Antarctic Exploitation

thank you for you and helppoint oneI will stand my my point... there are MANY..MANY resources found in Antarctica. Antarctica is loaded with natural resources and minerals such as iron ore, gold, nickel, copper,chromium, and platinum among others. According to the Antarctic Treaty, mining is prohibited needs to change because the world demands more and more metals to feed a hungry industry and for technology.http://en.wikipedia.org...desalination is extremely expensive and There are many bad things about desalination plants. they are very expensive to use, and also let off a lot of carbon emissions which damage the ozone layer. The government spends a fortune on the chemicals needed to desalinate the water, then they discharge all the waste back into the ocean which can kill fish and damage the marine life.-2- many country's around they world are experiencing acid rain and this would further growth of many cancers when humans drink/use acid water it often has serious effects on their health that3) water rationing might just lead to a war... it is expected that in the near future Israel will go to war with neighboring Lebanon and Egypt to get their water.Read more: http://www.upi.com....4) areas such as new and Toronto are locate near one of the only fresh water sources available... 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 jobs5) population growth is becoming a problem... fresh water Is becoming limited... the economy isn't doing too well...third world country are already suffering, the only difference is that the water crisis is just starting in the U.S, EUROPE, AUSTARLIA....There is a danger in using the methods listed above, without regard to either economic logic or democratic accountability. If the Antarctic can help to provide additional resources for a rapidly growing world population, then we should be able to have an intelligent debate about the costs and benefits involved. ATTACK ON LAST POINTnew argument resolved my opponent fails to recognize that no environmental disasters would happen...The Antarctic Protocol of 1991 should be amended to allow for the possibility of mineral prospecting. The failed CRAMRA Convention of the late 1980s would have allowed for this possibility subject to strict regulation and the agreement of all treaty nations; reasonable conditions which were rejected by environmental purists. Geological analogies with other continents suggest that several very valuable minerals may be present in Antarctica. multinational companies are prepared to pay high prices to treaty governments for concessions, why should we turn down this source of revenue? 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. 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... 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 lastly noted that most of the resources are located in a deserted area in west Antarctic, !!!not related but scientist have found tiny organism in Antarctica that may cure some cancers!!http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...thank you oppositionvote for me!!