| > established multinational corporations > money being extracted from local economies > the coffers of the ultra-rich For someone complaining about "environmental debt", a term I have never seen before, you do use a lot of tired phrases. I also don't quite believe that international shipping is quite as amendable to scrappy little startups with little money as you make it out to be? > other than ostensibly environmental protection Yes, the benefit of the proposed scheme is environmental protection, and therefore it is no surprise that you identify it as it's primary benefit ("ostensibly" being a meaningless qualifier used to vaguely dismiss the idea without feeling the need to argue the point). Both the principle as well as the mechanisms are well established. Car insurance comes to mind, or really any liability insurance. An insurance scheme would, in fact, significantly lower the capital requirements compared to straight-up bonds, in the same way that you don't have to put up a million $ to get that amount of coverage for your car. > actual implementation in practice Require insurance against environmental damage caused by any vessel. Deny entry to foreign vessels not complying. |
Requiring insurance is not the same as requiring the money to be put aside up front like a bond, which was what was being suggested earlier in the thread. I have no issue with insurance requirements if you think it's possible to run an insurance business profitably that (a) doesn't charge so much that we still have the same problem and (b) actually has the money and will actually pay out when a billion dollar environmental disaster happens.
I don't think the economics of that work.
As for
> a lot of tired phrases
complaining about the ultra-rich establishing barriers to entry that keeps the little guy out is never going to be "tired" until it stops being the default operating mode of these organizations.