Should the U.S. increase exploration and development

A) Geothermal EnergyCFCs are to blame for warming.There are many more disadvantages to doing geothermal energy than advantages. To begin with, chloroflurocarbons are actually causing global warming. Therefore, switching to energy sources that reduce carbon emissions is pointless. (1) CFCs were used in almost everything in the 70's. They are already known to replete the ozone layer, but credible scientists are now trending towards blaming them for global warming as well. If CO2 was to blame for GW, then global temperatures should be rising right now because carbon emissions are also rising. However, since 2002, global temperates have actually been declining in correlation with CFCs. The energy is too expensive to be practical. "Lastly, this environmentally friendly fuel source is cost effective. Conservative estimates claim that savings on heating bills range from 30-60%, and cooling ranges from 25-50%"- ProJust to install the power plant can cost upwards of 20 million dollars. (2) They supply 1- 50 megawatts of energy for a mature plant as compared to 2,000 megawatts for a coal power plant. It cost double or triple the amount of money per kwh to buy geothermal energy. (3) The majority of people can barely pay their energy bill as is. Why would companies choose to build this reactors when they are still an unproved concept? Who would choose to switch to geothermal energy when natural gas and fossil fuels work now?Nuclear PowerNuclear power is clean and an effective energy source. Empirically, it works. It powered 20% of the entire nation. (4) If the Pro really wants alternative energy, then why not do this? The United States should NOT divert spending away from natural gas, coal, and nuclear power to test a concept. More and more Americans are realizing that nuclear power is safe when built in relatively natural disaster free areas like Georgia. On the other hand, few of them even know geothermal energy exists. The amount of funding required to educate them is ridiculously costly and ultimately pointless due to the above points. B) Underwater PharmaceuticalsWild LifeBioprospecting entails physical disturbance of deep seabeds and native habitats. Alien marine species invade indigenous fish environments. A study by the United Nations University/Institute of Advanced Studies confirms the introduction of pollutions and noise disturbance result in negative consequences for the marine species. (6) The Pro states that he wants to protect Wild Life by increasing exploration, but bioprospecting and other marine research contradicts this. Antibiotic ResistanceThere is broad consensus within the scientific community that the growing overuse of antibiotics is rendering them useless. More than 70% of all antibiotics are given to animals which in turn ends up in our food. Attempts to limit the use of antibiotics have been weak. (7) Antibiotics also have a capitalism problem. Pharmaceutical companies are drawing out of the antibiotics business. "As it stands today, antibiotics are leaving the marketplace at a rate twice that of new drugs entering it." (8) The United States advocating for more pharmaceutics will not make a difference because companies are already drawing out of the race. Why would we advocate for something that is causing more harm that good?C) Preservation of Wild LifeGeothermal EnergyPro actually contradicts his goals again by supporting geothermal energy. This energy is known to release harmful fumes unless they can be contained. Because this type of energy is still not widespread, many accidents will occur. There is not definite way to contain these fumes in the ocean. (5) If Pro really wants alternative energy, then why risk the deterioration of wild life? Why not build nuclear reactors? Increased Exploration Increased exploration is inherently bad for wild life. The more and more scientists poke and probe around natural habitats, the more and more they are harmed. The only thing the United States can do to keep marine life safe is increase fishing regulations for the oceans. I dissent Pro's statement that these regulations fit under the umbrella of development and exploration of the ocean. Increased regulation is pencil and paper; it does not require people to go out into the ocean. Exploration is not NecessaryWe already know why our fish populations are dwindling. We can blame pollution, overfishing, and bioprospecting. Why is more research necessary. As I said before, more development is harmful to the marine species. We already understand why this is happening, and increased action of the government is the response. We do not need MORE development. We know the issues that are happening, and we are now trying to remedy them. (9)D) More Important PrioritiesWhy are we concentrating on increased exploration when there are more important things to spend our money on? I have already spoken about nuclear power, but we also have to consider education, transportaion, and NASA(10). NASA may not seem like the most important program, but it has been increasing diplomatic connections between the Middle East and Western scientific communties. Science knows no skin color nor religion; what better way to increase our contact? While Pro's plan is limited to the United States, both nuclear power and NASA can go international. Just to reiterate, NP trades off wtih geothermal power because they are both alternative energy sources.(11)ConclusionThe The United States should not increase development and exploration of the oceans because none of the benefits Pro has stated are worth the risk. We should not divert spending from NASA and nuclear power because these things are international priorities. The United States is an international leader, and by doing those two things, we will increase our hegemony. There is no reason to increase our exploration but several reasons not to. Your turn Pro! :) I apologize for any weird formatting; technology is not my friend!(1) http://phys.org...(2) http://science.howstuffworks.com...;(3)http://geo-energy.org...;(4) http://www.exeloncorp.com...;(5) http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...;(6) http://ro.uow.edu.au...(7) http://www.nytimes.com...(8) http://motherboard.vice.com... (9) http://www.cbsnews.com...(10) http://www.slate.com...(11) http://www.ibtimes.com...