Oil companies generally set up a subsidiary to do oil drilling in each area or country, and make the subsidiary alone liable for the cost of oil spills, so that the main corporation's liability is limited by the total wealth of the subsidiary. This way, the victims of a spill won't be compensated for the damage the spill does to them.

However, Guiana, on the eastern part of South America's north coast, refuses to let them do this any more.

Will this make Exxon work harder to avoid a spill? I think people tend to be biased towards belief that disaster won't happen. If a regional disaster does happen, the countries and people affected could end up owning Exxon.

If so, would they handle drilling in a safer way, or would the vision of riches corrupt them as it corrupted the current owners of Exxon?

* In occupied West Bank villages, Israeli-owned farms are flourishing, while Palestinians often do not have enough water to drink.*

Israel has been transferring water rights for years, using various legal excuses.

*Former world leaders urge G7 to get nuclear arms control back on track.*

I fully support that urging.

*Climate breakdown made southern Asia heatwave at least 2C hotter, study finds.*

*I took my kids to the playground without bringing my phone — and it was a revelation.*

*In the year since I quit [so-called] social media, my screen time has fallen, my mood is up — even my resting heart rate is lower.*

This is an additional reason to quit. The reason I refuse to use those systems is that they require nonfree software, which can be modified by others (though usually not by you), and much of it is malware.

Like Emma Brockes, I find children mostly boring. I avoided that problem for myself by not having any.