Res: The US should approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Before officially starting this speech, I wish to invoke Rule 6 of Round 1. The final speech for both sides should serve as a closing statement with no new sources or new arguments (i. e. giving new funds to a source not specified earlier). With that in mind, let"s begin. First, I must address an essential issue Pro has brought up: "the future. " Pro claims he can promote Keystone XL in the future, since "Con never stated in the title or in any context before this debate that (he) may not argue this from a future perspective. " This is literally true, but is also equivalent to stealing from the bank in Monopoly; the rules never say you CANNOT do it, but it"s obviously breaching the terms of the game. Looking at Keystone from the future requires a ridiculous amount of speculation. Besides, Pro never specified exactly when his future plan would come into fruition. For sake of this debate"s clarity, we must overcome a rather silly semantics issue to get to the root of the problem. When breaking down this round into its core issues, we find three come readily to mind. 1. Which side better improves the health of our nation"s economy? 2. Which side better improves the health of our nation"s ecology? 3. Which side better improves the health of our nation"s citizenry? In this final Con speech, I would like to look at each of these three questions and demonstrate why Side Con has a clear COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE over Side Pro in each of these factors of the debate. 1. Which side better improves the health of our nation"s economy? There are two factors in play in considering this question: jobs and fuel prices. Side Pro has an alleged job advantage, Side Con an alleged fuel price advantage. Yet one of these advantages is illusory: Side Pro"s. Side Pro CONCEDES that the 1,000 to 20,000 "permanent" jobs mentioned in his Round 2 speech would only last until the completion of the pipeline. Since the pipeline would be complete by 2014, as he mentioned, this would minimally provided for employment for 1 year, and then the construction workers would be out of work once again. You cannot build a pipeline forever; these jobs will have minimal effect on our nation"s employment. Only 35 jobs will truly be "permanent. " The claim of indirect jobs is also flimsy at best. My opponent became a moving target of sorts in the previous speech. In Round 2, he claimed restaurants, hotels, marts, and other businesses would be indirectly created from the pipeline. In Round 3, he claimed contractors and truck drivers would be indirectly created. First, contractors and truck drivers would be created directly, as they are necessary to build the pipeline. Second, in addressing the restaurants, there is simply no place for them to set up shop. As my opponent said, they cannot build on top of the pipeline. They cannot build to the side of the pipeline either, as the land is already owned by farmers dependent on it for their livelihoods. Plus, even if they did create those businesses, they run the risk of creating ghost towns, as pipeline construction will move away from their area. These jobs are just as "permanent" as the construction ones, namely, not at all. Now, let"s look at Con"s advantage: oil prices. Con claimed oil prices would rise in the Midwest by 20 to 40 cents to the gallon, decreasing commercial spending by a whopping 20-40 billion dollars. Pro, despite posting five sources at the bottom of his Round 3 speech, had none countering this fact. Thus, we must directly clash with Pro himself. Pro claims this price spike would only occur if the pipeline were passed today, which, as I said earlier, is the entire purpose of this debate. Pro also claims, due to the time it takes to build the pipeline, we would not reap higher oil prices until 2014. My response: OK, perhaps we do not get the oil prices jacked immediately. They will increase nonetheless, but they do not happen immediately. This is similar to saying, "I"ll take the cyanide over the knife; one will drag it out more. " My opponent also argues that there are too many variables to consider, but fortunately mentions the most important variable of all: "the price of crude oil. " As I mentioned in Round 2, TransCanada means to refine its crude oil in Foreign Trade Zones to avoid taxes and then sell the oil to nations such as China and South Korea for massive profits. Since the demand for oil is huge, they can artificially increase the price of oil. Other refineries in the area will then increase their prices so to maximize the same profits. But the Midwest now has to pay those same increased fuel prices. We all end up paying the price: gasoline for our cars, food transported from the Midwest, Grandma"s arthritis medication manufactured from petroleum. We all ultimately suffer. And while time may be a factor, supply and demand are even more pressing economic mechanisms. Thus, when we look at the issue of economics, Side Con emerges triumphant. The number of jobs in this nation will not increase nominally, and due to the principles of competition and supply and demand, our fuel prices will see an increase. This increase costs us 40 billion dollars, and so much more. 2. Which side better improves the health of our ecology? I will put it right out: global warming will not increase significantly as a result of Keystone. If Side Pro is anxious I did not like his math, that"s perfectly OK. His math is fine. But this is not the ecological issue at stake. The biggest threats arising from Keystone are particulate matter and spill risk. My opponent has one blanket response for this issue: the EPA will fix the problem before it gets put into action. I wish my opponent was right. I wish the EPA could fulfill its responsibilities and make sure our pipelines, oil drills, and air currents functioned properly. I wish the EPA could achieve every single point on its agenda. Sadly for me, and for my opponent"s case, this is not going to happen. The EPA is not only chronically underfunded, but it also fails to satisfy its already established goals. The EPA lets dozens of ecological issues slide past every day. Where was the EPA when the Yellowstone Oil Spill occurred? Where was the EPA when coal slurries broke out in New England? Where was the EPA when the Texas oil refineries ignored the Clean Air Act? They weren't there. The EPA isn"t perfect, and there will undoubtedly be massive ramifications of pipe failure despite the EPA"s actions. Estimates from previously cited sources indicate the inevitability of a spill, despite the EPA. I"ve demonstrated why the XL pipeline is setting itself up for failure. Side Pro is banking on the EPA to solve the problem, but it cannot accomplish this task. Otherwise, he has not scientifically addressed the points made by Con; it's too late for that now. Thus, Side Con holds a huge advantage on this issue. 3. Which side better improves the health of our citizenry? In addressing this argument, Pro only restates his EPA argument. Though I already addressed this point, let"s ignore all the incidents the EPA has ignored. Let"s ignore Yellowstone, the coal slurries, the Texas oil refineries. I am only going to ask one question. If the EPA sets up clear air quality standards so to save lives, then why are 50,000 US citizens dying a year due to air pollution? Simply put, the EPA does not fulfill its obligations to the American people. Under their watch, people are dying. Voting Pro on this resolution will only increase the number of deaths, spreading toxins throughout our atmosphere, killing men, women, and children alike. So, when you make your vote, think past the grammar. Think past the sources, whether or not we used ". govs" or ". coms. " Consider which side represents economic logic, understanding supply and demand. Consider which side understands the ecological ramifications. Consider which side greater respects the value of human life. On all these issues, Side Con triumphs.