this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
169 points (97.2% liked)

World News

32390 readers
750 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Finnish president has said damage to an undersea gas pipeline and communications cable connecting Finland and Estonia appears to be deliberate.

Nato’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said the transatlantic military alliance was “ready to share information about the destruction of Finnish and Estonian underwater infrastructure” and to “support its allies”.

The Finnish government said in a statement that authorities had discovered the damage to the Balticconnector natural gas pipeline, and to a communication cable linking Finland and Estonia, at about 2am local time (0000 BST) on Sunday morning.

It cited unnamed intelligence sources as saying the government “considered it possible that Russia had aimed a sabotage attack” amid sightings of Russian vessels in the vicinity of windfarms and underwater power cables in the Baltic Sea.

Konrad Muzyka, an independent regional defence analyst, said on X that the Russian hydrographic survey vessel Sibiryakov had been detected in the Gulf of Finland near the pipeline and the Estlinks cable in May, August and September.

Finland and Estonia are EU and Nato members that border Russia and stopped importing Russian oil and gas as part of sanctions imposed against Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.


The original article contains 510 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can't not support the attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure. It's a shame that a communications cable was also affected

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they keep trying this, we’ll get another oil spill

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] eletes 1 points 1 year ago

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