Res: The US should approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

The very first point I would like to point out is that Con never stated in the title or in any context before this debate that I may not argue this from a future perspective so I will continue to do so. He also states that I did not address any of issues directly which I assumed was quite evident. During the terms of R1 he states I may offer rebuttals to his points if I had enough characters, which it was quite evident that I did not nor did i really intent to. Now lets take a look at Cons arguments, seeing as how I would like to clarify some blunders he made of my points, I will try to keep this short. (1) I indirectly addressed this in my first point. This is the first blunder that Con made of my argument. The first thing he states is the state department shows that 35 permanent jobs would be created. As my adversary apparently has a misconception of the word permanent and how it is relevant to this debate I will clarify. Permanent - Until the end of the pipeline. I by no means intended to say these jobs would last forever, as no one can lay claim to that. I also provided a source to show where the thousands of Jobs estimate came from, but I will assume he skipped over the source and link and will provide another one in addition to the prior at the end of this round. I will say there have been studies to show that 35 jobs would be created as he can probably prove in links, there are also studies that show anywhere between 1,000-20,000 jobs will be created. I will post a few with the high end of the mark at the end of this round. The 35 figure by the state department was jobs directly and I do mean directly related to the pipeline itself. This is not taking in jobs for construction and everything else that it would take to build it. He also goes on to contest by point about restaurants being near the pipeline. I am positively sure no one would be stupid enough to drop a restaurant right on top of the pipeline. This would be illogical. The word indirectly is magical in this instance. This is any job in any way, that will be created because of the pipeline. This could be contractors, truck drivers, and anything else that you can place here. Almost any estimated figure you look at , puts this number around 120,000 - 150,000 + direct jobs. I meant entirely what i said when i stated that gas prices would be subjective. This is dependent on time. As I stated above I am debated the fact, that when and if they approve this, It could ultimately have no impact on Gas. He has shown sources, which I have seen in every news article out. Everyone estimates the same increase in gas prices which are 20 cents to 40 cents a gallon, but these studies are directly dependent on if it were passed today. The same experts have also stated that by the time the pipe line is made, "to many variables would be in place to consider. It would be to hard to give an accurate estimate depending on when this is approved". First of all, even if the Keystone XL pipeline were suddenly approved, it would not be completed until at least 2014, so building it would have no impact on gasoline prices this summer, predicted to be near record highs. there are no experts, even those referred to us by Upton"s staff(for those who do not no Upton is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee), to say that the prospect of the pipeline being built in the future would somehow impact the price of gasoline today. Second,the price of gasoline depends on a complex array of factors, though the largest one is the price of crude oil. The Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry 1.1 million barrels per day, is specifically designed to deal with the fact that increased production of crude oil in Canada and the Great Plains has left a glut in that area overwhelming refinery demand and it is difficult to get the oil to the Gulf Coast, the center of U.S. refining. This has depressed the price of crude oil in the Midwest, though the Midwest refiners have not passed on the savings to consumers. (The price of gasoline in that area essentially is dependent on the global price because otherwise refiners would not ship the gasoline there.) So when I say it is subjective I mean just that, no expert has given or has claimed to know how to give a proper estimate on gas prices because on one knows when this will be passed. (2) I am already down to hardly no characters so I will have to keep this brief. My opponent has completely disregard the figures I provided above. He said he contested my point, but offered nothing to do so. He merely derailed it by offering up evidence of an oil spill possibility which I did not get the chance to get to, due to character limitations. Since in his opening claims he was hinting at this my providing facts, I would ask him to dispute my claim that I have shown factual by science. He says "for all intents and purposes", assuming that this figure may be a possibility. My figure was 0.09, leading experts and scientist showed this to be 0.05 which i provided links to, and go on to say this will virtually have no effect on global warming. As far as his point on oil spills, he raised the point I would make earlier. The EPA would have regulatory procedures if this were passed, and also have requested funding to prevent this from happening. The government and Obama administration expressed concerned about this issue themselves, which is why the pipe line was not passed as of this date. In fact this argument would be illogical in the context of this debate, because the president himself said he would not pass the pipe line until they found a way to combat this. (3) This point is covered above with my content on the EPA. The Obama administration has clearly shown and stated, the pipeline itself would not be built if it was a detriment to the environment. With the strict regulatory functions that will be placed on this with the EPA along with other regulatory bodies, the chance of this happening would be slim. As far as the gas emissions, this is a variable that I can not yet debate. While there is a possibility it will add to gas emission, it would be marginal. This is also something the administration is working on and have not released a solution to yet. I will say arguing with the context of this debate, they will find a way to maintain and decrease this. Other wise this would never get approved. I have now reached my limit so I will offer my conclusion Conclusion I have shown and demonstrated why there are logical reasons not to veto this pipeline. My job is to provide evidence to disprove pros claims and I have done that, especially with the climate change argument. I have shown you through science and figures how this will have virtually no effect on global warming, with numbers that coincide with experts.I have shown how this will have hardly no effect on gas prices if it is passed in the future. I have also shown that experts have no way to calculate this number, despite popular opinion. I have shown How it will help boost jobs within the economy directly and indirectly. I have even show how the administration itself plans to put regulatory functions involving the EPA and other government bodies to stop the chance of oil spills. I have shown why pros arguments could be flawed, and why some people may find a reason to pass this pipeline because of the positive impact it will have on our economy and how it will stimulate job growth. http://thehill.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://blog.heritage.org... http://buildkxlnow.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...