Antarctic Exploitation

1) Resources,Pro claims that Antarctica has "MANY, MANY resources" but his own Wikipedia source shows how Antarctica has remained uncolonized by humanity because..."because of its hostile environment, lack of resources, and isolation"....So not only does the only thing Antarctica has to offer is ice, but anything else you could find in that wasteland wont be large enough to be mined and put into the world market to satisfy demand...2) Other options to getting water,Your claims and unfactual denounciations of desalination is almost criminal. Desalination is a simple process that only uses small permeable membranes to seperate small H2) molecules from other impurities, requiring no chemicals at all. To separate ocean water into fresh water table salt, and a few other products where most of the cost of operating these plants come from power consumption. Also, desalination produces NO CO2 LIKE THE PRO CLAIMS. Most of the cost of establishing desalination plants comes from construction, in reality they are quite easy to run and many countries all over the world can use desalination, The UAE (United Arab Emirates) have the worlds largest desalination plant that is has 7 times the output of the largest US desalination plant. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.athirstyplanet.com...So to summarize - Desalination uses almost no chemicals - Desalination produces no CO2 - Desalination is available to many countries around the world - Desalination is much cheaper than melting Antarctica and bringing the water back thousands of miles to countriesAs for rationing water, your "source" quotes an anonymous Jordinian teacher and doesnt use any actual evidence, facts, or logic to imply that Israel may invade Egypt for their water... see for yourselfhttp://www.upi.com..."A Jordanian academic has predicted that Israel will go to war with neighboring Lebanon and Egypt to get their water." - Thats ALL that is in the source.... Which isnt even close to enough evidence to suggest that an Israeli-Egyptian war is about to break out over water rationing. Try again Pro. Water rationing though is more commonly used within certain countries during times of hardship to conserve water, and it is very effective in reducing water usage for short term periods. As for my last argument about relying on local freshwater sources, " places like Arizona (6 million people) are experiencing a water crises!!!"" if Antarctica started a water industry not only would it supply country's with more water, but also create more jobs"Tell me Pro, - 1 - Who the hell would want to work in frickin Antarctica and make a living by literally destroying a pristine environment to convert Ice into water? - 2 - How are you going to get that water to Arizona at a cheap rate? - 3 - Arizona is landlocked and doesnt have access to the oceans.... So how would they benefit from any ships that do come back with water sicne they cant even GET to Arizona?3) Human Populations" population growth is becoming a problem..." - In only some parts of the world.... " fresh water Is becoming limited..." - And the situation is being handeled cheaply and effectively in many cases" the economy isn't doing too well..." - I dont think destroying Antarctica would help..."third world country are already suffering" - So we should make solutions to help them get more water from the funds and technology they actually have"the only difference is that the water crisis is just starting in the U.S, EUROPE, AUSTARLIA" - What happened to third world countries? All three of these places are very advanced and have the funds to explore desalination, rain water collection, etc. which means we dont have to rely on incredibly risky, ineffective, expensive, and stupid tactics for obtaining water like melting Antarctica4) EnvironmentThe Pro claims that environmental disasters wont happen, and offers no evidence to suggest why. He quotes an old piece of legislation that failed to pass 30 years ago implying we could simply use that, but environmental disasters still happen despite regulation and precaution, which the Pro completely fails to understand. The ramnifications of any kind of oil " Geological analogies with other continents suggest that several very valuable minerals may be present in Antarctica"What the heck is a geological analogy and where is this source coming from because if its like your other claims its probably completely false or not supported by any facts or evidence at all..."multinational companies are prepared to pay high prices to treaty governments for concessions, why should we turn down this source of revenue?"Because it will be expensive as sh*t to move mining equipment to a continent already abandoned for lack of resources, because any resources that are found would never be large enough to play even a remotely large role in world economic trade, and because Antarctica is so remote that maintaining such operations would cost a fortune....On another note, do you have actual evidence that corporations are ready to pour millions of dollars down the drain to mine Antarctica or is this another fabricated claim"Almost all mining activity would be underground, so it would be little or no affect environment and likely to have little adverse impact upon it. "I guess now would be a good time to inform voters that by "underground" the Pro means that to get to the resources that may or may not be underground companies would have to drill through miles of frozen ice, A process that would be time consuming, expensive, and probably not yield any stupendous result..."my opposition contradicts himself when he mentions that its OK for drilling company's to destroy areas where were live rear such where the BP oil spill was, but drill in a safe area like Antarctica.."I would like to ask the Pro to stop being a liar and watch his tongue... I never said anything about drilling near places people live or anything about BP..."Antarctica is a empty deserted land why would this effect anyone.. in fact it makes sense to drill in Antarctica because it wouldn't effect anyone "Its not that people would be harmed its that other animals already living there would be put in harms way to drill for oil or other resources that may not even be there meaning we would be gambling with valuable ecosystems for a chance at oil or other things we can find plenty of elsewhereTo be fair though the marine life in Antarctica might not be of any value to society, I dont think that scientists will find a tiny organism in Antarctica that may cure some cancers or anything like that....."scientist have found tiny organism in Antarctica that may cure some cancers!!"Thank you Pro for providing a solid reason of why we should not open up Antarctica to mining. The environmental damage done to Antarctica may put species that live there in danger and some of these species may prove far more useful to society than any resources Antarctica holds....To recap 1) Antarctica has been abandoned due to lack of resources2) Mining Antarctica might not yield any resources at all3) Any resources that are found would not be able to be mined economically and be competitive at world prices4) There are many other, safe, proven, cheap ways to get water than destroying Antarctica5) Desalination ,water rationing, rain water collection are proven and effective and safe6) The cost for opening up operations and moving what little goods is mined back to other countries would be stupendous7) The ecological impact that could happen from any disasters as a result of mining operations is always a factor8) Organisms living there that could be very beneficial to humanity could be severely affected by mining operations