Resolved: Canada should be pro global warming

1) Northwest passage"Ships don't need ports unless they're going to take on or discharge cargo and there's nothing along the extreme northern coast of Canada that requires that service"Not yet there isn't, but that could easily change in the future once the amount of shipping going through the region dramatically increases. This passage isn't just a canal that goes through a narrow part of the country like Panama or the Suez canal in Egypt, this passage goes through the entirety of the Arctic Canadian coastline. Therefore the chances from Canada to capitalize from such shipping is exponentially larger than it would be for Egypt or Panama. 2) Russia"Russia was not deterred from it's seizure of some of Georgia, it's annexation of the Crimea, and is still interfering in Ukrainian internal affairs. "The economic shellacking they are receiving right now from economic sanctions suggests otherwise, as the economic sanctions and the low oil prices in todays market has caused Russia's currency (The Ruble) to deteriorate in value by about half. . http://www.nbcnews.com...http://money.cnn.com...If invading Ukraine causes this much hell for Russia, antagonizing a more respected nation like Canada over the Arctic Circle would likely trigger substantially worse sanctions and penalties for Russia, and thus incentivize them to NOT mess with Canada. 3) Natural Gas + Oil resources"Everything has it's cost and the cost for more oil, coal, and gas extraction is environmental damage"Everything has it's profits as well and the profits of more oil, more coal, and more access to gas extraction is in the billions of dollars. Furthermore if any slight amount of environmental damage could be crippling to a country, than every industrialized nation in the world would have died off decades ago. But they haven't, because environmental damage does not kill nations. Therefore Canada has a lot to gain and not much to lose from more oil fields being tapped into. 4) Timber and forests"Also, as Pro has pointed out, the existing forests will expand North. When that happens they won't be moving into a lifeless area but will be displacing the flora that's there now and the animals that depend upon it. "It's one habitat being replaced with a different kind of habitat, one that allows for more plant life to actually grow and thrive. The area that forests could expand into may not be lifeless, but a less frigid climate opens the door for more natural life to grow and survive than current conditions allow. 5) Refugees"Does anyone truly believe that the mass migration of billions of people worldwide will have no adverse effect upon any nation? "I see con has resorted to putting words in my mouth rather than try to rely on his own arguments. .. I never said that refugees wouldn't effect ANY nation, nor did I say that Russia and the US would absorb them all either. I'm saying that Canada's geographic isolation spares them from suffering a potential refugee crisis, and also serves as a buffer since the US and Russia would be closer targets for refugees to travel to compared to Canada. "A number of the nations immediately affected like China, India, Pakistan are nuclear armed. Will this increase in instability make Canada safer, even with it's presumed increase access to oil, gas, and coal? I think not. "China, India, and Pakistan aren't going to nuke Canada for their oil if that's what you're implying. .. ================================================================Canada stands to gain a lot from a warmer climate for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to greater access to valuable natural resources, greater agricultural production and exportation, increased shipping traffic, lower bills for heating, potential job creation, etc. It is for these reasons I affirm that Canada should be pro global warming.