The Ionian Sea has wealth already
The Ionian already has its own wealth. Why risk its sea for a benefit that remains uncertain?
Finally, the debate over hydrocarbon exploration is reaching where it should have been from the outset: the Regional Council and now also the Central Corfu Municipal Council. Even if belatedly, elected representatives are being called upon to take a position on a choice that could affect the environment, the economy and the character of the area for decades to come.
The Ionian does not need a drilling rig to acquire value. The sea, the landscape, fishing, tourism and the very life of the islands constitute real wealth. Every development plan should serve and protect that wealth, rather than treating it as a secondary consideration in the pursuit of a possible energy boom.
Environmental risk cannot be offset by compensatory benefits. Jobs, contracts and potential revenues do not answer the fundamental question: what is the risk, and who bears it? And here there is a crucial asymmetry: the potential benefits are distributed more widely, while a serious accident would hit first and foremost the area where the activity takes place.
Nor does the discovery of natural gas automatically amount to good fortune. It could generate energy and economic benefits. But at the same time, it could increase the region’s exposure to geopolitical rivalries and commit the Ionian to an energy choice with consequences stretching decades into the future.
There is therefore no need to presume that disaster is inevitable in order to take a position. Nor do we need to claim that an accident is certain. It is enough to weigh what we have, what we are putting at risk, and what we are being offered in return.
And our assessment leads to a clear conclusion: no to hydrocarbon extraction in the Ionian.
Not out of fear of exploration, nor out of opposition to all energy-related activity. But because there is no evidence that the anticipated benefits for the islands justify taking a risk involving their most important natural and economic resource: the sea.
This does not relieve the Regional Authority and the Municipality of their obligation to examine the study, listen to the people of the Diapontia Islands, scientists, professionals and environmental organisations, and demand specific answers. On the contrary. A serious position against the project requires more evidence, not less.
Final approval is not their responsibility. Political responsibility towards the local community, however, is.
For us, then, the question is not how much we will receive in exchange for our consent.
It is why we should consent to an activity whose risks remain here, while the promised benefits remain uncertain. And so far, we have not heard a convincing answer.
GIORGOS KATSAITIS
