That made mw think, what is worst for the environment, an oil spill, that is pretty localized, or the use of the same amount of spilled oil in production of energy and others, that affects the entire planet?
By quantity of oil, I would think an oil spill is more damaging.
However, the damage from the sum of all oil spills pale in comparison to the damage of burned fossil fuels. But that’s because we try not to spill oil too much, that’s expensive to waste it.
What do you mean by quantity of oil, is the same quantity. One is preprocessed, but very densely localized, the other is the same amount but in it entirely of use.
I think they mean like a gallon of gasoline burned in a car does less environmental damage than the same gallon of gasoline just released into the environment.
He’s saying we would never have an oil spill equivalent to the amount of oil that is used because we try very hard not to spill oil. It is expensive and damaging.
If you are asking a hypothetical question comparing the amount of oil in a spill and its damage to the environment vs simply using that oil normally, I think the oil spill wins in a landslide for being the most damaging.
Well, an oil spill is still probably worse. Depends on volume of spilled oil. Also depends on if that oil is replaced by using renewables.
The typical spill playbook is to slowly clean this up while also creating emissions elsewhere and also disrupting the environment more to repair the pipeline or whatever alternative they have.
On a long enough time span, that oil disperses throughout the entire ocean. Same goes for the pollution so it’s a matter of Ocean toxicity vs greenhouse effect/air quality
If they keep trying this, we’ll get another oil spill
That made mw think, what is worst for the environment, an oil spill, that is pretty localized, or the use of the same amount of spilled oil in production of energy and others, that affects the entire planet?
By quantity of oil, I would think an oil spill is more damaging.
However, the damage from the sum of all oil spills pale in comparison to the damage of burned fossil fuels. But that’s because we try not to spill oil too much, that’s expensive to waste it.
What do you mean by quantity of oil, is the same quantity. One is preprocessed, but very densely localized, the other is the same amount but in it entirely of use.
I think they mean like a gallon of gasoline burned in a car does less environmental damage than the same gallon of gasoline just released into the environment.
Not saying it is or isn’t, just how I took it.
He’s saying we would never have an oil spill equivalent to the amount of oil that is used because we try very hard not to spill oil. It is expensive and damaging.
If you are asking a hypothetical question comparing the amount of oil in a spill and its damage to the environment vs simply using that oil normally, I think the oil spill wins in a landslide for being the most damaging.
Well, an oil spill is still probably worse. Depends on volume of spilled oil. Also depends on if that oil is replaced by using renewables.
The typical spill playbook is to slowly clean this up while also creating emissions elsewhere and also disrupting the environment more to repair the pipeline or whatever alternative they have.
On a long enough time span, that oil disperses throughout the entire ocean. Same goes for the pollution so it’s a matter of Ocean toxicity vs greenhouse effect/air quality