interested in more taxes to capture value for the government more efficiently (and not as a vice or pigouvian tax) instituting more taxes introduces double taxation that shifts the tax before the transaction and introduced deadweight loss which lowers overall output and value generated. If you do mean to suggest the tax should be Pigouvian, that kind of already exists. Corporations have to pay a lot of the costs for compliance and remediation. I’m pretty sure to avoid all the issues of the past, companies have to put a bunch of money/assets in escrow so if they fuck up the government doesn’t get stuck with the bill. It is true though that all taxpayers pay for eg the EPA and the fees paid by corporations generally don’t cover the full environment cost; generally this means the externalities of production aren’t being accurately priced and it would be better to shift those externalities into the companies. But those kinds of pigouvian taxes have a major flaw in that we live in a global market economy, so without full international cooperation they just make your local industry uncompetitive and shift production to places with less regulations. Also, even though natural resource extraction generates some profits for private individuals, we generally all benefit from it. So it’s not too bad to tax some of the environmental compliance costs in a non-pigouvian manner.
  - mrmanner 3y ago
    Can royalties put on mineral extraction on public land be considered taxes in this regard, though? If the same minerals were found on privately owned land, the land owner would ask for a piece of the proceeds to allow mining.
- paul_funyun 3y ago
  Exploiting is a weasel word. They're making the useful minerals useable, which benefits the public more than leaving them in the ground. The reservations get what they're entitled to, which is nothing.
  - sidkshatriya 3y ago
    > Exploiting is a weasel word. They're making the useful minerals useable, which benefits the public more than leaving them in the ground. Well put. However, with the additional stipulation that it is sometimes useful to leave minerals in the ground if the company that extracts them does not make an unpaid/ unremediated toxic enviromental mess when extracting them. > The reservations get what they're entitled to, which is nothing. Depends on who "owns" the land. If the land is owned by the federal government then the reseservations aren't technically owed anything. However, was the land taken from the reservations by force in the past ? If so, then 0% share is highly objectionable. Would you like it I came to you, forcibly took away your assets, made profit from them and then claimed that I didn't owe you anything because it wasn't yours anymore ? Now, it is fully possible that these federal lands were virgin in the past so then the the federal government does not owe anything extra to any special group of citizens. TL;DR We must go into the history of the land. Depending on the history of the land, local communities/reservations _may_ deserve a small formal share in the profits of the mining company. In any case, the government must work for the betterment of all its residents and citizens whether in cities, farms or mining areas. Mining areas deserve special care because they house some of the historically most poor and opressed citizens.
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    Another weasel word is “benefits the public”, which completely ignores the very few non-public entities that benefit _much more_ than the public when these resources are mined. No. They can pay and they should pay. Don’t worry: they’ll be fine.
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    The minerals are now useful but the cost is fucking up the land around a uranium mine, which is pretty horrible. For that, they get nothing and should be happy? Get real. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard today.

ok_dad 3y ago

But they take the minerals for free. Why not make them pay for the resources they’re exploiting? Instead, the American public and native reservations get nothing, except they lose access and use of that land. That should be remunerated somehow.

mark_up 3y ago
[dead]
dogsgobork 3y ago
I don't think the public gets nothing, we'll also get to fund cleanup and remediation once the mines are no longer profitable.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  You mean like the 40k+ (HARD ESTIMATE) abandoned mines are have strewn all over the US right now? The ones that pose both environmental and human health dangers every second they exist? I’m glad you’re aware, but I think few people are actually aware of just how much actual bullshit mining companies get away with. They’re basically consequence free by default.
  - landemva 3y ago
    > few people are actually aware of just how much actual bullshit mining companies get away with. They’re basically consequence free by default. Have you worked at a mine in USA in the past four decades? Pollution controls in all industries improve over time. Piston aircraft still use leaded fuel. Humanity is a process of progression and innovation.
justrealist 3y ago
Because they are citizens of the country, not sharecroppers. Why should the federal government be in the business of extracting all possible rent? I didn't vote for that. We do, however, have equal protection, and you are welcome to go find those resources for yourself.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  Nobody alive today “voted” for that, but put it on a ballot and I’m willing to bet a few people would have opinions.
opportune 3y ago
There are broadly two places a corporation’s money goes: expenses and profits. Expenses are either paid directly to individuals as income, or to other companies, where the money still ends up as either expenses or profits. There’s also the fact that everything a corporation sells is generally considered valuable enough by someone else to be a good deal at that price, so all the revenue they generate also represents value being provided to their counterparty. In economics there is a thing called deadweight loss, which is the value lost when some kind of policy (like an inefficient tax) distorts the quantity supplied:quantity demanded relationship. When you tax only income and profits, you generally avoid deadweight loss because you shift the taxation to be “after” the supply:demand has already been determined; by allowing for expenses paid to other companies to be deducted, value isn’t taxed twice because ultimately that money always ends up as someone else’s income or profits. If you’re purely interested in more taxes to capture value for the government more efficiently (and not as a vice or pigouvian tax) instituting more taxes introduces double taxation that shifts the tax before the transaction and introduced deadweight loss which lowers overall output and value generated. If you do mean to suggest the tax should be Pigouvian, that kind of already exists. Corporations have to pay a lot of the costs for compliance and remediation. I’m pretty sure to avoid all the issues of the past, companies have to put a bunch of money/assets in escrow so if they fuck up the government doesn’t get stuck with the bill. It is true though that all taxpayers pay for eg the EPA and the fees paid by corporations generally don’t cover the full environment cost; generally this means the externalities of production aren’t being accurately priced and it would be better to shift those externalities into the companies. But those kinds of pigouvian taxes have a major flaw in that we live in a global market economy, so without full international cooperation they just make your local industry uncompetitive and shift production to places with less regulations. Also, even though natural resource extraction generates some profits for private individuals, we generally all benefit from it. So it’s not too bad to tax some of the environmental compliance costs in a non-pigouvian manner.
- mrmanner 3y ago
  Can royalties put on mineral extraction on public land be considered taxes in this regard, though? If the same minerals were found on privately owned land, the land owner would ask for a piece of the proceeds to allow mining.
paul_funyun 3y ago
Exploiting is a weasel word. They're making the useful minerals useable, which benefits the public more than leaving them in the ground. The reservations get what they're entitled to, which is nothing.
- sidkshatriya 3y ago
  > Exploiting is a weasel word. They're making the useful minerals useable, which benefits the public more than leaving them in the ground. Well put. However, with the additional stipulation that it is sometimes useful to leave minerals in the ground if the company that extracts them does not make an unpaid/ unremediated toxic enviromental mess when extracting them. > The reservations get what they're entitled to, which is nothing. Depends on who "owns" the land. If the land is owned by the federal government then the reseservations aren't technically owed anything. However, was the land taken from the reservations by force in the past ? If so, then 0% share is highly objectionable. Would you like it I came to you, forcibly took away your assets, made profit from them and then claimed that I didn't owe you anything because it wasn't yours anymore ? Now, it is fully possible that these federal lands were virgin in the past so then the the federal government does not owe anything extra to any special group of citizens. TL;DR We must go into the history of the land. Depending on the history of the land, local communities/reservations _may_ deserve a small formal share in the profits of the mining company. In any case, the government must work for the betterment of all its residents and citizens whether in cities, farms or mining areas. Mining areas deserve special care because they house some of the historically most poor and opressed citizens.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  Another weasel word is “benefits the public”, which completely ignores the very few non-public entities that benefit _much more_ than the public when these resources are mined. No. They can pay and they should pay. Don’t worry: they’ll be fine.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  The minerals are now useful but the cost is fucking up the land around a uranium mine, which is pretty horrible. For that, they get nothing and should be happy? Get real. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard today.