The USFG should help save the planet by flooding Death Valley with sea water

I'll begin by thanking my opponent for this opportunity to debate. I also generally concede his facts and figures as posted (except for a bit of quibble about the Greenland melting figure), as well as state that Man v. Food is fun to watch! Now, on to the substance and rebuttal: In the first place, my opponent has offered no evidence of analysis as to the effects of the creation of the inland lake on the ecosystem surrounding it. I know of no studies, so I would posit that that is unknown, but due to the size of the lake we would be creating I think it is reasonable to assume that there would be SOME kind of noticeable effect. While I cannot make a point as to what that effect might be, I believe I can make the point that we should not go "willy-nilly" modifying ecosystems without such an analysis, and so therefore until such an analysis is performed and verified (as much as any analyses may be verified), the point must go to Con. While, as my opponent notes, "Not many people live in Death Valley", some of those that do are the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. I must ask whether my opponent is advocating their forced removal, since they are unlikely to agree to the loss of land they only recently received back from the USFG. I posit that alone contradicts the point that "it wouldn't take much time, effort or money to relocate them." [1] My opponent tries to put the volume of water in perspective. It is a lot of water! However, compared to the ocean, it is a proverbial "drop in the bucket". There are 346,049,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in the ocean [2]. Death Valley holds, according to my opponents figures, 9,828,731,802,298. That is .0000028% of the ocean (according to Wolfram Alpha). It takes 9137 km" to raise the seas 1 inch [3], and (thanks again Wolfram Alpha!) 9137 km" is equal to 2.414*10^15 gallons, 9,828,731,802,298 gallons is around 40% of that, and therefore of 1 inch of seawater...which menas you'll get less than half an inch of lowered oceans from the plan, and that's a one-time reduction in sea levels. The water that evaporates simply re-enters the water cycle wherever it goes, so that half inch is the only seal level benefit. "Furthermore, once the new inland lake was created resorts could be built around its shores to provide accommodation, watersports facilities and entertainment for tourists attracted to the area by the guaranteed sunshine and the cool, calm waters." Sunshine could no longer be guaranteed, as the results of such a major change have yet to be predicted. Ditto for "cool, calm waters". "In conclusion, flooding Death Valley would be relatively cheap and simple and would provide valuable employment and attract visitors from around the world but, most of all, it would help save the planet by lowering global sea levels." My opponent has offered no statistics on the cost of the pipelining to get the water to Death Valley, so "relatively cheap" cannot be supported by the argument. Taken only to talk about the movement of the people out of the valley, I think I have established it will not be as easy as my opponent assumes. While the "employment and...visitors" may be a benefit, our lcak of knowledge of the effects on the creation of the lake, combined with the un-established assumption that the real estate would definitely be developed, make this second conclusion point unsupportable. And, as noted, the "lowering global sea levels" would not help the planet in any meaningful way. Therefore, the Pro position must be rejected. Vote Con. Thank you. [1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] -- http://wiki.answers.com... [3] -- http://boards.straightdope.com... [4] -- I didn't directly cite, but thanks to Wolfram Alpha for calculating the large numbers. Any errors in calculation are undoubtedly my own.