The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built

I. Job CreationFirstly, that really isn't all that much. If all those jobs were added in one month, that would be a reduction in the unemployment by a grand total of about .07%. Worse, the twenty thousand figure isn't even substantiated. Instead, a better figure, which was erived from TransCanada's own numbers, put the number of jobs created at 2,500-4,650 direct construction jobs. As for manufacturing, about 50% of the pipe is being produced outside the United States. And significant amounts of pipe have already been produced[1].II. GDPThere are several problems with Pro's argument. Firstly, he just states that it would help the Midwest without any evidence of it being helped in particular. I request that Pro back up this argument with something more substantial.Leaving aside that not all of that $7 billion would go to the United States[1], we also have the problem of damages caused by spills. Tar sand oil is more caustic than normal oil--the Alberta pipeline (which carries tar sands) has had sixteen times more spills than US pipelines[2]. I'll expand on that later.III. Gas PricesActually, tar sands are currently supplying the Midwest; the pipeline would divert those oil causing a significant increase in price[1]. Evidence suggests that TransCanada may well know this[3].IV. Midwest EconomySee above for my refutations of Pro's points.V. Long Term ImpactMostly Pro restates his arguments here without real support, but in relationto energy independence, I would point out that the main refinery in Texas is half-owned by a state owned Saudi oil company[1].Now, on to my arguments:Risk goes hand in hand with pretty much anything we do. I won't deny that. The problem with some actions is that the risk outweighs the benefit. For instance, I do not walk up to random mountain lions and hug them, because no matter how adorable they may be, they might maul me, and the risk of getting killed outweighs the benefit of mountain lion hugging.Most people would call this a reasonable decision.So, in relation to the XL pipe, we must ask ourselves what the benefit is and what the risk is. I've already established tha that the benefit isn't that much, now I'll establish the risk.C1. Environmental DamagesEnvironmental damages are part of oil extraction. The question, as always, is one of degree. The degree here is probably something like 80 Celsius.We know that lakes are affected, and that they enter different ecosystem states[4]. We know that oil sands development causes heavy metals and various elements toxic at low concentrations to leak into water systems, and that they reach concentrations that are past the set guidelines for the protection of aquatic life[5]. We know that the ponds that are supposed to contain polluted, toxic water leak, and were in fact leaking 1600 cubic meters a day in 1997[6]. We know that these 'tailing ponds' are so toxic that birds die after landing on them, like 500 ducks did after the sonar devices intended to scare them away failed[6].C2. Deceptive and Improper Government OversightKnowledge of the risks of the more difficult because the government isn't doing its job--oil money is putting the people supposed to make sure the pipe is safe in a conflict of interest. For instance, the State Department impact statement was written by a private company contracted by TransCanada to write the statement[7]! It also completely ignored the fact that the pipeline would encourage further production and exploitation of tar sand oil[8].1. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu...2. http://www.nwf.org...3. http://blog.nwf.org...4. http://www.pnas.org...5. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29413146. http://briarpatchmagazine.com...7. http://grist.org...8. http://www.guardian.co.uk...