5 ms·
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.
by 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 agoBut 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.