Agreed! The article would be stronger if it didn't conflate environmental pollution issues (covered by subsequent EPA approvals) and conveniently leave out corporate taxes.
If author thinks royalties should be imposed, make that point! But don't handwave at 'all the bad stuff THEY do' as justification.
> Then, as now, corporations could pull unlimited quantities of minerals from their claims without paying a cent of royalties to the minerals’ actual owner — the American public. This amounts to a subsidy of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, mostly to multinational corporations.
The article would be stronger if it stuck to one issue. Is the problem the clean-up, the fact that there's little environmental oversight when exploring, or the fact that the there should be royalties? They've conflated so many issues and didn't give any specifics. How does exploring negatively affect the environment? What does reclamation look like today rather than the 1800s?
If author thinks royalties should be imposed, make that point! But don't handwave at 'all the bad stuff THEY do' as justification.
> Then, as now, corporations could pull unlimited quantities of minerals from their claims without paying a cent of royalties to the minerals’ actual owner — the American public. This amounts to a subsidy of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, mostly to multinational corporations.