[core-questions]

> Require insurance against environmental damage caused by any vessel.

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.

[throwaway894345]

> 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.

The suggestion you're referring to was mine, and I suggested either insurance or a bond.

> I don't think the economics of that work.

The current economics only "work" now because the books are cooked. No one is accounting for pollution. Like I've said before, we can address the environment and keep the barrier of entry to entrepreneurship low: subsidies and tax breaks for small businesses to offset the regulatory burden.

Lastly, I'm mostly fixating on the environment/pollution for convenience, but we should really be doing this anywhere that we are externalizing costs.