I've already dealt with that objection more than once.
I already know you think my ideas are naive and ill-conceived. You've said so many times. You can stop using up precious characters typing it.
The alternative is climate collapse.
Let's assume you're right and the oil sands really have no assets with any value separate from the extraction of oil.
Sooner or later the industry has to end, right? Even if it's just that they run out of oil to extract. How, then, do the remaining tailings ponds get cleaned up?
And if that's still not enough: Finance a publicly-funded cleanup with a wealth tax. Let the people who have profited from the oil sands clean up the mess they made. That's only fair.
Of course this is based on a flawed analysis because it is absolutely possible to make a company legally liable for cleaning up its mess in the event of insolvency.
You just make it so that proceeds from liquidation must go to remediation first, before paying back any investors.
I'm going to stop replying now. I think we've exhausted all the things we can say.
I hope that the NDP under Avi Lewis becomes a party that rejects climate change denialism (and doomerism) outright.
No the plan would be very standard taxation policies that already exist in many places.
As for rich people leaving and taking capital with them: Just impose capital controls.
But, again, this would be a last resort. I think the industry can pay to clean up its own mess.
So you're saying that the only way to clean up the tailings ponds is to let them make more tailings ponds. And you don't see a problem with that logic?
If the company folds, it will have assets to be liquidated.
Something like the youtube channel Just Have a Think, but longer and for my ears.
Okay but the oil sands have to shut down eventually. No industry lasts forever. So, if we do what you're suggesting and grow the oil sands (by building new pipelines), the government just gets a bigger remediation project down the line.
Might as well grasp the nettle now.
