Is all energy development at the cost of environment? Should we go ahead despite the eco-risks? Or is it time for a serious re-look at what we call 'development'? Is this taking us forward in terms of actual well-being, or is it merely physical comfort we are calling 'development'?
The Sand Hills of Nebraska are a unique Great Plains prairie ecosystem. The grasses and wildflowers, and ponds and lakes that feed the acquifer - should these be valued at all or only the oil from the tar sands that lie below? Roughly 173 billion barrels of Alberta tar sands reserves, worth more than $15 trillion, underlay an area the size of Florida, making it by far the largest petroleum deposit in North America.
Should we continue expanding supplies of planet-warming fossil fuels, especially when the tar sands project has razed hundreds of square miles of boreal forest, led to the creation of dozens of toxic tailings ponds, and released vast quantities of CO2?
Should we exploit the Arctic that contains almost one-quarter of the undiscovered, technically recoverable, hydrocarbons in the world? Amounting to 90bn barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44bn barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum.
A single spill can have disastrous impact on marine life in the area. But do we care (beyond rhetoric) about marine life when the issue is about energy security and scarce resources? Will nations take the long-term view or seize the 'opportunity' of unexploited, vast terrains?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment