President Obama's rejection of the Keystone Pipeline was a correct decision

Point 1: It is a missed opportunity to spur economic growth in the Midwest and to create thousands of jobs in addition to lowering gas prices. "It's estimated that the Keystone XL project, which is funded entirely through private investment, would help create at least 20,000 new American jobs in manufacturing and construction. Analysis suggests it could create tens of thousands more, and could help address high gas prices as well. President Obama says he didn't have enough time to come to approve it – that he had no choice to reject the project. But as the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it, ‘Keystone XL has been planned for years…"[1] "Keystone should be approved. This is a good project. It will give us energy and give us jobs. You want stimulus? This is a $7 billion deal to be done with private-sector funding."[2] "Building the pipeline would bring over 700,000 barrels of oil per day and directly create 20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs. The Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that current pipeline operations and the addition of the Keystone XL pipeline would create 179,000 American jobs by 2035."[3] "I believe his decision is bad for America and bad for Oklahoma. This project would have meant an economic investment of $1.2 billion in addition to creating 1,200 jobs immediately in the state."[4] As shown, the amount of jobs saved is a lot higher than environmentalists claim. Your claim that less than 500 jobs would be added is impossible. Just to build the pipeline would require thousands of jobs. And on top of that are the people who maintain the pipeline, the people who run the pipeline, and people who would do the business and economic work with the people whose property the pipeline runs across (the same people who would profit hundreds of dollars each from). "They fear lots of Canadian crude could be shut in the ground with nowhere to go if this pipeline isn't built quickly. In addition, they say the few pipelines that do connect Canada's oil production region to the US currently flow where refining capacity is limited. This means less gasoline for your tank.""The result would mean more supply for US consumers, and therefore, lower gasoline prices."[5] "According to the Department of Energy, this one project will "essentially eliminate" oil imports from the Middle East. It will create more than 100,000 jobs and strengthen our relationship with a close ally and trading partner. A project like this should be a no-brainer, and there's simply no good reason it has been stuck in the State Department's red tape for nearly three years."[6] And this comes from the Government agency itself. Why would gas prices be lowered? Because with a bigger supply of oil in America, we don't have to pay the over-inflated price of Middle Eastern Oil. And with more supply, gas prices will be lowered anyway. Point 2: The Keystone Pipeline would not damage the Environment in any significant amount. "Furthermore, there are several other pipelines already crossing the U.S./Canadian border and have been operating for years without many problems. The Keystone XL represents a new opportunity to deliver more Canadian crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast where the largest refining market in the world exists. These refineries are looking to replace declining supplies historically coming from Mexico and Venezuela."[7] "TransCanada predicted that the Keystone I pipeline would see one spill in 7 years."[8] This may seem bad, but actually one, this is very good, and two, with such a small frequency, they can be controlled very easily. "There are a few good environmental reasons not to build the Keystone XL pipeline, but unfortunately the oil it could provide is too essential to not use the pipeline for."[9] Point 3: The Pipeline is not the Government's decision. It should not be the Government's decision to decide the fate of this pipeline. It goes against the Constitution. It is not the Government's place to mettle in private business's affairs. Point 4: The people who own the land the Keystone Pipeline would have been built on would have made hundreds of dollars each. Why? Because it requires permission from the owner of the land to buile the pipeline on that land. And that requires money. Would you allow a pipeline to be built on your property without any compensation? I hope you enjoy this debate. I know your other two debates like this you either forfeited or your opponent forfeited. I hope you can enjoy this debate without forfeits (hopefully, but I won't forfeit). Sources: [1]:http://johnboehner.house.gov... [2]:http://www.chicagotribune.com... [3]:http://blog.heritage.org... [4]:http://www.mullinforcongress.com... [5]:http://www.mint.com... [6]:http://zfacts.com... [7]:http://www.standard.net... [8]:http://www.tarsandsaction.org... [9]:http://oilprice.com...