Should development be allowed in antarctica

Not everyone is convinced the benefits outweigh the risks but most are pragmatic. Firstly there are many useful resources like coal, hydrocarbons, iron ore, platinum, copper, gold and there minerals can be found.

How long would it take to get there? It could cause food chains and pyramids to collapse even within the smallest of changes, the reduction of the population of krill could cause the whales population to decrease as they contest for their meals.

There are concerns for the future however. For many poor states that are under grave economic conditions, they will be greatly benefited not only from the profit shares that they will acquire on these resources but also on the specific resources, since the scarcity of many minerals or fish has been a problem that may now no longer be for many of them.

Both of them get use of the Antartic resources, provide an economic boost, do not have major ecological impacts and are peaceful.

Should tourists be banned from Antarctica?

Almost completely covered by ice, Antarctica has no permanent human population. Adelies, and the little helmeted chinstrap penguins, however, are in decline.

Antarctica latitude relation and high elevations make it the coldest continent. The entire marine ecosystem will be jeopardized; resultant changes in climate will beget disasters bigger than ever before.

Although current technology would not enable exploitation of any reserves at economic prices, future technological advances and rises in the price of fossil fuels may change this equation.

However, is that the real problem? Oil and gas exploration should be allowed, both on the Antarctic continent and in the southern ocean surrounding it. Antarctic Exploitation Yes because Development Please give reasons for your decision. During the season, almost 35, tourists were estimated to have stepped ashore from their cruise ships in Antarctica, according to the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators a coalition of tour operators established in that follow "best practice self-regulation" when it comes to minimising their environmental impact.

Another argument against developing and exploitation of Antarctica is that most of the minerals including oil are covered by such a thick layer of ice that their exploration is not feasible. The proposition chose to suggest a model to deflect this backfire, and it surely does bear responsibility for that choice.

Antarctica should be for all of humanity, not just for an elite few scientists who seek to deny others access while simultaneously demanding huge sums of money for their research projects.

Unchecked, this influx of people is greatly increasing the problems of waste management and their activities are having a negative impact on the coastal environment and its wildlife. 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.

Antarctica is huge and almost completely unpopulated - only the coastal fringes have any animals or plants. Since the beginning side opposition has claimed that distribution is a major impediment for our policy to be successful. Tourism should be greatly expanded to allow as many people as possible to visit this unique environment.

Both the sides have many arguments to offer, and there seems to be at least some logic in both. The results are strikingly inconclusive showing more-visited colonies variously doing worse, the same and even better.

There are no k All three of these places are very advanced and have the funds to explore desalination, rain water collection, etc. Indeed, even then resource extraction would be evitable. Especially benefits that are so difficult to acquire as those from Antarctica. The increasing number of tourist flights disturbs the nesting birds and their flying patterns and also the carbon emission of the plane will not be beneficial towards the ozone layer.

This means that the reserve in Antarctica is going to run out sooner or later. Recent human activities in Antarctica have been blamed by environmentalists for the disappearance of glaciers. The other half are worryingly outside this regulation but most are part of the International Maritime Organisation which is just introducing a stricter polar code, and at present all the companies regularly bringing tourists here are members of the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators IAATO which works closely with the Antarctic Treaty System.

Surely, we can move away from the centuries-old attitude that mankind has dominion over nature.Your Task: You are going to be a reporter for a Sunday Supplement Magazine.

You have been asked to produce an article posing the question 'Should Development Be Allowed in the Future in Antarctica?'. There are many interest groups that agree to the development of Antarctica, the majority of them represent viable reasons towards the development.

Should Tourism Be Allowed in Antartica

I have been convinced that the world is running out of space to dump nuclear waste but I do not believe that we should be allowed to dump it in Antarctica where the CEO-system and environment. The Guardian - Back to home Tourism is encroaching on Antarctica. We should protect this unspoilt place from damage by restricting the numbers allowed to visit be the introduction of.

Antarctica Should Be Opened Up For Resource Exploitation This debate is whether Antartica's resources should be exploited (as is currently with fishing and tourism) or should not even these be exploited.

Antarctic Exploitation. Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments. Oil and gas exploration should be allowed, both on the Antarctic continent and in the southern ocean surrounding it. Access to Antarctica should be restricted to those with a serious scientific purpose.

Perhaps tourists are expected inmostly on. Should development be allowed? Tourism, mining, fishing and bioprospecting are just four activities that could threaten the sustainability of Antarctica in the future.

All of these interests have the potential to damage, change or destroy Antarctica and its surrounding oceans if not carefully controlled, managed or banned.

Should development be allowed in antarctica
Rated 0/5 based on 89 review