reply to post by JadeStar
Has any nation said, "screw you, we own this continent?" No. And that's not likely to happen despite its high scientific value because nations
recognize it is a place for the benefit of all. It's big enough for everyone to do their science without interfering with another.
In all seriousness (for the first time in this thread). I must point out that while I applaud your take on current dealings with the Antarctica and
the moon, and your appreciation of scientific value… I'm not sure how exactly things will unfold say, if, nuclear fusion becomes a reality and
mining he3 from the moon, would the climate shift?
(For arguments sakes let's presume this is all possible)
Treaties and agreements are all dust in the wind when money is involved. How many times did people explore only for the fruits of their exploration
turn into exploitation?
Whether or not a fusion industry could be developed and of course transport/mining and EROI of something like this is up for debate, but if the moon
became the most profitable mining source on and off the world I sense science taking a back seat.
edit on 11-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)
There's likely oil underneath the ground in the Antarctic:
If predictions about Antarctica's 200 billion barrel oil capacity prove correct, the continent's reserves would be third largest in the world,
according to the Lowy Institute.
Yet, everyone seems content to get on with their own scientific work and no one is claiming the Antarctic because of the Antarctic Treaty they signed
The world's current appetite for oil is more vociferous than any appetite for Helium-3 anytime in even the distant future, yet we have not had a war
over the Antarctic, have we?
edit on 11-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)
I see that and raise you with:
In 1960, one year before the Antarctic Treaty came into force, a geologist declared before the US science academy that he "would not give a nickel
for all the resources of Antarctica". Today, in a world of dwindling fossil fuels and soaring energy needs, countries are spending lavishly to explore
the potential of the world's last unexploited continent.
When the treaty was signed, no one presumed anyone could get something from it.
Just like in Canada the tar sands were once completely dismissed by experts, and now there is a frenzy over the land and processing because it became
Technology and harsh conditions limited antarctica from being explored. It may be a reality that the long standing treaty goes wayside if oil and
mineral explorations become feasible.
One thing you can always count on is human nature to exploit the land.
Article seven of Antarctica's Protocol on Environmental Protection stipulates that activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific
research, is prohibited. But this ruling, up for review in 2048, allows geological surveillance. "It is necessary for us to fully understand the
resources on the continent," says Guo Peiqing, a professor of law and politics at the Ocean University of China. "China's exploration of the continent
is like playing chess. It's important to have a position in the global game. We don't know when play will happen, but it's necessary to have a
2048 is a long way away, but still very soon considering within the lifetime of our children they may see policy change in that region.
That is if it every became viable, which doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon. Similar to the moon.
There are known reserves of oil and coal as well as mineral deposits in Antarctica, although detailed knowledge of these mineral deposits is
sketchy. In the last 50 years of scientific research, no large deposits of mineralized rocks have been found. Mining in Antarctica would be very
difficult, dangerous and expensive as the climate is so harsh, the ice is very thick and Antarctica is very remote from major centres of population.
This would make the transportation of minerals and equipment in and out of Antarctica hazardous. Drilling would also be difficult because of the vast
quantities of moving ice and glaciers as well as the huge depth (5km at its thickest) that would be required to drill to reach the minerals making it
too expensive to be economically viable.
I guess my point is that politicians and businessman make the laws of the land, and scientists go on their daily lives involved in the nobel work they
do. Paying attention to their work rather than playing politics. Unfortunately, they don't make policy.
And while the current treaty is a nice show of face to the scientific community, it's not as if their concerns would make an iota of difference should
something suddenly become profitable down there.
We see this on the daily.
“There is a systematic attack on science and democracy taking place in Canada, and the Harper government isn’t even trying to hide it,” said
scientist Dr. David Suzuki. ”But scientists cannot and will not be silenced, not when we are facing an irreversible climate catastrophe like the tar
We see it when large corporations do studies but hold back the unfavourable ones, only letting the favourable get published or disseminated to the
public. We see it anytime government is given information from scientific bodies but their opinions are swayed by lobbyists. We see it with
underfunding of the sciences in general.
The world isn't run by logic and reason.
edit on 12-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)