3 ms·
I think what you're missing is that oil extraction doesn't happen in a vacuum. The externalities of extracting oil from the arctic circle would be massively det
by sgpl 5y ago
I think what you're missing is that oil extraction doesn't happen in a vacuum. The externalities of extracting oil from the arctic circle would be massively detrimental to the local environment. Not to mention the fact that any accidental oil spill or a well blowout would wreck havoc on the biodiversity and local species in the region mostly because according to the consensus opinion of many scientists, "we do not have the technology, nor the infrastructure, to deal with the specific challenges of a disaster in this region."
Here's a list [1] of a few other reasons on why this is a bad idea.
[1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/top-10-reasons-why-arctic-oil-drilling-is-a-really-bad-stupid-idea/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/top-10-reasons-why-arctic-oil...
- clucas 5y agoAhh, this makes sense for why we wouldn't want to drill in the arctic, and I hadn't seen these arguments before, so thank you. The article was very unclear about this - it implied fossil fuel exploration in the arctic is bad because the arctic is "most sensitive to climate change", but what it really should have said is "least able to deal with the environmental damage that inevitably accompanies drilling". Am I still correct that as far as climate change affecting the arctic, burning one barrel of oil extracted from the arctic is the same as burning one barrel of oil extracted from (e.g.) the middle east?