Atacama Desert=Why Not Transfer Water from Pacific Ocean to the Atacama Desert?

What would Happen If the Driest place on Earth (ATacama Desert) had a water transfer from Pacific Ocean?





If Humans where able to build a pipeline system as great as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System in 1974, from Northern Alaska to Southern Alaska, thus Oil, which is heavy. Why Wouldn't Government think of Creating a Minor Marina or Vibrant area for animals that are not in threat of extinction over in the Atacama Desert. They could create a pump-line system over the Mountainous Terrain, to the Atacama Desert in Chile. Within time they could start opening up a tunnel system under the mountains to allow the water to flow in and outward of the Atacama Desert, thus no longer being the driest place and least likely place to visit. Right Now Chile could Use all the Help and Money they can get, with in time this would bring and abundant of life flow, creating attractions through out the region.


Images the contributed to my Ideas:


http://www.rainforestpublishing.com.au/international_images/Atacama%20Desert.jpg


http://www.photos4travel.com/chile/chile_photos/atacama_desert_pool1.jpg


http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/18/12/54/desert-atacama-cthierry.jpg


http://www.afinetour.com/images/uploads/tourimages/atacama_desert_chile.jpg|||Um... because the Atacama Desert is its own completely intact ecosystem. All of its plants and animals have evolved to live there together in harmony, from plant to herbivore to predator. Would you redirect the Colorado River and flood Phoenix because it seems like they need water? No, that would be stupid -- the "human ecosystem" is already in balance. Would you start a brushfire here in southern California because the vegetation is dry and appears to be choking out the animal habitat, hoping that the various animals from puma to bunny to hawk would be happy about it?





No. The Atacama doesn't need our help. In fact, the best way to save any habitat is to do the opposite of what you're proposing -- HANDS OFF!!|||First you need to desalinate the ocean water which is very costly, also water pumped from east of the Andes will devastate the ecosystems there. It is best to leave the desert alone.





watering the Atacama desert would also harm whatever wildlife lives there (yes there are some species that do live there)


There are other attractions in Chile besides a newly verdant Atacama desert. Chile is better helped by rebuilding infrastructure than greening the desert. There are many humid regions in Chile as well such as a temperate rain forest filled with tiny animals, beautiful mountains, great beaches and vibrant cities. Even without the 8.8 earthquake, Chile would be better served by better school systems, better hospitals and a stronger police force than a region that was once desert|||You have an interesting idea. However, consider the alternative viewpoint of environmental ethics, exemplified in Rod Nash's book "The Rights of Nature." Once a rather radical concept, preserving the inherent rights of nature has become inculcated into more mainstream philosophy along the likes of Endangered Species Act and National Parks. The Atacama is the driest place on Earth for a reason, and the native flora and fauna have spent centuries adapting to just such an environment. Short-term gains may be found by making the desert bloom, but the long-term consequences may be grave if not carried out responsibly. I also suggest reading up on the case history of the Devil's Hole Pupfish as a current example of exactly that - watering the desert at the cost of the endemic species that call the desert home. Only recently has BLM and Bureau of Rec changed their philosophy, restored the Devil's Hole, and created a tourist attraction not to see a false "Disneyland", but the real deal, the strange and exotic endemic species.