Our world would be a much better place with more coal, oil etc. People want to develop the Antarctica because of its abundant useful resources available there. They include coal, hydrocarbons, iron ore, platinum, copper, gold and more importantly oil. The Antarctica is located at the South Pole and it is the Earth's most southernmost continent.
For example as the oil prices continue to rise the demand will increase and this will cause fuel poverty for many nation so their demand will be unparalleled. This will drive to need to get at all remaining oil reserves including the ones in Antarctica. As technology marches ever onward it will become more economically viable for the oil companies to move in when this happens the governments of the world will be powerless to stop them as most of the major players in the world are heavily backed by oil companies, especially with them having more power than most governments
Based on an analysis of penguins and other wildlife's environmental needs, we should reserve some parts of Antarctica as "wildlife preserves." Do not open up drilling or mining for fossil fuels. Do open up mining for things like iron ore. Do not give Antarctica to any existing country. Instead distribute it to stateless peoples. Example, put Kurdistan in Antarctica.
The ban on exploiting the resources of the Antarctic should be lifted immediately to fill the need for a world that is using natural resources much faster than they can be obtained. Because of increased populations resources are going fast, and until alternative sources are found humanity must utilize what is at hand to maintain itself.
Many people don't want to lift the ban in Antarctic because they have environmental concerns. With the technology today I think we can safely obtain those resources while still maintaining the environment to a reasonable level. Although I believe the ban should be lifted I also believe obtaining the resources should be heavily regulated and monitored to ensure compliance and safety of the environment. These resources should also be a last resort, not a quick fix.
The Antarctic is some of the harshest climates on Earth, easily what may be the case on other worlds in other places People won't go there for just the experience, they will go there to find resources that are needed, maybe even to practice for Space exploration. I would love to go there to work, see a beach with jade boulders, work with the nearest to an alien world that we will find. It's an alien world within our own atmosphere.
Antarctica should be saved because at later times when we have used the middle east's oil and coal resources, we will need something else. We should save it before we regret it later. Lets plan ahead. If we detect an abundance of minerals inside of the Antarctica will be used up before 5 years. This ban should stay where it is ore what will we have left?
Humans need more resources but we could find other ways of getting energy, like wind power, solar power and hydro electric power. Coal and oil are easy to use but not easy to obtain or replenish.It takes a huge amount of time to reproduce coal and oil, and if there was another oil spill it would be terrible for the animal and nature.
All it accomplishes is putting off problems we will still have to solve in a few years, after the resources are exhausted. It doesn't seem to actually solve any problems, it just gives us another excuse to procrastinate. It will also deplete resources future generations might need, and damage the ecosystem which is, essentially, a large life support machine keeping us alive
ThegaXen says that we are using resources faster then we can obtain them. Yes. I agree with that, but if we keep on using non-renewable resources (not-environmentally friendly) resources we will never invent new resources that will be infinite as well as keep the earth clean and green ( well actually help stop global warming.) To do this we need to reach the point where there's no choice but to invent a new infinite resource. But doing so we also need to leave Antarctica as it is, because at the rate global warming is going, its going to melt anyway, without us needing to add to those emissions that is killing it and us.
We are already at a critical turning point for the health of the oceans worldwide which. The gulf is a disaster, there are over 36,000 wells in the gulf alone and some leak year round, many have been capped for years and are not monitored. It's an extremely volatile situation. The big oil in addition to tracking moguls are not accountable for environmental damage. Look at the tar sands in Canada, a forest leveled the size of England and growing. Thousands of kilometers in toxic waste ponds. Where can it go? Who will be responsible for the cleanup? No one! This is what will happen in Alaska, it must be stopped now. I pray everyday for the Arctic to freeze over.
Of course not, if it was the entire population of fish such as krill would be wiped out and then what would happen to the food chain? The numbers of phytoplankton would increase, and everything else such as Penguins and Seals would decrease. Do we want to wipe out the Antarctic animal population? What use would that be - are we really going to disrespect our planet so much as to entirely WIPE OUT the population of a place like Antarctica.
Exploiting the natural resources of one of the last true frontiers of the planet is rightly and justly regulated and, as such, it should not be relaxed. As we have seen in other lands, natural resources are often finite. Once Antarctica's admittedly limited resources are spent, what then? The return obviously does not justify the investment, and the natural beauty of the land only serves to reinforce the idea of a ban.
The Antarctic, with the exception of scientific research stations, is just about the only part of the planet where there are no oil wells and other signs of development. It should remain that way, so people will be able to show future generations what the planet used to look like. There's no reason why we have to ruin the entire planet in the name of what some might call "progress".
Corporations, like BP, have repeatedly shown how irresponsible they can be with our environment, and any place on Earth that is currently untouched should be protected at all costs. We don't want these greedy and careless
multi-billion dollar corporations destroying even more of the planet.
There are many areas of the world that have already been ravished by the hunt for resources. There is no need to take the risk to expose untarnished regions, just to exploit resources that we can find alternatives to. Watchdogs are less capable of keeping an eye on the practices of big companies in such a far away region. This makes it easier for them to break EPA laws without being caught.
Lifting the ban on exploiting resources in Antarctica would be a mistake. The first consequence of this would be a race by various nations to claim and assert Antarctic territory. This could lead to numerous conflicts. Furthermore, the development and exploitation of resources could create a negative impact on the arctic environment.
We are losing too many valuable resources as we continue to live on this earth. Our need for oil keeps growing, and we have yet to find a cheap alternative for that. We need to preserve as much of this earth as we can for the future of mankind, and all inhabitants on earth.
We should definitely keep the ban on exploiting the resources of the Antarctic. Some places on this Earth need to stay pristine and un-stripped. Take into account the weather and temperature, and it makes more economical sense to get resources elsewhere. The Antarctic is, and should remain, a place for research, not resource stripping.
The Antarctic ice cap, unlike its Arctic counterpart, occurs primarily on land. So if it were to be compromised in any significant way, due to human industry, the melted water would substantially increase sea levels worldwide. Were this to happen, the most populous and productive regions of human civilization would have to undergo costly relocation of their entire economic infrastructure, devastating the global economy for generations. Likewise, the loss of the heatsink represented by the Antarctic ice cap would only exacerbate the problem further, contributing to global warming and the power of storms/hurricanes.
There is no need to lift the ban. It is one of the very few good decisions made for our planet. Humans exploit resources as if they were infinite. No, the ban needs to stay.
I think that we should start working on finding alternatives to the natural resources we have and we should save the ones in the Antarctic in case one day we really do need them. It will help us if we eventually run out, knowing that we have extra. It will also cause us to work toward finding different sources that could perhaps lead eventually to an unlimited supply. It would be healthier to the planet and most beneficial to us.
In my opinion, the ban on exploiting the resources of the Antarctic should never be uplifted. Humans need to discover more efficient ways to produce energy and less ways of destroying the planet. This planet cannot sustain us if we keep mining the Earth out from under ourselves. We can't use up anymore of the planets natural resources. We need to focus on cleaning up the mess that we have made out of the Earth.
I disagree with lifting the ban on the Antarctic. So many places in the world, Untied States included, were once sacred natural land. Once exploited, the history and beauty is taken away. We have enough resources available and must come up with new ways to get what we need without destroying the Antarctic. The ban was made for a reason and should stay.
The Antarctic is one of the last places on the planet Earth that is not susceptible to exploitation by nations seeking to make money or to compete with other countries. Instead, Antarctica is set aside as a place for scientific inquiry and investigation. The continent is also a safe place for these scientists, as no country is able to use the land there for military bases. Lack of official ownership of the continent protects the fragile environment found there and the animals and ecosystems that rely upon it.
Due to human expeditions, the life cycle of the Antarctic region has been disturbed. They are regions where some of the species which are on the edge of elimination are found.
Lifting the ban seems to me to be a sort of short-term thinking. All it accomplishes is putting off problems we will still have to solve in a few years, after the resources are exhausted. It doesn't seem to actually solve any problems, it just gives us another excuse to procrastinate. It will also deplete resources future generations might need, and damage the ecosystem which is, essentially, a large life support machine keeping us alive. It seems reckless to keep removing parts of the machine without understanding which parts are the critical bits.
W need to find ways to make alternative methods of fuel. Going into the Antarctic and destroy the natural resources of it will be a disservices. If we deplete all our resources where will we go from there. What need to create eco-friendly alternatives to our resources.. We need to invest in scientific research and start creating something else. We cant continue to survive if we continue to deplete the earth.
Antarctica could potentially provide us with a new outlet for many of the resources we are currently depleting. However, we should be spending our time now developing new methods for alternative energy consumption, rather than further depleting the earth's resources. Global Warming is slowly becoming a problem due to excessive usage of resources as well as increased causes for pollution due to excessive resource usage. We should focus more on the problems environmentally, rather than further contributing to them.
The ban on exploiting resources in Antarctica should not be uplifted. Antarctica is the last place left on this earth that is natural and clean. It is proven that there are huge mineral deposits available in Antarctica. I believe that no country should be allowed to exploit Antarctica for minerals and wealth because it is going to create a new war and tons of pollution. The world has enough of both. So, I think all countries must abide by the Antarctic treaty. It is a place that everyone must share mutually so that we can appreciate how beautiful and wonderful our planet is.
Whether you believe in global warming or not you have to admit that we are running out of natural resources and continuing to burn like there is no end is irrational. Already we have polluted much of our water, and the ice caps which balance out the planet's climate and has replenished our water up to this point, are melting at a startling rate. Although we have laws about extraction here, when our companies go overseas drilling, and setting up shop they do so using the cheapest means, and this has contributed to such a disaster that we have more dangerous chemicals in human breast milk than a toxic dump. Continuing old methods will only make things worse. We need to change tactics. Solar, and wind are only the beginning. The end of industrial lifestyles is our only hope.
We all know the antarctics land is pure and natural beauty,why take that away because we want resources like coal or fashion from animals and the land, we shouldn't lift this because our earth is at stake and we need to slow down the USAge of what we are taking away.if the ban is lifted we will take away what is important to both humans (scientists) and animals living on the land
Let's get straight to the point, all people are really interested in regarding the Antarctic are fossil fuels. For the amount of money it will cost to exploit these resources, think about how much investment could be made in renewable energies. As a global society, we cannot continue our dependency on fossil fuels, they will run out eventually, and if we get to a point where we've burnt them all, what sort of a planet do you expect will be left for future generations to live in. It won't be us that pays the price for this reckless approach to our environment, it will be our children and grandchildren.
If we the ban is removed, then the rate of scarcity of resources will be more and there will be an utter destruction. Let Antarctica be a safe place and a beautiful one. Havnig mining and stuff done there, it will not only spoil the natural beauty and vegeation but also the wildlife there.
I believe that Antarctica should stay the way it is.
No way. That would be to destroy a relatively pristine landscape, potentially decimate its fragile ecosystem and cause unnecessary pollution. To uplift the ban is to simply procrastinate developing better renewable - and less damaging - energy sources. It's plain silly and to do it is to give the world a death sentence.