4 ms·

If you don't force people doing nasty business to pre-pay cleanup costs, they get to keep the profits and socialize the expenses of cleanup to everyone else. T

by ck2 2y ago

If you don't force people doing nasty business to pre-pay cleanup costs, they get to keep the profits and socialize the expenses of cleanup to everyone else. That's why there are hundreds of EPA superfund cleanup sites, no-one has to pay, just bail out of town and keep the profits.

DowagerDave 2y ago
Alberta has an orphaned well program to cover this (more likely the drilling company no longer exists vs. "skipped town") but even with the forethought it still doesn't work.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  because the Jason Kenney & Danielle Smith (aka UCP leadership) decided to let the oil companies off the hook.
- SECProto 2y ago
  The parent comment specifically talked about prepayment of cleanup costs - i.e. taking their money before it's drilled, so that when companies go bankrupt, there is already money set aside to do the cleanup. The Alberta system does not do this.
ProllyInfamous 2y ago
The book Empty Mansions [1] is about the heiress of Montana copper mining interests, Hugette Clark (father is namesake of Nevadah's county). IIRC, she inherited multiple properties and $300m+USD. A quite fascinating view into the insanity of an eccentric ultrawealthy, who lived into the 21st Century at times thread-barren. The unfathomable wealth she squandered on bullshit throughout her mostly-anonymous lifetime of luxury... could have supported hundreds of other 20th century families. As specific example, she maintained a Santa Barbara mansion, for decades, without ever visiting the property. That she was given it all from her father creating a superfund site... probably helps explain much of her reclusiveness [that and loss of sister at a young adult age]. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Mansions-Mysterious-Huguette-Spending/dp/0345534530/ https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Mansions-Mysterious-Huguette-Sp...
- akira2501 2y ago
  > could have supported hundreds of other 20th century families Unless she literally burned the money in a pile in her back yard, then that's what spending does, put the money in other peoples hands. She spent the money on things with no lasting value but she spent the money.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Money, spent, represents using up the labour of others. Spending money on frivolous things is absolutely wasting something: not the money per se, but other people's time and effort.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > Money, spent, represents using up the labour of others. Except the labor is entirely voluntary. The people performing the labor had the option of saying "no." > but other people's time and effort. In exchange for money so nothing was wasted other than the potential value of the money to the spender. Critically the notion that "it _could_ have supported hundreds of families" is wrong. The money obviously _did_ support those families.
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        The families received the benefit of the money, minus the cost of the labour. If they had received just the money, without paying the labour cost, they would've been better off. (Or, they wouldn't have needed as much, meaning the money could have been spread among more families.) I recommend reading The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes. Chapter 10 discusses this in some detail. (While reading, keep in mind that John Maynard Keynes is not correct.)
        akira2501 2y ago
        > minus the cost of the labour. What cost? Labor is time traded for money. If they didn't do this job they would have to do another. > If they had received just the money, without paying the labour cost, they would've been better off. By what metric? Labor must be practiced and the hours of time devoted to it increases ones skill. "Better off" in that they could have done nothing and got money anyways, but if that wasn't a realistic option, then it's pointless to consider it. > I recommend reading The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes Did he ever work for a living?

by ck2 2y ago

DowagerDave 2y ago

Alberta has an orphaned well program to cover this (more likely the drilling company no longer exists vs. "skipped town") but even with the forethought it still doesn't work.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
because the Jason Kenney & Danielle Smith (aka UCP leadership) decided to let the oil companies off the hook.
SECProto 2y ago
The parent comment specifically talked about prepayment of cleanup costs - i.e. taking their money before it's drilled, so that when companies go bankrupt, there is already money set aside to do the cleanup. The Alberta system does not do this.

ProllyInfamous 2y ago

The book Empty Mansions [1] is about the heiress of Montana copper mining interests, Hugette Clark (father is namesake of Nevadah's county). IIRC, she inherited multiple properties and $300m+USD. A quite fascinating view into the insanity of an eccentric ultrawealthy, who lived into the 21st Century at times thread-barren. The unfathomable wealth she squandered on bullshit throughout her mostly-anonymous lifetime of luxury... could have supported hundreds of other 20th century families. As specific example, she maintained a Santa Barbara mansion, for decades, without ever visiting the property. That she was given it all from her father creating a superfund site... probably helps explain much of her reclusiveness [that and loss of sister at a young adult age]. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Mansions-Mysterious-Huguette-Spending/dp/0345534530/ https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Mansions-Mysterious-Huguette-Sp...

akira2501 2y ago
> could have supported hundreds of other 20th century families Unless she literally burned the money in a pile in her back yard, then that's what spending does, put the money in other peoples hands. She spent the money on things with no lasting value but she spent the money.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Money, spent, represents using up the labour of others. Spending money on frivolous things is absolutely wasting something: not the money per se, but other people's time and effort.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > Money, spent, represents using up the labour of others. Except the labor is entirely voluntary. The people performing the labor had the option of saying "no." > but other people's time and effort. In exchange for money so nothing was wasted other than the potential value of the money to the spender. Critically the notion that "it _could_ have supported hundreds of families" is wrong. The money obviously _did_ support those families.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      The families received the benefit of the money, minus the cost of the labour. If they had received just the money, without paying the labour cost, they would've been better off. (Or, they wouldn't have needed as much, meaning the money could have been spread among more families.) I recommend reading The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes. Chapter 10 discusses this in some detail. (While reading, keep in mind that John Maynard Keynes is not correct.)
      - akira2501 2y ago
        > minus the cost of the labour. What cost? Labor is time traded for money. If they didn't do this job they would have to do another. > If they had received just the money, without paying the labour cost, they would've been better off. By what metric? Labor must be practiced and the hours of time devoted to it increases ones skill. "Better off" in that they could have done nothing and got money anyways, but if that wasn't a realistic option, then it's pointless to consider it. > I recommend reading The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes Did he ever work for a living?