- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
This is just so petty of these huge, extremely wealthy companies. It would cost them a pittance of their wealth to restore disturbed or removed wetlands. Doing so could even give them some “we’re a good neighbor” PR.
They really don’t want a precedent of being liable for environmental damage.
Plus they’re of the “rather spend a million in court than spend a thousand on environmental mitigation” school of parasites.
US supreme “court”. (Their words not mine). They are not a court of law. They just play dressup.
Sink baby sink
