Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 5 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 4 (9 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   5 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Why is The Economist Chortling over the Prospect of Oil Pollution in Ecuador?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Supported 4   News 3   Must Read 2  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 10/18/13

Become a Fan
  (40 fans)
- Advertisement -
Consider this sentence in the same article:  "The other [alternative] would be to redouble efforts to develop Pungarayacu, a big field of heavy oil. But that would also annoy greens."  The phrase "heavy oil" refers to highly viscous oil that will not flow naturally through a pipeline and often has higher sulfur content (a pollutant that is particularly lethal).  Heavy oil spills can sink to the bottom of rivers, lakes, and aquifers and cause much greater damage than light oil spills.  Heavy oil sells at a substantial discount relative to light oil, greatly reducing its economic value to Ecuador.  Why would Ecuador producing heavy oil only "annoy greens?"  Why doesn't the prospect of the wealthy nations following policies that push Ecuador to produce heavy oil disturb The Economist?  The sneering indifference to the environment displays how far The Economist has fallen.    
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Next Page  1  |  2

William K Black , J.D., Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Bill Black has testified before the Senate Agricultural Committee on the regulation of financial derivatives and House (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Incredible Con the Banksters Pulled on the FBI

History's Largest Financial Crime that the WSJ and NYT Would Like You to Forget

What if the Public Understood How Money Works?

The Greek Depression, the Troika, and the New York Times (videos)

The New York Times Urges the Troika to "Make an Example of Greece"

Rajan Calls Krugman "Paranoid" for Criticizing Reinhart and Rogoff's Research | New Economic Perspectives


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

First Scientific American and now The Economist! T... by Charles Roll on Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:56:54 PM
And Harper's.... by Lois Gagnon on Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:11:22 PM
Sadly true, but nothing new for anyone not comatos... by Daniel Geery on Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:01:41 PM
Secular religions like neoliberalism are blessed w... by Derryl Hermanutz on Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:00:49 PM
Wonderful article.The Economist unfortunately has ... by BFalcon on Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:09:46 PM