3 ms·

It certainly can be meaningful (whether or not it is in this case). Obviously oil spills are devastating to any habitat, but some habitats are home to a wider

It certainly can be meaningful (whether or not it is in this case). Obviously oil spills are devastating to any habitat, but some habitats are home to a wider variety of (and more critically) endangered wildlife and fauna than others. An oil spill in the Gowanus Canal, while terrible, would be far less meaningful than an oil spill in a much more pristine environment because the place is already mostly toxic (although not nearly as bad as it was in the past).

justrealist 3y ago
I think that's a cop-out. Of course environments which we've already denuded of all ecology are more expendable. Can you name a pristine (or at least, not-sterilized) natural environment which it's relatively OK to destroy relative to the polar arctic?
- kwertzzz 3y ago
  On land, I guess we would agree that an oil spill in a pristine rain-forest is worse than a pristine desert. If you need a quantitative measure, one can use e.g. the number of difference species per area (biodiversity) to know the area where an accident has the least impact. Or maybe the number of endangered species. Granted, computing these metrics are however quite difficult. However, what is easy to measure from space is the amount of chlorophyll in the surface water of the ocean. Besides coastal areas, the Arctic stands out as relatively chlorophyll rich. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_SEAWIFS_annual.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_SEAWIFS_annual...
  - kortilla 3y ago
    > On land, I guess we would agree that an oil spill in a pristine rain-forest is worse than a pristine desert. Doubtful depending on which desert. Many deserts have very unique and endangered wildlife.
    - ReptileMan 3y ago
      But tropical rainforests have way more biomass per square km.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    > If you need a quantitative measure, one can use e.g. the number of difference species per area (biodiversity) to know the area where an accident has the least impact. The arctic ranks very low by this measure.
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago
  The parent comment said: >This might be true in an absolute sense, but I'm really skeptical that it's true in a meaningful relative sense, because nobody has ever listed (to my knowledge) environmental habitats or biomes which are not sensitive. I listed a habitat which was, "not sensitive" in response to his comment that, "because nobody has ever listed (to my knowledge) environmental habitats or biomes which are not sensitive." You could list thousands of habitats and biomes around the Unites States that are "not sensitive" without doing much research at all. It is a falsehood that has to be debunked because the implication is that industry should be able to build pipelines and send ships through any area that they want because all of these ecosystems are equally important, so that the risk of a spill is all the same regardless of the location. The truth is that some pristine areas and ecosystems are much more important than others (even ones that haven't been polluted and denuded). Suggesting that it is okay to despoil some of the most untouched, pristine and diverse ecosystems in the country just because it is also bad to despoil other areas is the worst sort of false equivalency.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    > The truth is that some pristine areas and ecosystems are much more important than others (even ones that haven't been polluted and denuded) OK, so which ones (that haven't been polluted and denuded) are less important? I'm genuinely looking for an answer here. Nobody has ever been willing to volunteer one to me.

justrealist 3y ago

I think that's a cop-out. Of course environments which we've already denuded of all ecology are more expendable. Can you name a pristine (or at least, not-sterilized) natural environment which it's relatively OK to destroy relative to the polar arctic?

kwertzzz 3y ago
On land, I guess we would agree that an oil spill in a pristine rain-forest is worse than a pristine desert. If you need a quantitative measure, one can use e.g. the number of difference species per area (biodiversity) to know the area where an accident has the least impact. Or maybe the number of endangered species. Granted, computing these metrics are however quite difficult. However, what is easy to measure from space is the amount of chlorophyll in the surface water of the ocean. Besides coastal areas, the Arctic stands out as relatively chlorophyll rich. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_SEAWIFS_annual.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_SEAWIFS_annual...
- kortilla 3y ago
  > On land, I guess we would agree that an oil spill in a pristine rain-forest is worse than a pristine desert. Doubtful depending on which desert. Many deserts have very unique and endangered wildlife.
  - ReptileMan 3y ago
    But tropical rainforests have way more biomass per square km.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > If you need a quantitative measure, one can use e.g. the number of difference species per area (biodiversity) to know the area where an accident has the least impact. The arctic ranks very low by this measure.
StanislavPetrov 3y ago
The parent comment said: >This might be true in an absolute sense, but I'm really skeptical that it's true in a meaningful relative sense, because nobody has ever listed (to my knowledge) environmental habitats or biomes which are not sensitive. I listed a habitat which was, "not sensitive" in response to his comment that, "because nobody has ever listed (to my knowledge) environmental habitats or biomes which are not sensitive." You could list thousands of habitats and biomes around the Unites States that are "not sensitive" without doing much research at all. It is a falsehood that has to be debunked because the implication is that industry should be able to build pipelines and send ships through any area that they want because all of these ecosystems are equally important, so that the risk of a spill is all the same regardless of the location. The truth is that some pristine areas and ecosystems are much more important than others (even ones that haven't been polluted and denuded). Suggesting that it is okay to despoil some of the most untouched, pristine and diverse ecosystems in the country just because it is also bad to despoil other areas is the worst sort of false equivalency.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > The truth is that some pristine areas and ecosystems are much more important than others (even ones that haven't been polluted and denuded) OK, so which ones (that haven't been polluted and denuded) are less important? I'm genuinely looking for an answer here. Nobody has ever been willing to volunteer one to me.