The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built

My arguments in this round will be focussing on environmental concerns. Contention One: Safety ConcernsBuilding the Keystone XL Pipeline would potentially have serious ramifications towards the water safety of local communities, located at the southerly end of the pipeline. Such concerns are to do with the possibility of a spill. Before I elaborate, note that I am not arguing that there necessarily will be a spill. I am merely arguing that a spill, which is possible, would have serious ramifications towards local areas. However, as we shall see later, there are good reasons to be concerned that there most likely will be a spill. Sub-Point 1: A Spill Would Be HarmfulThe originally proposed route of the Keystone XL Pipeline would cross a wide array of environmentally sensitive areas. [1] However, in the face of criticism from environmental activists, TransCanada has proposed a new route that supposedly “bypasses the most ecologically sensitive regions. ” [2] Granted, the new route does detour around a few ‘ecologically sensitive’ areas. However, the claim that there is now little risk in building the Keystone XL Pipeline is manifestly false. The Keystone XL Pipeline, despite avoiding an ecologically sensitive region called the Sandhills, still crosses through potentially sensitive areas such as the Ogallala Aquifer, as the below map demonstrates: This is of significance, as the Ogallala Aquifer is absolutely vital to the drinking supplies of the High Plains (part of the Great Plains) geographical area. Dennehy of the US Geographical Survey, says that the aquifer “provides drinking water to 82% of people who live in the aquifer boundary [High Plains]. ” [3] According to Jim Goeke, a hydrogeologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the new route would make no difference, and still would contaminate groundwater: “You still have the same kind of problems, essentially, but you get around the Sandhills, and that was the purpose of the rerouting. ” [4] Kevin O’Hanlon of the Lincoln Journal Stars argues that a worst case scenario could “pollute 4.9 billion gallons of groundwater with a plume of contaminants of 40 feet thick, 500 feet wide and 15 miles long. ” O’Hanlon derives his arguments from an independent analysis performed by John Stansbury, of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. According to Stansbury: “[This plume, and other contaminant plume from the spill would pose serious health risks to people using that groundwater for drinking water and irrigation. ” [5]Sub-Point 2: A Spill is LikelyTwo pieces of evidence back-up my assertion that a spill would be likely, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is built. First, the Federal agency that would be charged with regulating safety measures to the pipeline, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is unlikely to be a reliable regulator. An article from the New York Times explains: “[the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] - is chronically short of inspectors and lacks the resources needed to hire more, leaving too much of the regulatory control in the hands of pipeline operators themselves. ” [6] Second, TransCanada has a poor record when it comes to spills. They promise that it is unlikely that the Keystone XL Pipeline would spill. [6] However, such an assertion is dubious, at best. The original Keystone Pipeline leaked 12 times within its first year. [7] This includes a leak of 21000 gallons in North Dakota. [8] Yet it gets worse, as the Keystone XL Pipeline would be even more likely to leak than the original Keystone Pipeline. Shauna Theel explains: “The Keystone XL Pipeline would carry a component of tar sands (diluted by water) that [environmentalists say] is even more corrosive than crude oil and will make the pipeline more prone to leaks. ” [9] Contention Two: Global WarmingBuilding the Keystone XL Pipeline would have undesirable effects on the global climate, by contributing to global warming. However, considering that many Americans are ‘sceptical’ that global warming is not anthropogenic, I shall show that first. Sub-Point 1: Global Warming is AnthropogenicThe evidence I will use to establish global warming is anthropogenic is the Hockey Stick graph, published by Mann, Bradley and Hughes. To demonstrate that this determines global warming is anthropogenic, I present the following syllogism. If the Hockey Stick graph is (largely) accurate, then global warming is anthropogenic The Hockey Stick graph is (largely) accurate (Therefore) global warming is anthropogenic. Now, such conclusion logically follows from the two premises, so, unless my opponent would like to disagree, all I have to do is to show that the two premises are correct. P1This premise is uncontroversial. As one can see, at the time of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures started to dramatically rise. This corresponds with the rise of carbon dioxide emissions going into the atmosphere, determining that global warming would be anthropogenic. P2 The Hockey Stick has corroborates with a number of temperature reconstructions since it was published. New Scientist provides a comparison between the Hockey Stick graph and several other temperature reconstructions. The most recent, and comprehensive reconstruction, called the Pages 2k project, corroborates with Mann et. al’s original Hockey Stick. As Rahmstorf notes, “The global average of the new construction looks like a twin of the original ‘hockey stick’, the first such a reconstruction published 15 years ago. ” [11] Sub-Point 2: Carbon EmissionsAllowing the Keystone XL Pipeline to be constructed would have disastrous consequences towards the Earth’s climate. The Keystone XL Pipeline adds a large amount of carbon dioxide emissions into Earth’s atmosphere. This notion is elucidated by Nuccitelli, who writes: “an overall estimate of around 580kg of CO2-equivalent emissions per barrel of tar sands appears reasonably accurate. Using the Keystone XL pipeline capacity of 830,000 barrels per day, this oil would account for approximately 175 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions per year. Over a 40 year timeframe, this adds up to over 7 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases…tar sands petcoke production will add another 16.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions per year, or another 664 million metric tons over a 40 year timeframe. ” [14] It is reasonably well established that in 2 two degree rise in temperatures is a “danger limit. ” [13] David Biello, writing in Scientific American writes, “the world could afford to put one trillion metric tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere by 2050 to have any chance of restraining global warming below 2 degrees…to date, fossil fuel burning, deforestation and other actions have put nearly 570 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere. ” [14] Now, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is much closer to 580 billion tonnes. [15] Hence, we can derive from the above that in the next 36 years, we can afford to put 420 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Keystone XL Pipeline itself would put about 7.6 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, representing 2% of the entire carbon budget we have. In order for us to stay in the carbon budget we need to be cutting emmissions by 2.5%. [16] Instead, we are increasing carbon dioxide emissions by 3% per year, and this is likely to grow larger, given the economic development of countries like China and India. [17] Nuticelli notes, “if Keystone XL is approved, it is an indicator that the United States is still not taking climate change remotely as seriously as it needs to…it is a step along the wrong path. ” [18] If, in fact, we were to burn all of the tar sands in Alberta, global temperatures would rise 0.4 degrees. [19] Approving Keystone XL would provide an incentive for more extraction of tar sands. It would suggest to corporations like TransCanada that extracting tar sands oil is permissible. It is not. ConclusionIn this round, I have shown that the environmental consequences of Keystone XL are undesirable. I will, in the next round, show that the economic benefits associated with Keystone XL are limited and do not outweigh the environmental consequence alone. [1] . http://www.chron.com... [2] . http://www.cato.org... [3] . https://web.archive.org... [4] . http://insideclimatenews.org... [5] . http://www.kwo.org... [6] . http://www.nytimes.com... [7] . http://keystone-xl.com... [8] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [9] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [10] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [11] . http://thinkprogress.org... [12] . http://www.skepticalscience.com... [13] . http://www.skepticalscience.com... [14] . http://www.scientificamerican.com... [15] . http://trillionthtonne.org... [16] ibid [17] Ref. 14 [18] Ref. 13 [19] Ref. 14