Question

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska on March 24, 1989. An oil tanker owned by Exxon Shipping Company struck a reef. The ship spilled 10.8 million gallons of crude oil over the next few days. The oil covered 1,300 miles of coastline of which then affected the local environment. Which of the following would not be a way the oil spill affected the local community?​

A) Economic impact on the local fishing industry
B) Health problems and respiratory issues for the local residents
C) Damage to the local wildlife and ecosystem
D) Improved tourism and increased visitors to the area

Answer 1

The Exxon Valdez oil spill negatively affected the local community, with economic impacts on the fishing industry, health issues, and damage to wildlife. Among the choices, improved tourism and increased visitors to the area would not typically result from an oil spill.

"The correct option is approximately option d"

Step-by-step explanation:

The Exxon Valdez oil spill is one of the most infamous environmental disasters in history. Understanding the full impact of such an event on the local community involves exploring a variety of aspects, ranging from environmental to economic repercussions.

Among the listed effects, improved tourism and increased visitors to the area would not typically be a consequence of an oil spill. Oil spills generally have negative impacts, such as economic impact on the local fishing industry due to the loss of fishable waters, health problems and respiratory issues for the local residents due to the toxic fumes, and damage to the local wildlife and ecosystem.

In the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the shores were covered in crude oil, severely affecting both terrestrial and marine life. Efforts to clean up after the Valdez spill included hosing oil from beaches and using floating booms to corral the oil, which was then skimmed from the water surface. However, these measures can only do so much, and the fauna damage can be extensive, as was seen with the high costs of wildlife recovery and environmental rehabilitation following the Santa Barbara County spill in 2015.

Oil spills can create not only immediate disruptions in the local economy and health but can lead to long-lasting environmental damage that requires substantial resources and many years to remediate. Negative consequences are far-reaching and, in many cases, become a persistent part of life for affected communities, such as those near toxic sites mentioned including Centralia, Pennsylvania and Hinkley, California. Hence, improved tourism due to an oil spill is an unlikely outcome as most tourists seek out unspoiled natural environments, not areas marred by environmental catastrophes.

Answer 2

The Exxon Valdez oil spill negatively impacted the local fishing industry, caused health issues in the community, and damaged wildlife and ecosystems. The correct option that would not be a way the oil spill affected the local community is D) Improved tourism and increased visitors to the area.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Exxon Valdez oil spill, which occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989, had profound effects on the local community and environment. The consequences of the spill stretched far beyond the immediate aftermath, impacting local wildlife, ecosystems, and the health and livelihoods of local residents. Among the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill were: Economic impact on the local fishing industry, due to the contamination of fishing grounds which affected the local economy heavily; Health problems and respiratory issues for the local residents, caused by the toxic fumes and chemicals released into the environment; and severe damage to the local wildlife and ecosystem, with long-term ecological consequences.

However, one option listed does not align with the historical outcomes of such environmental disasters. Improved tourism and increased visitors to the area would not be a consequence of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Such disasters typically lead to a decline in tourism due to the destruction and long-term impact on the natural beauty and wildlife that attract visitors. The correct answer to the student's question is D) Improved tourism and increased visitors to the area.