It is, Paul. There was a time when we expected a fine “return” for the privilege of extracting the natural resources of our country {we can have a conversation about whether all the extraction was ever a good idea at all, but this is about getting compensated …}. Now, I see us “subsidizing” the companies that do the extracting, instead o…
It is, Paul. There was a time when we expected a fine “return” for the privilege of extracting the natural resources of our country {we can have a conversation about whether all the extraction was ever a good idea at all, but this is about getting compensated …}. Now, I see us “subsidizing” the companies that do the extracting, instead of charging them for the privilege.
Are we still demanding a payment for the privilege of raping our environment? Or are we allowing it, because it creates “jobs”?
I have not kept up with the changes in those rules and regs, so I don’t know if we still get a return for the drilling and logging and water extraction, etc., that goes on big time …
Pat, short answer is, No there has never been even an attempt to estimate what a fair return or "compensation" for any given natural resource extraction eg by a Chevron, or any given pollution event might be -- polluter lobbyists made sure of that rather easily because there was no sufficiently powerful opposing lobby around to advocate for natural resource damages. Compare compensatory damages in tort and contracts litigation: there it is common simply because there is an advocate, the plaintiff Bar which benefits immensely.
Mmmmm, many years ago, a guy managed to get himself a tidy sum of money by toting up how much an energy company owed the people in unpaid fees for pumping oil out of the ground. When such fees were collected, the guy who found and went after them got what amounts to a ‘finder’s fee” share.
I wonder if those fees are still in force, and are we collecting them. I really have not stayed on top of things like that … Hmmmm. Now, I gotta go check it out… Hmmmm.
It is, Paul. There was a time when we expected a fine “return” for the privilege of extracting the natural resources of our country {we can have a conversation about whether all the extraction was ever a good idea at all, but this is about getting compensated …}. Now, I see us “subsidizing” the companies that do the extracting, instead of charging them for the privilege.
Are we still demanding a payment for the privilege of raping our environment? Or are we allowing it, because it creates “jobs”?
I have not kept up with the changes in those rules and regs, so I don’t know if we still get a return for the drilling and logging and water extraction, etc., that goes on big time …
Pat, short answer is, No there has never been even an attempt to estimate what a fair return or "compensation" for any given natural resource extraction eg by a Chevron, or any given pollution event might be -- polluter lobbyists made sure of that rather easily because there was no sufficiently powerful opposing lobby around to advocate for natural resource damages. Compare compensatory damages in tort and contracts litigation: there it is common simply because there is an advocate, the plaintiff Bar which benefits immensely.
Mmmmm, many years ago, a guy managed to get himself a tidy sum of money by toting up how much an energy company owed the people in unpaid fees for pumping oil out of the ground. When such fees were collected, the guy who found and went after them got what amounts to a ‘finder’s fee” share.
I wonder if those fees are still in force, and are we collecting them. I really have not stayed on top of things like that … Hmmmm. Now, I gotta go check it out… Hmmmm.