ODT: The Keystone XL Pipeline

As per say the rules, this round I will focus on rebuttals. -----Rebuttals----- Job Destruction Actually, the KXL pipeline budget will only be about $4 billion. [1] And these estimates are from the company itself, not an outside interest group. This figure is from TransCanada, and after you include the amount that is actually used for the US, and the amount already spent. Pro's job figures are from two sources. The first source is a blank page, the second source is from John Boehner, the GOP Speaker of the House, who also has made widely false statements concerning the job creation from the Bush tax cuts. [2] I want to see real estimates, not shady political talking head points. My estimates are from the company itself. Here is an analogy. Say that we are debating the cost of producing an episode of Dexter. I am using the estimate from the production company, while Pro is using an estimate from a critic. My source is closer to the actual activity going on, and is directly connected, having a higher likelihood of being correct. Pro also asserts that the KXL pipeline will create about 20,000 American jobs, primarily because of manufacturing. This is also false. Presently, 40% of the pipe will be manufactured by Evraz (Russian company) outside of the U.S. [3] The rest of it is likely to be produced in India, by the same company that produced the first defective pipe, because this company has already produced 10% of the pipe needed for KXL, and it is the same dimensions as the pipe for XL that is needed. [5] GDP Effect Pro asserts that KXL will lead to a $7 billion in GDP benefit. This is a fallacy. First, this includes both the US and Canada spending. The Canadian portion will cost $1.6 of this $7 billion. So the US portion will be $5.4 billion. TransCanada stated that the Keystone project including XL and the section already completed will in total cost $13 billion. Of this figure, $7.9 billion had already been spent. Of this portion already spent, only $1.7 billion is related to KXL. So prior to the KXL construction, 25% of it has been spent. This leaves only $5.2 billion for construction, split between the US and Canada. Using the same proportion above (77%), the remaining KXL spending within the US is now only $4 billion. [4] Simply put, the KXL will only use $4 billion in the US for the project. Now, I'll tell why this is not enough to help Pro's side. Increasing Gas Prices Pro asserts that a higher supply equals lower prices. This is true. However, gas prices will still go up, because KXL lowers supply, mostly for the Midwest. TransCanada stated that KXL would result in an increase of gas prices by about $2-4 billion annually, and would escalate for several years. They do this by diverting major sources of tar sands oil from the Midwest and towards the Gulf, so it can be sold at higher prices at the global level. [6] In other words, the Midwest will spend about 20 to 30 cents more per gallon, or for the whole USA, $5 billion more annually. [6]This is my point: The costs of reducing supply with KXL outweigh the temporary jobs, making KXL harmful to the economy. Green Energy Production Pro grossly understimates green energy jobs. As I've said, green energy jobs pay 13% more than dirty fuel jobs, and four times as many clean energy jobs compared to fossil fuel jobs, with an equal sized investment (evidence last round). Green jobs help make our air and water cleaner for us to breathe. This leads to less deaths and healthier people. And it makes us closer to energy independence. Government is often inefficient, due to a lack of competition, a lack of incentives, and the lack of price signaling. This is why a screwdriver is $500 for the military, [10] instead of $5 at my local store. This is extremely inflated compared to what the private sector would deliver. Businesses are rational. If a green energy job is beneficial due to the marginal productivity the business gets after the wages, this is good for business, and wages will closely reflect the true productivity of the worker. And since green energy jobs have been growing fast, they are obviously good for business. KXL would cut these modern jobs. Environment Pro has mentioned that the tar sands oil has gotten "a lot cleaner" by cutting carbon output. This ignores a critical point though. Remember, it takes lots of water and chemicals combined in a hot, toxic water "soup" to pump out tar sands oil. Pro also misses the point with the Ogallala Aquifer. If it did spill, which the first part of this pipeline spilled 30 times in the first year alone, [7] all of this hot toxic water and oil would flow out. Remember in last round I supported the fact that TransCanada doesn't investigate spills less than about 800,000 gallons? This is 5 gallons, based on size: (size inflated) Want this much oil contaminating an aquifer which millions of people rely on for their income and life, and second, many spills which TransCanada will not even register or act to remedy? They have to way to remove tar sand oil from water anyway at this point. Also, remember this is produced from defective steel, and many spills will likely occur due to the first segment of the pipeline.Dr. John S. Stansbury of the University of Nebraska concluded that the pipeline would have "91 major spills over a 50 year design life of the pipeline." [8]Pro also says that the Pipeline is a high quality type. This is also, not true. First, the company that will produce this pipeline is the same company that produced the last defective components of the pipeline. [4] TransCanada said that its pipeline met "world class standards", yet it still spilled 30 times in year 1. [9] -----Conclusion----- The Keystone Pipeline will add about $4 billion to the US economy. However, due to the higher gas prices, which themselves are caused by the KXL redirecting oil from the Midwest towards the global market, will harm the US and cost the America an additional $5 billion in oil costs annually. This is long-term. So, the short inflation of jobs will be only about 2 years (Pro conceded the point that there would only be about 50 long term jobs or less). When you use the harm from the higher oil prices, job creation is negative. The pipeline is prone to frequent spills, which would eventually contaminate the Ogallala Aquifer, remember which, millions of people rely on to live. The environment, particularly the species of rare animals and the forests and deep rivers and clean waterways would be eliminated and replaced by hot toxic water. By polluting water, violating our property rights (Pro didn't respond to this), adversely harming rare species of animals, potentially harming millions of people, and being harmful to job creation, and by also harming the future job growth of major job growing sectors (clean energy industry), the Keystone XL pipeline is a harmful idea to undertake. Sources: [1] Letter from TransCanada to the US Department of State regarding the Keystone XL Application, September 19, 2008, ( http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov.... pdf?OpenFileResource) [2] http://www.politifact.com...-/ [3] http://www.brederoshaw.com... literature/newsletter/PipeCoatingSolutions_NA_2010_2.pdf [4] http://www.ilr.cornell.edu... [5] https://www.neb.gc.ca... [6] National Energy Board (Canada), Reasons for Decision, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd, OH-1-2009, March 2010 https://www.neb-one.gc.ca... pp. 21-22; Verleger, Phil. “If gas prices go up further, blame Canada,” Star Tribune. May 13, 2011. (http://www.startribune.com...) [7] http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov...