Readit Newsthese are in Western jurisdictions. We could hold them accountable, but we don't, because freight companies are insanely well connected in politics and too many too rich people profit too much from this kind of exploitation.
Because, surprise, we do not want more Superfund sites. Like, the Silicon Valley is the US' biggest cluster of Superfund sites by far.
At the same time, it is very convenient that there are lots of piss poor countries that have very difficult/dirty to mine resources... be it China, Congo or whatever. These countries didn't have the luxury to think decades into the future, and capitalism doesn't have built-in ethics, and this is how we ended up here.
The EU tried to introduce supply chain laws aiming at cutting back at this kind of exploitation, but the pressure from industry was immense.
IMO, these industries need to be heavily taxed if not owned by the government.
... or for every building and infrastructure, a bond needs to be placed with the government to be a safeguard for its demolition cost, and for projects that risk environmental damage (mining, oil drills), proof of insurance needs to be provided before the construction begins, and should that insurance ever lapse, the entire property gets seized by the government.
in my head this seems like a problem that could be solved by getting on the radio to a nearby port and saying "hey, we've got a tanker carrying $50m worth of crude oil, you can have it if you let us dock", but obviously it can't be that simple if that's not happening. why not?
Yes, basically. The situation is really really nasty, every year thousands of sailors are stuck aboard abandoned ships [1][2]. Sometimes, crews get stuck for years [3] - and the situation is made worse by the fact that leaving ship means forfeiting payment.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/fleet-of-abandoned-ships-is-growin...
If you ask me... both these companies should be treated similarly to misbehaving banks: banned from acquiring new customers, an external overseer installed, and only when the products do not pose a threat to the general public any more, they can acquire new customers again.
The justification for denying workers rights they would otherwise have was the extreme importance of moving essential goods. We're not going to have famines if SpaceX has a month long strike.
But Ukrainian soldiers can and will die on the battlefield if Starlink has issues. We already know that it is vital for the Russians because their battle plans fell apart once SpaceX, the US and the Ukrainian government finally introduced a whitelist for terminals allowed to connect on Ukrainian soil. And SpaceX IIRC also operates a separate Starlink system for the US military.
This didn't pose an issue in the past because the DoD ran stuff on its own, no third party companies required... but heh, privatization rules...