The reading passage argues that exploration and exploitation of Antarctic resources such as oil and gas should be allowed. However, the professor in the lecture contradicts the reading with opposing views.
To begin with, while the reading passage states that Antarctica is a huge and almost unpopulated except the coastal areas, the professor actually points out that Antarctica is highly fragile and very easy to be damaged. Also, even for the coastal areas which support animal and plant life can be destroyed by the tank or ship used for oil extraction. She mentions that big oil spill in this region can affect all the life in coastal areas including sea birds and penguins terribly.
On top of that, the speaker cast doubt on the reading that resources can be harvested from Antarctica with little danger like Alaska. Her main reason is that Antarctica is much more difficult to work compared to Alaska or North Sea, and it would be prohibitively expensive no matter how much money can be made out of resources from Antarctica. The professor asserts that instead of spending money to extract resources from Antarctica, this money should be invested to alternative energy source such as hydrogen.
Furthermore, the professor denies that the reading which believes that only a small group of scientists and environmentalists makes decisions about resources in Antarctica. She explains that the treaty was made at 1993 by scientists and politicians from all around the world. People from multi-nation corporations participated to make this treaty.
For these reasons, the speaker challenges the reading passages point about getting resources from Antarctica.