keystone pipeline (I'm against it)

Thank you, Liberalmoderate14, for your response. The environment is something we all need to be concerned about, that I do not dispute. I also do not dispute the hazardous effects of the use of oil and petroleum as an energy source. These things are all well documented, so there is no point in refuting them. Instead, I will respond to my opponent's argument with a single undeniable fact: that the United States needs crude oil in order to function, and that this is an overriding concern in spite of the environmental effects. It is easy enough to demonstrate. The world uses roughly 89-million barrels of oil per day, or 32-billion barrels per year[1]. The US in 2011 used just under 7-billion barrels of oil in a single year, or around 22% of the world's total[2], even though it only has 4% of the world's population. With such a vast need of energy, supplies, its clear that the Keystone XL pipeline can only help the situation, rather than hinder it. As I had mentioned in my Round 1 argument, Keystone XL is expected to bring in 830,000 barrels per day of Alberta crude oil to the US, or 302-million barrels per year of cleaner oil from your friendly trading partner to the north. There is no downside to that argument. My opponent pointed out that renewable energy is a much cleaner source of energy, which is true. However, data from the US Energy Information Administration shows that renewables only make up 9.1% of the total US energy consumption, compared to 35.3% for petroleum[3]. That includes 93% of energy consumption in transportation, 40% of industrial consumption, 17% of residential and commercial consumption, and 1% of it goes into energy production. Clearly, a consistent source of crude oil is needed if the Untied States wishes to keep up its current consumption of energy. As much as people would like to change it, it is a fact you cannot get around. Keystone XL will provide a brand new way to bring in crude oil, and is an opportunity the US cannot afford to pass up. Plus, there is the added benefit that Alberta's oil sands are highly regulated and developed for clean extraction and consumption where possible. The Alberta government alone has committed over a billion dollars to improve clean technology in relation to oil sands development[4]. So, to recap my arguments: While there are risks associated with pipelines, the risk is fairly minimal when considering the amount of oil transported just within the US alone, which is on the order of billions of barrels per year, compared to under 100,000 barrels of oil spilled from pipelines on average per year. Even in the event of a spill, Trans-Canada has a quick response time that limits the damage possible, initiates a clean-up procedure, and investigates the causes of any spill so future issues can be avoided. Keystone XL will provide the US economy with an estimated 20,000 jobs from development of the pipeline alone, and bring in an estimated 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil for refining and consumption within the US. Finally, that despite environmental concerns, crude oil is needed to fulfill America's energy demands, a fact that is impossible to get around. Keystone XL will allow for the safe transportation of cleaner Alberta crude oil into the US, thus satisfying a key demand and allowing the US a consistent, safe source of friendly oil for the future. I will note that my opponent did not refute any of my arguments in Round 1, and I have countered his argument in Round 3 effectively. Round 2, of course, is a total loss due to my opponent's plagiarism, though whether or not you take that into account with your vote is up to you. I'd also like to note that my Round 1 argument is absolutely littered with grammatical and spelling errors - I apologize for that, however I did that at work with a... shall we say substandard computer, as well as limited time. Again, take that into account as you wish. Sources: 1: http://www.iea.org... 2: http://www.eia.gov... 3: http://www.eia.gov... 4: http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca...