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

Wow. I know how my opponent generally cuts-and-pastes his first debating (usually the second round) arguments but he is usually the instigator. The problem with him cutting-and-pasting his arguments now is that he has not directly refuted any of my arguments, but simply brought up his own. Refutation 1: The Keystone XL Pipeline would not have been as environmentally disastrous as claimed by environmentalists and whatever harm it would do would be a necessary cost for the economical benefits it the pipeline would bring. Sub-Refutation 1a: Extraction of tar sands does not significantly contribue to the problem of greenhouse gases and is a cost worth taking. The extraction of tar sands does not release nearly the amounts that environmentalists preach. And there are methods which tar sands can be cleaned. Not to mention, they are no less contributory to greenhouse gases than other fossil fuels. "According to Environment Canada's measurements, the oilsands has reduced its per barrel GHG output by 29% since 1990. Despite massive expansion of oilsands production in the last two decades, Canada's oil companies have managed to cut their per barrel carbon output by nearly a third."[1] Ok, now we have shown that tar sand extraction is getting better and is far less contributory than environmentalists think. "The oilsands are one of Canada's most vital industries, spinning off billions of dollars annually into the economy, and employing tens of thousands of workers, from First Nations to Newfoundland, and yet, they are responsible for roughly 6.5% of all of Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions."[1] As shown, it is a vital industry that adds billions of dollars to annual GDP and enploys tens of thousands. Cutting this industry would mean losing all of this economic benefit. "The oilsands are a relatively minor issue compared to some of the other challenges the world must face if we want to reduce CO2 output. America's coal-fired power plants, too, output more GHGs than the oilsands: about 60 times as much."[1] If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, you should concentrate on other industries. Plus, "if Americans won't allow the pipeline to be built and buy Canadian oil, then the Chinese and other countries surely will buy it."[3] So even if we blocked it here, it would be built elsewhere, and nothing would be stopped. But if we built it here, it would help our economy. Sub-Refutation 1b: The Pipeline would not spill as many times nor as bad as claimed, and it would not affect as many people. "While the concern over spills is something to consider, history shows that the pipeline is very safe. According to TransCanada, the pipeline owner, there have been 14 spills since 2010, most of these occurred at pumping stations rather from a ruptured pipeline. The typical spill was 5 gallons and the largest was 21,000 gallons but only 210 gallons escaped the plant."[2] But there is still the possibility of a bigger spill. "The first thing you should realize is that the aquifer slopes from west to east, so only the downslope part of the aquifer would potentially be affected by a spill. Secondly, the geologic nature of the aquifer, which at its shallowest is 300 feet below the surface, would tend to confine any spill to a very small area."[2] So the spills that usually happen either are too small to matter or they are in a place that does not affect the aquifer. And if a bad spill did happen, it would not be as bad as claimed. Sub-Refutation 1c: Leakage of the Pipeline is extremely unlikely and is usually not very bad nor widespread. "Continual electronic and manual monitoring will insure the integrity of the pipeline and the volume of oil being transported has even been lowered to 1308 psi, well under federal regulation, in order to prevent unsafe pressure levels.""The steel to be used on the new pipeline will be tested to withstand 125 percent of allowable pressure, if it cannot withstand 125 percent then it will not be used. State of the art emergency response teams will also be on stand-by for any possibilities of a leak."[4] So there is always constant monitoring of the pipeline so a spill would be detected and fixed quickly. And on top of that, the steel used on the pipe will be very strong, greatly lowering the possibility of a leak. Refutation 2: The Pipeline would great aid the US Economy. Sub-Refutation 2a: The number of jobs added due to the pipeline would be great. "That figure, based on a report by a consulting firm hired by Transcanada to assess the project's economic impact, has been widely cited by Keystone backers on Capitol Hill. Other estimates advanced by supporters of the pipeline have been even more optimistic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claiming it could create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs."[5] "Costing $7 billion, the pipeline would create 20,000 well-paying construction jobs immediately. Midwest construction workers, one of the demographics hit hardest by the economic downturn, desperately need this project. While blue-collar workers would receive many of the direct benefits from Keystone's construction, thousands of businesses from nearly every state would have reaped indirect business were Obama to simply allow the Keystone project to be built. 2,400 American companies in 49 states are involved in the production of Canadian oil sands."[6] I issue a challenge to you. The object of how many jobs the pipeline would create is being debated (which really shouldn't). But one thing not being debated is the amount of money that would flow through the American economy, specifically, the Midwestern Economy. Billions (specifically 7 billion in source 6) would flow through the Midwestern Economy. Debate that that amount of money wouldn't matter, or wouldn't be that high, or is unimportant. Sub-Refutation 2b: The Cornell Study is just one study. It's just one study. I have five other studies disproving it's jobs and environment claims. ==Demand to Opponent== Now this time can you counter my arguments from Round 2 and if you still have space, Round 3? Sources: [1]:http://www.ethicaloil.org... [2]:http://tucsoncitizen.com... [3]:http://reason.com... [4]:http://www.platteinstitute.org... [5]:http://www.cbsnews.com... [6]:http://biggovernment.com...