Res: The US should approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

I wish to counter the points made by Side Pro in his first speech of the round. I will then elaborate upon my own points, fully crystallizing why Con is currently winning this round. I would also like to clarify the terms of this debate: this debate deals solely with the present day, whether or not we should permit the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline this instant. Otherwise, we could have this debate in 2525 when mankind develops a machine to safely remove all sulfur from crude oil, a speculative notion. Con has helpfully provided us with two clear contentions to clash with; let's examine both. C1: The Keystone XL pipeline will create jobs and help the US economy. My opponent opens this contention with the claim "some sources would show this (Keystone) would create hundreds, possibly thousands, of jobs within the US." Let"s see what the experts have to say. Alyeska, the pipeline company providing the materials for the pipes" construction, claims "perhaps 13,000 jobs" will be created at the peak of the project (1). This sounds great! Hiring 13,000 people would be a huge boon for our nation"s employment. But we have to ask ourselves a question. What happens when the pipeline is finished? Suddenly, our rainbow of happiness fades away. Quite simply, exceedingly few people would actually have long-term jobs after the pipeline is finished. You can"t build a pipeline forever. Estimates by the State Department reveal Keystone XL would create only 35 permanent jobs (2). Compare this to the numbers provided by my opponent: "a possible thousand." Since my opponent never brought up a single source to back up this number, I must treat this with a great deal of skepticism. How on earth are 1,000 people to get a PERMANENT career building this pipeline? It"s not possible. My opponent also makes the claim hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs will result from Keystone"s construction, likely from restaurants and markets built next to the pipeline. This argument, as famous economist F. A. Hayek would say, "ignores human action and motivation." No restaurant owner would want to set up a diner next to an oil pipeline; the stench alone would drive away half the customers. Perhaps my opponent is suspecting the pipeline construction will mirror the California Gold Rush, creating new businesses to feed the construction workers. That's a nice thought, if most of the nearby land wasn't already owned. Seeing as most of their land was already seized by Keystone itself, I"m pretty certain the farmers currently owning this land are not too keen on selling it to restauranteurs. Also, if we look at the construction of railroads during the 1800s, the hotels and restaurants faded into ghost towns as soon as railroad construction moved away. The same would happen here. My opponent then claims the opposite of my point that the pipeline would boost oil prices, yet provides no logic to back this up. I"ve produced studies and economic logic to definitively show you why the oil price spike will ultimately cost the US up to $40 billion in GDP. My opponent merely counters with "studies are subjective." I'd rather have a number than nothing. My opponent then clashes with my point discussing Keystone's exporting oil to foreign nations. My opponent claims this is a good thing. I would agree. The Keystone oil exports are a good thing... for Canada. Why does TransCanada so desperately want this pipeline in the first place? THEY are the ones getting the money, because the refineries being used to process Keystone oil are NOT US refineries. These refineries are located on Foreign Trade Zones, where they need not pay US taxes (3). These jobs are not American jobs, but international jobs. TransCanada has adopted a variation of Carnegie"s vertical integration in selling oil, maximizing its profits. Quickly addressing Side Pro"s final point, discussing the US"s demand for foreign oil, I never claimed the US will be free from oil dependency. I was merely claiming Keystone was not pushing us towards oil independence. This point has little to no relevance in clashing with Side Con. 2C: We can significantly limit ecological damage Keystone XL will cause. My opponent begins with the claim stopping Keystone XL will not necessarily slow the rate of global warming, since TransCanada is likely to process the tar sands anyways. Even if this is true, I"d rather have TransCanada reaping the ecological detriments of its actions than the US. Secondly, my opponent used temperature calculators to indicate, at worst, will lead to a temperature change for the Earth of a mere .05 degrees Celsius. For all intents and purposes, let's assume his number is correct. And his point is true: merely burning oil does not necessarily create a large increase in global temperature. Most of our temperature increases come from coal and oil burning on a global scale; no individual pipeline does the job. But my opponent makes a fundamental error; the Keystone XL pipeline is still a threat to our planet"s ecology. Plenty of ecological disasters do not necessarily cause global warming. Look at the BP oil spill. That did not lead to a massive increase in global temperatures. Yet would anyone claim it was not one of the greatest ecological disasters in mankind"s history? The oil and resulting toxins killed thousands of fish and other forms of sea life, disturbing ecosystems, leaving many in utter disarray. The gulf is still reeling from the disaster years down the line, and the food web of the area will be forever marred. The main threat from Keystone is not pure global warming; it"s the amount of particulate matter released and the imminent threat of spills. These do have a great toll on our environment and on us. Texas refineries already spout stacks of heavy smoke and soot 60 yards tall (4). Imagine stacks even higher, bolstered by increased oil refining on Foreign Trade territory, inevitably following air currents into residential areas throughout the Gulf of Mexico. This will undoubtedly lead to spikes in benzene in the atmosphere, a carbon agent that partially contributes to global warming. Yet my opponent accurately claims the global warming aspect of this benzene is irrelevant. Perhaps it is. More relevant is the fact benzene causes cancer. Such spikes would not come as a surprise; recent investigations of a Delaware refinery found benzene levels far above EPA Clean Air standards (5). Now that we"ve addressed Side Pro"s contentions, let"s look again at Side Con"s: 1C: The Keystone XL pipeline is deleterious to the US economy. I addressed this in refuting Side Pro"s first contention. 2C: The Keystone XL pipeline is a threat to the environment. Side Pro made no effort to counter any of the arguments actually put forth in this contention, only taking issue with the claim. He did not counter the amount of emissions, the particulate matter statistics, the acidity of the oil, the risk of spills, the pressure irregularities. All of these must be addressed adequately if Pro is to win. 3C: The Keystone XL pipeline is a threat to public health. Side Pro never addressed this, perhaps the most important contention of them all. EVEN IF the economy somehow manages to create permanent jobs, EVEN IF the ecology of our planet magically recovers, it is still not worth it to vote Pro if but one person dies of cancer due to the presence of that pipeline. For sake of human life, a Con ballot is the only acceptable ballot. Thank you. 1. http://www.forbes.com... 2. http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov... 3. http://priceofoil.org... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... http://www.desmogblog.com...