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.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
