Nowadays, oil and gas are two of the most demanded materials, and the necessity for them grows day by day. Consequently, we are obligated to find new sources, as the current ones will one day run out of these materials, leaving us in a lack of them. On one hand, constructing these facilities further from urbanized areas will protect the citizens from potential risks of diseases caused by polluted air. On the other hand, it will centralize the damage in those remote areas, which will be harmful to local flora and animals. From my point of view, this development is rather negative than positive.
The harvest of oil and gas requires features and equipment that will help dig them out and make them usable (manage the construction of goods for potential). They in turn give off harmful chemicals, polluting air and putting life in danger. In this case, we cannot let them be located in cities, as we do not want to endanger humans.Life in cities may be massively affected by them because all this pollution has extremely negative effects on our bodies, such as: skin issues, heavy breathing, poisoning, and even death. Remote areas can become a great solution to this problem, as they are not commonly visited by people, or access to these areas may even be restricted.
Nevertheless, it does not mean that we will remove the danger from these factories; in fact, we will only change the direction. I acknowledge that humans must have the biggest priority, and directing the damage to us is not right. However, in remote areas, the nature will be affected, as polluted air bothers plants, slowing their natural function, harming animals, which disturbs the reproduction and more. Eventually, it will reflect on our life, because all these natural factors play a very big role, as even air production is plants’ responsibility.
To sum up, factories have very negative effects on the life, no matter humans, plants or animals. Therefore, simply utilizing remote areas as the source of benefits is wrong due to the “butterfly effect”.