The US should authorize the construction of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline.

My two main contentions are-- 1. The Keystone XL poses serious environmental threats. 2. The small benefits it provides are not worth the risk. Definitions: Keystone XL Pipeline = a tar sands oil pipeline running from Alberta, Canada to multiple destinations in the U. S. It is an extension of the Keystone pipeline which has already been constructed. 1. The Keystone XL poses serious environmental threats. So what is Tar Sands Oil? It is heavy crude oil mixed with Sand, Clay & Bitumen. It is worst type of oil for the environment & produces 3 times more more greenhouse gas emissions when compared to conventional oil. Getting the oil out of this region will mean destroying an area as large as the state of Florida! According to the National Wildlife Federation: It takes up to 4 gallons of water to clean every gallon of Tar Sands Oil. By the time it is done, we could end up with a toxic lake of the size that will be visible even from space. According to the New York Times: Environmental groups have long contended that crude oil is more corrosive to pipelines than conventional oil. In a Press Conference on January 2013, TransCanada, Perryman, Group, Cornell University, & the State Dept. met & the XL was rerouted. However, it will still slice through America's agricultural heartland, the Missouri, Platte, Niobrara Rivers, but most importantly the Great Plains Aquifer & the Ogallala Aquifer. Because tar sands is 16 times more corrosive & produces 3 times more greenhouse gases than conventional oil, the chances of a leak are a lot worse, & in the event that it does leak the effect will be devastating. According to Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Quality: The Ogallala Aquifer is the source for 30% of the entire US groundwater for irrigation. Do we really want to pollute 30% of the U. S water source? Sure, the pipeline will help with a few thousand temporary jobs but even a minor oil spill in or near the Aquifer would have jeopardized hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention the health & safety of millions. Also, my opponent may bring up that new technology will decrease the chances of leaks, but this is not true. According to the State Dept. : In 1 year of construction, the XL already has 16 leaks total, with all the "new technology", & only 5% of the construction has been complete. If only 5% has been completed, & 16 leaks have occurred, by the time the XL is finished CONSTRUCTING it will be at an estimated 320 leaks! According to CNN: In 2010, the largest tar sands spill in U. S. history devastated the Kalamazoo River with over 800,000 gallons of oil at a price tag of over $700 million, and we"re STILL cleaning it up, 3 years later & counting. 2. The small benefits it provides are not worth the risk. According to TransCanada: The U. S. will be paying $13 billion for the Keystone XL, while TransCanada itself will only be paying $7 billion. America already has a huge debt to pay. Do we really need another debt raiser that won"t even provide PERMANENT jobs, but rather TEMPORARY? According to a State Dept. report to Congress: The XL Pipeline would only create between 4,000 & 5,000 construction jobs for two years. These are only temporary jobs. The price of oil is determined by the global marketplace. The marginal contribution of Keystone Pipeline oil will hardly make a dent to the total global oil supply & therefore will result in no real benefit to the American consumer. According to OPEC: Oil from the Keystone XL Pipeline will reduce global oil by less than a cent. According to Philip Verlegar, a noted Oil economist: Overall, the pipeline will have no impact on the global oil market. As I said before this won"t make an impact on the price of global oil, so gas prices won"t drop whatsoever. The environmental risks are high, we are drastically cutting down our oil dependency & there is nothing that can justify the entry of this dirty, corrosive crude oil into our environment. My proposal to this situation will benefit us much more. Instead of spending all this time, money & effort on this project, we should continue to invest in improving fuel efficiency. 90% of all crude oil is used to move our cars, trucks & planes. In 2000, cars averaged 17 miles per gallon, or mpg. Today, they average 24 mpg & by 2016 it will be 35 mpg. True, we are still importing 60% of our oil but our consumption is rapidly falling thanks to all these advances we have made in fuel efficiency & eco-friendly fuels. The oil from the Pipeline is not necessary for us because our oil consumption has gone down by 40% in the last 10 years. If we enable this pipeline then all these achievements in fuel efficiency & alternative fuels will come to be forgotten. Thank you. :)