- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
You must log in or register to comment.
Good
Good, but not good enough.
I’ll believe it when I see it. If there is one thing I’ve learned in the past decade is that rules and laws are only as good as their enforcement.
It kicks in this year, and there are few people out there more dogged than a tax collector who knows they’re owed.
Then I expect you to report back when and if these fees are levied.
What I can say for sure is that the regulations around paying them have been issued. So I’m expecting to see them paid
You sure they won’t get treated like Nevalny? Pootin doesn’t have a monopoly on torture.
Happy to see it
Diversified, which has become the largest owner of oil and gas wells in the U.S., has some 70,000 such old and potentially leaky wells — making it potentially one of the biggest methane emitters in the industry as well.
According to Geofinancial, Diversified would be liable for as much as $184 million if its annual excess methane emissions are equivalent to what it released over the year ending in September 2023. While the satellite results are a snapshot in time and contain some uncertainty, the overall finding that Diversified is probably facing catastrophically steep methane fees likely holds regardless of the potential variation.
If diversified goes under, I doubt it has enough in escrow to close all of those wells. Will the government allow it to use the money from the fine to close the leakiest wells as a compromise?
Yea, a company like Diversified that buys old wells really gets hit hard with this, while big companies that just drill new wells (and create new problems when the wells get old) have much less methane emission and don’t get penalized that much, if at all.
A drop in a barrel. Pathetic. No more than a fee to do business as usual.
It’s expensive enough that it’s cheaper to prevent emissions in most cases. That’s the idea.
I think throwing them in prison would be a far more effective, if you’re looking for deterrents. If its good enough for drug dealers and petty criminals, why wouldn’t it work for a smaller group of people who have a way more negative impact on society?
It would surely be more effective, but we didn’t have the political power to do something like that. So we got a fine.
$1 Billion+ Military budget increase incoming
Boo fucking hoo
Pay up
I’d rather see things fixed so that they don’t leak methane. That’s a kind of tax avoidance I can get behind.
Too little, too late.
The thing about methane is that it only lasts a few years in the atmosphere before breaking down. This means that its impact is determined by the rate of release, unlike CO2, which accumulates, so that total cumulative emissions are what matter.
Cut the release rate for methane, and we can make a big difference, no matter when we do it.
Methane breaks down into co2
It does, but almost all of the warming it causes is the short-term warming from the time it spends as methane
