Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 1 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 1 |
Debates: | 0 |
The toxiticity of the process appears to be the main problem here. However, many things are polluting. Initially trains and cars were destroying the atmosphere, and in particular the ozone layer, as well. However, new technological developments countered that and allowed toxic/polluting processes and items to be put to use without endangering the environment. I feel that Chevron (and other companies) should invest more into research into clean chemicals to use in this process, so that the shale gas can be extracted without damaging the environment. Since the people of Pungesti were there first, Chevron should comply to them and their needs, rather than the other way around, but if they do so this seems a project that can benefit many. After all, Pungesti also needs energy that comes from fossil fuels, so having a company extract it nearby might allow them to get a good deal on their energy bill.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |