See the second sentence of the post you replied to.

> Oh great, it's the 2020 meme. First I've seen it, but I just know I'm gonna be reading this bs phrase everywhere now.

Look, I'm not a lefty, I'm a moderate independent, and I'm probably fiscally conservative, which is precisely why I hold this position (it's "personal responsibility" applied to macroeconomics). So put away any notions of partisanship you might have had. "environmental debt" is exactly what this is (by all indicators, anyway), and if you disagree feel free to substantiate.

> 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.