Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Sep-2023 14:14:10 JST Paul Cantrell

   • Extinction Rebellion Global

   Every pipeline is a time bomb. Even the ones that aren’t actually bombed. But those ones too.

   From @ExtinctionR/:
   https://social.rebellion.global/@ExtinctionR/111134521596544398

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Sep-2023 23:32:21 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     I am a weirdo, I know, but I have this wacky idea that if a company can’t pay the full, true cost of cleaning up the damage from a project (or can’t afford to but insurance against such cost), then they should not undertake that project — and the financial structures surrounding the project should ensure that they do not.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 28-Sep-2023 00:08:01 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     In case I’m being two oblique in the second post: I’m arguing that the company that owns the pipeline in the first post should be on the hook for all the direct and indirect costs of releasing that much methane into the atmosphere, even if it’s not their fault the pipeline was bombed. Simply having built the pipeline created the risk, and thus should be sufficient to create the liability.

   • Embed this notice
     rrdot (rrdot@infosec.exchange)'s status on Thursday, 28-Sep-2023 01:11:09 JST rrdot

     in reply to

     @inthehands

     An end to the externalities.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 28-Sep-2023 01:48:30 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • benjamin melançon

     @mlncn
     An alternative to those escrow accounts as insurance: if the general risk of them is small enough to justify them, even if cleanup costs are fully paid in the case of rear failures, then let insure say so. And if it’s still too expensive, then the project •should• all be killed.

   • Embed this notice
     benjamin melançon (mlncn@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 28-Sep-2023 01:48:32 JST benjamin melançon

     in reply to

     @inthehands

     Of course at any cost commensurate to the risk such an escrow account requirement would kill all these projects.

     But if there were a "big government" commitment to keeping hospitals and colleges open people probably would not miss the environment-destroying industries…

   • Embed this notice
     benjamin melançon (mlncn@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 28-Sep-2023 01:48:33 JST benjamin melançon

     in reply to

     @inthehands

     This is a 'common sense' thing that given our own media and a couple not-too-corrupt politicians would have a ton of legs.

     Like i've met people up by the boundary waters who are pretty conservative and feel they need more mining industry to keep their remaining hospitals and schools open, but also like nature to survive and the tourist economy it brings, who propose themselves that hundreds of millions of dollars be put in escrow for immediate cleanup of a tailings pond spill.

   • Embed this notice
     ShadSterling (shadsterling@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 29-Sep-2023 03:01:23 JST ShadSterling

     in reply to

     @inthehands it might be more complicated for international operations, but since the Deepwater Horizon I’ve thought we should have a required chemical spill insurance agency that works roughly like the FDIC - if your facility is involved in a spill, that facility and employees who work there and other assets involved in its maintenance are transferred permanently to the insurer, who can also temporarily commandeer any other assets as needed for cleanup.