Keystone XL Affirmative MDL

Shared by: HC120830193130

Tags

Stats

views:: 28
posted:: 8/30/2012
language:: Unknown
pages:: 41

Public Domain

Document Sample

WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |1

Table of Contents – DO NOT LOSE THIS PAGE

1AC Keystone XL Affirmative ..............................................................................................................2
Inherency ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Advantage/Harms: Oil Dependence ................................................................................................ 4
Plan Text........................................................................................................................................... 8
Solvency ........................................................................................................................................... 9

2AC Inherency Extensions

Inherency Extensions ..................................................................................................................... 11

2AC Oil Dependence Harms Extensions:

Advantage/Harms: Oil Independence – Independence Key to U.S. Hegemony ............................ 12

2AC Solvency Extensions:

Solvency – General......................................................................................................................... 13
Solvency – Oil Dependence............................................................................................................ 15

Additional Harms Scenarios (to either supplement the 1AC or be read in the 2AC)

U.S.-Canada Relations Harms Scenario:
Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Status Quo Hurting Relations ............................................................... 16
Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – U.S. Economy Struggling ...................................................................... 21
Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Relations Key to U.S. Economy ............................................................ 22
Advantage/Harms: U.S. Canada Relations – Economy Impact ................................................................... 25

China Shift Harms Scenario:
Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Canada Shifting Towards China in the Status Quo ................................ 26
Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Shift Leads to Environmental Damage .................................................. 27
Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Impacts – Emissions/Global Warming ................................................... 28
Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Impacts – Biodiversity (Plankton) .......................................................... 30

Solvency – China Shift ................................................................................................................................. 33
Solvency – U.S. Canada Trade Relations ..................................................................................................... 34

Answers to Select Negative Arguments (AT = Answers To)

AT: Gas Prices Turn ..................................................................................................................................... 38
AT: Global Warming Turn............................................................................................................................ 39
AT: Ogalala Aquifer ..................................................................................................................................... 41
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |2

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative -- (1/9)

Contention 1 is Inherency

A. The Keystone XL pipeline is on indefinite hold. The Obama administration’s objections
make eventual approval a long shot.

CNBC, June 28, 2012 [“Keystone XL Looking Like Pipeline to Nowhere”, http://www.cnbc.com/id/47995047

Four and a half years of studies and five failed votes in the House of Representatives later,
what's happening with the Keystone XL pipeline? Nothing. It is stuck at the US-Canadian
border, where it is likely to remain until mid-2013, despite the issuance of one of three permits
to begin construction in Texas for the smaller and much less controversial portion of the
pipeline.

On 26 June, the US Army Corps of Engineers granted TransCanada Corp. a permit to begin
construction on the $2.3 billion southern section of the massive pipeline, running from Cushing,
Okla. to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas. The permit covers construction across the wetlands and
waterways of Texas’ Galveston district. TransCanada still needs one permit each from Tulsa,
Okla. and Forth Worth, Texas, to complete this southern Gulf portion of the Keystone. Tulsa is
set to rule on the permit in a month and a half.

This southern section will initially carry 700,000 barrels a day of crude oil. Construction is set to
begin this summer. The southern line, permits pending, could be functional by mid-to-late
2013. Pres. Obama, despite his objections to other parts of the pipeline, has pledged to speed
up the approval process. Approval for other aspects of the pipeline looks far more complicated.
Because the northern section crosses an international border, it requires presidential approval,
in accordance with an executive order from Pres. George W. Bush in 2004.

The “greater” Keystone project would extend the existing pipeline from Hardisty in Alberta,
Canada eastward until heading south into the US through North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, ending at Cushing. There is also an eastern branch spiking off
at Steele City, Neb. and running to Patoka, Ill.

The proposed extension would run from Hardisty across the border through Phillips Country,
Montana, and meet up with the existing pipeline at Steele City. This would represent 1,179
miles of new pipeline that would carry Canadian tar sands crude eventually to the Gulf of
Mexico, with an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day.

In an effort to speed up the project after Obama's initial rejection in January, TransCanada split
into the northern and southern sections, pursuing the southern one independently.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |3

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative -- (2/9)

[CNBC 2012 continues...no text omitted]

A comment period began Jun. 15 and runs through July 30, but the State Department has said it
would not be able to complete its review until the first quarter of 2013. Approval is contingent
upon whether the project is demonstratively in the country’s national interest.

Republicans had tried an end run by slipping Keystone XL into a two-year transportation bill,
but Obama threatened to veto the legislation, if necessary. (House and Senate negotiators
Wednesday reached a tentative agreement over the bill which overhauls federal highway and
transit programs.)

The fate of Keystone rests with the answers to two key questions: Is it in the Obama
administration’s interests, specifically in the run-up to presidential election; and is the pipeline
also in the national interest.

Based on environmental and jobs issues, Keystone is not in the Obama administration’s
interests. Organized labor is not as interested in the jobs as it might because the administration
has been fairly successful at creating energy jobs elsewhere. On the environmental front, the
Obama administration’s hesitancy over the project is the stuff of heroism to that voting bloc.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |4

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative – (3/9)

Contention 2 is U.S. Oil Dependence

A. U.S. demand and lack of supply from allies have made the U.S. reliant on importing oil
from dangerous and unstable regions of the world, having serious implications for U.S.
security and the economy.

Lefton and Weiss, January 13, 2010 [Rebecca and Daniel J., Researcher for Progressive Media and enior
Fellow and Director Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, “Oil Dependence is a Dangerous Habit,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html

In 2008 the United States imported oil from 10 countries currently on the State Department’s
Travel Warning List, which lists countries that have “long-term, protracted conditions that make
a country dangerous or unstable.” These nations include Algeria, Chad, Colombia, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
Our reliance on oil from these countries could have serious implications for our national
security, economy, and environment.

The United States imported 4 million barrels of oil a day—or 1.5 billion barrels total—from
“dangerous or unstable” countries in 2008 at a cost of about $150 billion. This estimate
excludes Venezuela, which is not on the State Department’s “dangerous or unstable” list but
has maintained a distinctly anti-American foreign and energy policy. Venezuela is one of the top
five oil exporters to the United States, and we imported 435 million barrels of oil from them in
2008.

As a major contributor to the global demand for oil the United States is paying to finance and
sustain unfriendly regimes. Our demand drives up oil prices on the global market, which
oftentimes benefits oil-producing nations that don’t sell to us. The Center for American
Progress finds in “Securing America’s Future: Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing oil
Dependence and Environmental Damage,” that “because of this, anti-Western nations such as
Iran—with whom the United States by law cannot trade or buy oil—benefit regardless of who
the end buyer of the fuel is.”
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |5

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative – (4/9)
B. The need for oil is inevitable. The Keystone is key to adjust for U.S. dependency

Washington Post, November 12, 2011 [Washington’s unwelcome delay in the Keystone XL pipeline
project, p. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/washingtons-unwelcome-delay-in-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-
project/2011/11/11/gIQAQDl5FN_story.html]

Despite the passion among environmentalists against Keystone XL, Mr. Oliver’s travels illustrate
the critical point: Canada’s oil will come out of the ground, and someone somewhere will refine
it and burn it. Even under optimistic assumptions about greening the world economy, the
United States and every other nation will demand immense amounts of oil for decades. The
resulting upward pressure on oil prices provides a massive incentive to develop previously
unattractive oil deposits, such as those in Alberta’s tar sands.

Nixing a pipeline that would bring more of that oil to U.S. refineries wouldn’t cut that demand,
it wouldn’t shut down Canadian production, and it wouldn’t make any difference to global
carbon emissions. Environmentalists and Nebraska officials also object to the pipeline’s
proposed location, warning of spills in the state’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region.

The State Department insists that objections from Nebraska, including those made during a
special session of the state legislature, persuaded federal officials to examine routes that avoid
the Sand Hills, even though a government report already considered the economic and
environmental impacts of many alternatives. Conveniently for the White House, that
reexamination pushes the final decision on Keystone XL past the 2012 election

s. Environmentalists can continue to exert political pressure, and Nebraskans can try to move
the risks elsewhere, but neither can eliminate the threat of spills. Rejecting the pipeline and
forcing the Canadians to send more of their oil west for shipping could increase the risk, in fact,
since the oil would travel by pipeline, train, truck or barge, then onto tankers and across an
ocean. The United States must reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, from any source, and it
should encourage nations such as China to lower the carbon intensity of their economies, too.
Even if that happens, though, the world will continue to use oil, with all the dirty realities that
entails. Rejecting Keystone XL would not change that fact. But it would help China lock up more
of the world’s oil production, cost infrastructure jobs in the United States and offend a reliable
ally. More delay after three years of review is insult enough.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |6

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative – (5/9)

C. Oil dependence on foreign oil puts U.S. national security at risk

Duetch and Sxhlesinger et. al, October 2006 [Dr. James R., Chair of the Task Force, Senior Adviser at
Lehman Brothers, consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, a member of the Defense Policy Board, member
of the Arms Control Nonproliferation Advisory Board of the Department of State, and a member of the Homeland
Security Advisory Council. Dr. Schlesinger formerly served as Secretary of Defense and was the nation’s first
Secretary of Energy and John, Chair of the Task Force, is an Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT).. former Undersecretary of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Director of Central
Intelligence. Council on Foreign Relations, “National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency”, p.18

The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and U.S.
national security. Major energy suppliers— from Russia to Iran to Venezuela—have been
increasingly able and willing to use their energy resources to pursue their strategic and political
objectives. Major energy consumers—notably the United States, but other countries as well—
are finding that their growing dependence on imported energy increases their strategic
vulnerability and constrains their ability to pursue a broad range of foreign policy and national
security objectives. Dependence also puts the United States into increasing competition with
other importing countries, notably with today’s rapidly growing emerging economies of China
and India. At best, these trends will challenge U.S. foreign policy; at worst, they will seriously
strain relations between the United States and these countries.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |7

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative – (6/9)

D. Hegemonic decline brings the economy down with it–ends in nuclear war

Friedberg and Schoenfeld, October 21, 2008 (Aaron, Professor of Politics and International
Relations at Princeton, and Gabriel, Visiting Scholar at the Witherspoon Institute, “The Dangers
of a Diminished America,” Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html)

If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum.
The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our
position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be
placed at risk.

In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly
to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the
remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions.
Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their
nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability.

The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic
competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock
market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high
oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its
economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both
will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country
where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity.

None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention
from internal travails with external adventures.

As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations are
struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending
demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the
early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power.
What does this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |8

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative – (7/9)

Thus we present the following plan:

The United States federal government should invest in infrastructure
development of the Keystone XL pipeline and approve related permits to enable
construction.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet Page |9

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative -- (8/9)

Contention 3 is Solvency:

A. Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would decrease dependence on foreign oil and
would provide stability for oil prices.

Christie Jr., April 9, 2012 [Ralph, CEO of Merrick & Co. and chairman of the Environment and Energy
Committee of the American Council of Engineering Cos., “We All Need Keystone XL”, Engineering News-Record,
4/9/2012, Vol. 268, Issue 10] http://enr.construction.com/opinions/viewpoint/2012/0409-we-all-need-keystone-
xl.asp

The Keystone XL pipeline--an approximately $7-billion project that complements the original
Keystone Pipeline and nearly doubles the size and capacity of the system with an extension to
the Gulf Coast--has been in the planning stages since 2008. This additional energy source from
our North American Free Trade Agreement neighbor should be built. One of the key objectives
to securing the nation's long-term economic security is the need to expand our access to safe,
secure and sustainable sources of energy. The security of the U.S. and other leading economies
in the world will remain threatened as long as we continue to derive a significant portion of our
energy needs from hostile governments in unstable regions.

As the CEO of an engineering firm that routinely provides technical, environmental and
economic solutions to fuel and power suppliers, I believe this is a critical time for our country to
increase its energy security and reliability through creative and balanced solutions.

For engineering professionals on the front lines, building the Keystone XL pipeline, which will
link new sources of oil in Canada to refineries in the Midwest and Texas, is a no-brainer and an
essential step to achieving a more stable energy supply. Here in the U.S., we continue to import
nearly one-fifth of our oil from the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, instability in key oil-producing
countries causes volatility in oil markets and drives up gasoline and petroleum prices.

Thankfully, Canada remains the largest supplier of imported oil and natural gas to the U.S.
According to a report for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, U.S. refining and importing of Canadian
crude will more than double in the next two decades. At a time of unrest and uncertainty in
other energy- producing countries around the world, the vast energy reserves of our longtime
North American neighbor are more important to the future of U.S. energy security than ever
before.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 10

1AC -- Keystone XL Affirmative – (9/9)

B. Approval of the Keystone Pipeline would be an investment in infrastructure

Perryman Group, June 2010 [An economic and financial analysis firm, “The Impact of
Developing the Keystone XL Pipeline Project on Business Activity in the US: An Analysis
Including State-by-State Construction Effects and an Assessment of the Potential Benefits of a
More Stable Source of Domestic Supply”, p. 9-11)

The project is subject to regulatory approvals in both Canada and the US. TransCanada filed its
section 52 application with the National Energy Board and received approval on March 11, 2010
to construct and operate the Canadian portion of the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project
(Keystone XL). It has also filed an application for a Presidential Permit with the US Department
of State, authorizing the crossing of the international border. The Department of State is
conducting an environmental review of the project under the National Environmental Policy
Act. The project will also require approvals from the Bureau of Land Management and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, as well as some state, local, and regional authorities. 2 In the US,
construction of the new pipeline is expected to begin in 2011 after receiving all the pertinent
permits. Construction of the pipeline between Cushing, Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast is
scheduled for completion in the fourth quarter of 2011; construction of the pipeline from
Montana to Steele City, Nebraska is scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2013. 3 The
US portion of the existing Keystone Pipeline includes the states of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Illinois.

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline is a 1,661 mile, 36-inch crude oil pipeline that would enter
the United States in Montana and proceed through South Dakota and Nebraska. It would
incorporate the 298-mile portion of the Keystone Pipeline in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma
to serve markets at Cushing, Oklahoma before continuing south through Oklahoma and Texas
to a delivery point near existing terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas
marketplace. This investment in infrastructure will benefit many communities and landowners
along the way, and care must of course be taken concerning the environmental impact of
construction. These local economies on the route will benefit from increases in tax revenues
and business activity associated with temporary construction work in the area. Moreover, local
property taxes will be paid on a continuing basis for the 100-year life of the project. 4 Of even
greater significance is the ongoing benefit to the US economy of a more stable source of
consistent energy supply over an extended time horizon. This issue is explored in the following
section.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 11

Inherency

(___) The Obama administration has delayed the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline
until at least 2013. In the meantime, U.S.-Canadian relations are crumbling due to the United
States’ refusal to approve construction.

McKenna and Vanderklippe, November 10, 2011 [Barrie and Nathan, reporters for the Globe and Mail,
“Keystone decision a setback for U.S.-Canada relations”, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-
investor/keystone-decision-a-setback-for-us-canada-relations/article4251533/]

The Obama administration’s move to sideline the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for
relations between the world’s two largest trading partners, and threatens Canada’s role as the
leading energy supplier to the United States. The U.S. State Department’s decision to force
TransCanada Corp. to explore alternative pipeline routes in Nebraska pushes out a final ruling
until at least 2013, well after next year’s U.S. presidential and congressional elections.

The delay puts at risk a vital piece of the historic economic relationship that binds the world’s
largest oil market and its largest supplier.

The State Department decision sent a shock wave through Canada’s energy industry, an
economic stalwart of the country that has for almost six decades counted on the United States
as virtually its sole export market. The first dribs of oil began to find their way across the border
in 1952, when Canada sent an average 3,900 barrels a day south. That volume has grown nearly
500-fold. In 2009, Canada exported a total of 687 million barrels to the United States, which has
previously pointed to Canada as a secure source of friendly oil.

Now that bedrock trading relationship has come into question.

The United States is becoming a “less attractive customer in general for Canada, for not just
energy but everything because of their own economic and financial difficulties,” said Gwyn
Morgan, the former chief executive officer of Canadian gas giant Encana Corp.

“This is just another signal that Canada is going to have to diversify away from the United
States, not just in energy but in everything else we can.”
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 12

Advantage/Harms: Oil Independence – Key to U.S. Hegemony

(___) Oil dependency hurts the U.S. military and foreign policy goals.

Crawford, 2010 (Colin, J.D., Wake Forest University School of Law, “Green Warfare: An
American Grand Strategy for the 21st Century”, Wake Forest Journal of Business and
Intellectual Property Law, p. Lexis)

[*248] In addition to the potential for economic growth, even the most ardent climate change
skeptics will concede that the United States' dependence on fossil fuels has implications for
national security and foreign policy. Security analysts have made the case for framing this
debate in terms of "natural security," as the scarcity of natural resources will inevitably affect
the United States' foreign policy calculus for years to come. n24 Despite the fact that the U.S.
imports most of its oil from Canada and Latin America n25 - not the Middle East - many
emerging markets are just beginning their love affair with the sticky, black hydrocarbon. n26
The corresponding increase in demand from emerging economies will continue to drive up
energy prices, necessitating importation of oil from countries with less friendly dispositions
toward the United States. n27 It is important to note how energy policy intersects with virtually
all other aspects of governance. Not only will increased prices constrain U.S. fiscal policy and
make it more expensive to project American power around the globe, they create pressures
that will heavily influence American foreign policy in the coming decades, whether through
resource wars or climate-induced humanitarian crises. n28 International trade and maritime
policy in particular will be [*249] greatly affected. Because "90 percent of global commerce and
two thirds of all petroleum supplies travel by sea," and global energy demand will continue its
inexorable rise, the Indian Ocean - already heavily used by "nuclearized" powers such as
Pakistan, India, China, and Israel - will dramatically increase in strategic importance to the
world's great powers. n29 The proximity of nuclear states in the Asia-Pacific region, along with
increased pressures commensurate with rising energy demand, are already heightening military
tensions among the major players in the region, including China and Russia in particular. n30
Geopolitical constraints will become increasingly difficult to manage as fuel prices continue to
rise, and intervention will be needed to combat piracy and protect merchant shipping. n31
Make no mistake, the United States' continued dependence on fossil fuels poses significant
problems for the national interest. The strategic implications are clear as U.S. foreign policy
throughout entire regions is framed in the context of energy. n32
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 13

Solvency -- General

(___) The Keystone XL oil pipeline would lower gas prices, provide independence on foreign
oil, and boost U.S. Canada relations.

Hoeven, February 24, 2012 [John., Republican Senator from North Dakota and former governor of that state.
“Why We Need the Keystone Oil Pipeline” http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/opinion/hoeven-keystone-pipeline-
defense/index.html

The Keystone XL pipeline represents a big step toward true North American energy
independence, reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and increasing our access to energy
from our own nation and our closest ally, Canada, along with some oil from Mexico -- to 75% of
our daily consumption, compared with 70% now.

That decades-long goal for our country is finally within reach, but we need to stay focused on
the big picture, and we need to act. This $7 billion, 1,700-mile, high-tech transcontinental
pipeline is a big-time, private-sector job creator, and it will also hold down the gas prices for
consumers and reduce our energy dependence on an unstable part of the world. Finally, it will
do so with good environmental stewardship.

The Keystone XL project is good for North Dakota, but it is vital for the nation. Some 75% of the
pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline will be made here in North America, 50% of it in Arkansas.
Some 90% of all other construction materials will come from companies in the United States
and Canada.

From an environmental perspective, the project has been under review since September 2008,
more than three years, and the State Department's environmental review, completed in August
2011, found "no significant impacts on most resources" providing environmental restrictions
are met. Further, our new legislation includes all federal and state safeguards and sets no time
limit on Nebraska's ability to further review the pipeline's route through the state, the only
portion of the route in contention. Additionally, 80% of the new Canadian oil sands
development is being developed "in situ," meaning, it has a similar carbon footprint and
emissions as conventional oil wells.

If the Keystone XL pipeline isn't built, Canadian oil will still be produced -- 700,000 barrels a day
of it -- but instead of coming down to our refineries in the United States, instead of creating
jobs for American workers, instead of reducing our dependence on a turbulent part of the
world, that oil will be shipped to China.It will have to be carried there on large oil tankers,
creating more carbon emissions, and it will be processed at facilities with weaker
environmental safeguards.

Finally, it's important to point out that the Keystone XL pipeline is nothing new. Thousands of
pipelines crisscross our nation, delivering refined products to fuel our cars, heat our homes and
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 14

Solvency – General
[Hoeven 2012 continues…no text omitted]

power our industries. In fact, the original Keystone pipeline, which became operational in 2010,
runs from Alberta through my state of North Dakota. Contrary to claims by critics, the pipeline
itself has never leaked. The leaks happened at fittings and seals at above-ground pumping
stations, which were properly and promptly fixed.

I have worked toward approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, first as governor of North Dakota
and now as a U.S. senator, because I believe it helps our nation on so many levels. It is just the
kind of project that will grow our economy and create jobs in the right way -- through private-
sector investment.

The Keystone XL pipeline will also help to wean us from our dependency on oil from volatile
regions of the world and help us move toward a true energy independent future. It will make
our nation safer and stronger for the American people.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 15

Solvency – Oil Dependence

(___) Keystone is critical to wean the U.S. off of its oil dependency. Claims that oil would be
exported are false and saying no would undermine U.S. energy security.

USA Today, 10/26/2011 (Editorial: Say yes to building the Keystone oil pipeline,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-10-26/Keystone-oil-pipeline-
build/50941230/1)

In a different world, we might be siding with the protesters. In that world, Canada wouldn't
mine its tar sands, the U.S. wouldn't import tar sands oil, refineries here wouldn't process it and
U.S. consumers wouldn't use it. Instead, everyone would drive electric cars and trucks powered
by sun and wind and other renewable energy. But that's not the world where Americans still
live and will for some time to come. The nation burns 19 million barrels of petroleum a day,
much of it to fuel the quarter-billion cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles on the nation's
roads. To satisfy that demand, the U.S. imports about half its oil, which puts the nation at the
mercy of the mercurial world oil market. Imports from Mexico and Venezuela, two of the USA's
biggest suppliers, are declining, and that's projected to make the nation even more reliant on
producers in the unstable Middle East and Africa. The Keystone pipeline would provide about a
half-million more barrels a day from one of this nation's closest and most reliable allies. The
right answer on the Keystone pipeline is yes. The decision isn't just one of necessity. Criticism of
the 1,700-mile pipeline is overblown. For example, opponents assert that its route across the
Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska is risky because a spill could do catastrophic damage to that water
supply. But critics ignore the fact that 2,000 miles of oil pipeline already cross the aquifer there.
A Nebraska hydrogeologist who has studied the subsurface water formation for 40 years says
even if there were a spill, the impact would be modest and containable. For a 35-mile stretch
where the water table is close to the surface, the pipeline builder has offered to surround the
line with concrete. Critics further charge that companies plan to use the pipeline to export
petroleum through the Gulf of Mexico, not distribute it within the USA. That would be a
powerful criticism if it were true, because it would undercut the argument that the pipeline will
help meet U.S. oil needs. TransCanada, which is building the line, says the charge is false, and
Valero Energy, which would be a user of the line, says it has no intention of using the Canadian
oil for export. Those assurances are welcome; even so, it would be wise for the State
Department to make them a condition for approval. As for the climate change argument, the
protesters act as though a rejection of Keystone would lock the tar sands in the ground and
limit greenhouse gas emissions. Hardly. Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to
the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands. For all
the need to wean the United States from its dependence on imported fossil fuels, it's important
to be realistic about meeting the nation's energy needs in the meantime. Saying no to the
Keystone pipeline is an empty gesture that would undermine U.S. energy security.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 16

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Status Quo Hurting Relations

(___) Failure to approve the Keystone XL is tanking U.S.-Canadian relations

Burney and Hampson, June 21, 2012 [Derek H., Former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Senior Research
Fellow at the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute and a Visiting Professor and Senior Distinguished
Fellow at Carleton University, and Fen Osler, Director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs
(NPSIA), Carleton University “How Obama Lost Canada: Botching Relations with the United States’ Biggest Trade
Partner”, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137744/derek-h-burney-and-fen-osler-hampson/how-obama-
lost-canada

Permitting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline should have been an easy diplomatic
and economic decision for U.S. President Barack Obama. The completed project would have
shipped more than 700,000 barrels a day of Albertan oil to refineries in the Gulf Coast,
generated tens of thousands of jobs for U.S. workers, and met the needs of refineries in Texas
that are desperately seeking oil from Canada, a more reliable supplier than Venezuela or
countries in the Middle East. The project posed little risk to the landscape it traversed. But
instead of acting on economic logic, the Obama administration caved to environmental activists
in November 2011, postponing until 2013 the decision on whether to allow the pipeline.

Obama’s choice marked a triumph of campaign posturing over pragmatism and diplomacy, and
it brought U.S.-Canadian relations to their lowest point in decades. It was hardly the first time
that the administration has fumbled issues with Ottawa. Although relations have been civil,
they have rarely been productive. Whether on trade, the environment, or Canada’s shared
contribution in places such as Afghanistan, time and again the United States has jilted its
northern neighbor. If the pattern of neglect continues, Ottawa will get less interested in
cooperating with Washington. Already, Canada has reacted by turning elsewhere -- namely,
toward Asia -- for more reliable economic partners.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 17

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Status Quo Hurting Relations

(___) Obama’s mishandling of Keystone XL has jeopardized US-Canada relations

Mintz, January 25, 2012 [Jack, Palmer Chair of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at the University of
Calgary, “Canada downgraded, relations with U.S. at lowest point in 25 years,” Financial Post,
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/01/25/jack-mintz-canada-downgraded-relations-with-the-u-s-at-lowest-
point-in-25-years/]

Canada’s relationship with the United States is facing recent strains unseen since the signing of the
Canada-U.S. free trade agreement 25 years ago. Unlike early episodes of Canadian angst over
nationalism, this stress is due to the U.S. taking Canada, its most important and reliable ally, far too
much for granted. Even President Obama’s State of Union address mentioned a host of countries
throughout the world with no reference to Canada, which he recently kicked in the teeth with his
decision over the Keystone XL pipeline. If anything, Canada needs to think hard about how to reboot its
ties with the United States. Historically, Canadians have understood that our most critical political and
economic ties are with the world’s largest economy, with which we share a 8,891-kilometre border, the
longest in the world. Trade is exceptional, with over $600-billion of bilateral trade. Family ties are
strong, with many Canadians living in the United States and many Americans migrating here over the
years. Security issues are shared since military and terrorist threats know no boundaries. We have
signed many important agreements with the U.S., such as the North American Free Trade Agreement,
the Canada-U.S. tax treaty and recently, a promising start to removing unnecessary regulatory
impediments to Canadian-U.S. trade.

These and other treaties have helped minimize policy confrontations but stronger treaties could have
been negotiated in some cases. For example, the 2010 government procurement treaty lessens the
effect of obnoxious Buy American rules under 2009 U.S. Recovery Act that would have hurt Canadian
businesses bidding for construction infrastructure contracts. While NAFTA provides an exemption from
such actions with respect to certain federal programs, it does not apply to sub-national governments.
The procurement agreement exempts us from some discriminatory trade policies of state and local
governments, although only temporary relief has been given for agriculture, energy, environment and
housing projects, a logic that defies explanation. Why would a “friend” not jump to a permanent
exemption? In the case of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement, just renewed this week for two
years, Canada has had to accept an export charge on its $8.5-billion of lumber exports to avoid a tariff
imposed by the United States. While U.S. complaints about provincial logging regulations are fair enough
(as if there are no subsidies and tax preferences that support the U.S. forest industry), this historic
dispute remains intractably unresolved after so many years. But it is the Keystone XL pipeline decision
that illustrates best the Obama government’s downgrading of Canadian-U.S. relations. Even though the
case for the pipeline is clear-cut in terms of energy security and jobs, President Obama’s decision to
reject the project was officially based on the need to reroute the pipeline through Nebraska to avoid an
aquifer, an issue that could be quickly resolved. But as everyone knows, the real reason for the rejection
was to placate an environmental lobby that wants to trap Canadian oil sands production in Alberta. If
the shoe were on the other foot, the U.S. would have applied considerable pressure on Canada to
approve a Keystone XL pipeline. The whole mismanaged process was an insult to Canada, which is
supposed to be a close ally.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 18

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Status Quo Hurting Relations

(___) U.S. Canadian trade relations are at a turning point. Tensions are high and Canada is
considering divesting away from the U.S. The Keystone XL is key to renew the relationship.

Of course, the U.S.-Canadian relationship has had its rocky moments before. In the 1970s and
1980s, in response to public concern over the United States’ economic domination of Canada,
Ottawa enacted a wide variety of protectionist measures that irritated Washington. Eventually,
the two countries recognized their mutual interests and resolved what differences they had,
ratifying the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1987 and its successor, NAFTA,
seven years later.

Back then, Canada had little choice but to find a way to fix its relationship with the United
States, the only game in town. Ottawa is in a different position now. Today, it enjoys a
respectable platform of self-confidence, having weathered the financial crisis and ensuing
recession far better than the United States. And unlike in the past, Canada can now look
beyond its own neighborhood for economic opportunities -- especially to the rising economies
of Asia.

Indeed, Canada has made a full-court press in the Asia-Pacific region. It is wooing countries such
as China, India, Japan, and South Korea, which are eager to invest and trade in Canadian
minerals, energy, and agricultural products. Harper has announced Canada’s intention to
explore free-trade negotiations with China, and talks with Japan, Thailand, India, and South
Korea are under way. As Harper put it during a visit to China in February, “We want to sell our
energy to people who want to buy our energy.”

To be sure, Canadian companies will never abandon the U.S. market. Nevertheless, the U.S.
recession and the rise of Asia have allowed Canada to diversify its economic relations. In 2010,
only 68 percent of Canadian exports were destined for the United States, down from 85
percent in 2000. Canadians are accustomed to benign neglect from a neighbor preoccupied
with more urgent global flashpoints, but since that neglect has grown so much as to be malign,
they have begun to reappraise their relationship with the United States. As Canada develops
closer ties with China and finds more receptive outlets for its exports, the United States may
find itself with a less obliging partner to the north.

The Keystone XL pipeline will probably be approved eventually -- the economic consequences
of not building it are simply too great -- but it will take a long time to undo the damage its delay
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 19

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Status Quo Hurting Relations

[Burney and Hampson 2011 continued…no text omitted]

has done to U.S.-Canadian relations. Obama’s mishandling of an ordinarily routine pipeline
permit awakened Canadians to the problems with depending exclusively on the United States
as an export market. Already, Ottawa has shifted toward alternative options that include
exporting oil from the west and east coasts of Canada later this decade. To that end, the Harper
government introduced legislation that will speed regulatory approval of such projects.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 20

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Status Quo Hurting Relations

(___) In the wake of Keystone XL delays, Canada is reassessing it’s trade relationship with the
United States.

Mufson, July 6, 2012 [Steven, staff writer covering energy and other financial news for the Washington Post,
“Keystone XL pipeline would add link in U.S.-Canada trade relations”]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/stevenmufson/2011/03/09/ABX9PoP_page.htm.

Despite the strong ties between the United States and Canada, the long battle over the
Keystone XL pipeline has irritated many Canadian leaders and sparked talk about sending
output from Canadian oil sands to China. TransCanada has been working on U.S. permit
approvals for nearly four years, and has faced vociferous opposition from environmentalists
and scientists worried about the unusually high level of greenhouse gas emissions associated
with oil extraction from the tar sands.

During a February visit to Beijing, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper courted Chinese
participation in such an arrangement. China’s rapidly expanding economy is thirsty for crude oil,
although its ability to refine such oil may be limited.

Chinese firms already own minority stakes in oil sands ventures. Sinopec is one of half a dozen
partners in the pit operations of a venture called Syncrude and China National Offshore Oil
Corp. owns 17 percent of MEG Energy, which is producing 25,000 barrels a day from a steam-
injection project.

Contributing to Harper’s reoriention was President Obama’s decision to reject TransCanada’s
initial permit application — which would have routed the pipeline through ecologically sensitive
areas of Nebraska — because, Obama said, he could not evaluate the permit properly in the
face of a congressional deadline.

“I think we need to be clear. As much as I want to see that Keystone project proceed, this
incident underscores the fact it is in this country’s national interest to be able to sell its
products beyond the United States,” Harper said in an interview with Reuters at the time of his
China visit.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 21

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – U.S. Economy Struggling
(___) U.S. economy is stalling – unemployment is rising again and comes at a precarious time
for the global economy

Bloomberg News, June 1, 2012 [Christopher S. Rugaber, “US Economy added 69K jobs in May, fewest in a
year”, Bloomberg Businessweek, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06/D9V4CNRO0.htm]

The U.S. economy suddenly looks a lot weaker. U.S. employers created only 69,000 jobs in
May, the fewest in a year, and the unemployment rate ticked up. The dismal jobs data will
fan fears that the economy is sputtering. It could also damage President Barack Obama's re-
election prospects. And it could lead the Federal Reserve to take further steps to help the
economy. The Labor Department also said Friday that the economy created far fewer jobs in
the previous two months than first thought. It revised those figures down to show 49,000
fewer jobs created. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent in April,
the first increase in 11 months. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 160 points
in the first half hour of trading. The yield on the benchmark on the 10-year Treasury note
plunged to 1.46 percent, the lowest on record. It suggested that investors are flocking to the
safety of U.S. government bonds. The price of gold, which was trading at about $1,550 an
ounce before the report, shot up $30. Investors have seen gold as a safe place to put their
money during turbulent economic times. Josh Feinman, global chief economist with DB
Advisors, said Friday's report raises the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will do more --
perhaps start another round of bond purchases to further lower long-term interest rates.
Still, he noted that the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is already at a record low 1.46
percent. "How much lower can long-term rates go?" Feinman said. The economy is
averaging just 73,000 jobs a month over the past two months -- roughly a third of 226,000
jobs created per month in the January-March quarter. Slower growth in the United States
comes at a perilous time for the global economy.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 22

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Relations Key to U.S. Economy

(___) President Obama’s delays of the Keystone XL pipeline have crippled U.S.-Canadian
relations, prompting Canadian government to rethink the overall trade relationship.
Instability in the trade relationship risks economic collapse.

Velk, February 9, 2012 [Tom, Associate Professor of Economics at McGill University and Director of North
American Studies, “Keeping Canada Close,” The National Interest, p.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/keeping-canada-close-6472]

History, geography and economic logic combine to make America and Canada close partners. Today, Canada is
being shaken up by the uncertainty of a U.S. election year, and some analysts suggest it should "look east" to Asia
or "diversify" its trading portfolio. Canadians should ignore these calls. Canada needs to find the right balance for
its national interests. But the danger exists it will shift too suddenly—and there is no better example than the
current negotiations with the United States on the Keystone oil pipeline.

On January 17, President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness said that the continuing importance of
traditional fuels, combined with uncertain supply lines ”require the United States to optimize all of its natural
resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel." It
continued that "permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects" would
"negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure.”

Later that day, acting on “advice” from the State Department, The president delayed—and some fear de facto
cancelled—completion of the Keystone oil-pipeline project. If the TransCanada corporation completes the project,
the thirty-six-inch conduit would carry 1.3 million barrels a day of unrefined petroleum from Canada’s oil sands of
Alberta to refineries and shipping assets in Nederland and Port Arthur, Texas.

The United States consumes 15 million barrels of oil per day, of which about 11 million is imported. So Keystone oil
would meet almost 9 percent of American needs and provide necessary employment. Despite its January message
that Keystone was contrary to U.S. national interests, the August 26, 2011, State Department environmental-
impact statement affirmed the project would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” Since the
environmental and economic elements of his rejection don’t add up, suspicion exists that the president acted
politically to sooth the ardent, implacable environmentalists in his voting base.

Much of the pipeline is already built and in operation. The rejected completion plan would move more oil but
expose less terrain to “environmental risk.” Transcanada's interactive [3] [3]map [3] [3]shows that oil now moves
from Hardisty, Alberta, by way of Steele City, Nebraska, and Cushing, Oklahoma, with a side trip to Wood River and
Patoka, Illinois. Four hundred thirty-five thousand barrels a day move between Alberta and Illinois, and 501,000
barrels a day find their way to Oklahoma. Obama rejected a short-cut, extension and capacity enlargement,
Keystone XL, which would ship 1.3 million barrels every day—all via a bigger pipe and a shorter distance, making a
more direct connection between Hardisty and Port Arthur.

Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper said the resulting impact on Canada's national interest was a "wake-up
call." Harper now suggests that Canada look across the Pacific to sell its oil and warned his countrymen of "the
degree to which we are held hostage to decisions in the United States, and especially decisions that may be made
for very bad political reasons."
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 23

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Relations Key to U.S. Economy
[Velk 12 continues…no text omitted]

It isn’t the first time Canada’s perceived national interest, dignity and independence has suffered at the hands of
an American president. Lester B. Pearson, Canada’s prime minister between April 1963 and April 1968, came into
office after promising to reverse the previous government’s failure to place Bomark missiles (which protected U.S.
cities) on Canadian soil. He also signed the US/Canada treaty that allowed rational North America-wide integration
of automobile production, to great benefit of both nations. But in April 1965, after Pearson gave a speech in
Philadelphia recommending a halt to the bombing of North Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson’s aides phoned the
prime minister and summoned him to Camp David. Upon arrival, the 6’4” president seized the 5’ 10” prime
minister by the lapels and bellowed, "Don't you come into my living room and piss on my rug."President Nixon
called Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau a “pompous egghead.” In the George W. Bush White house, Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien was known as "Dino," short for dinosaur. There is a roller-coaster element in the relationship: Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan sang this duet in full: “When Irish eyes are smiling, Sure, 'tis
like the morn in Spring.” Together, they created the world’s largest bilateral free-trade relationship.

North American economic health is impaired by bickering and instability among the continent's political elites. A
stable U.S. trade relationship is essential to Canada. But nationalist sentiment, antagonistic toward America, has
long been a threat to Canadian economic health and North American economic integration. And Obama’s
progressive Green rejection of the Keystone project may push conservative Steven Harper toward the “diversified
economic internationalism” long advocated by the Canadian Left.

For example, Prime Minister Trudeau’s Left-leaning Canadian secretary of state for external affairs minister
Mitchell Sharp in 1972 advocated “The Third Option.” It was a rejection of existing close relations with the United
States in favor of international "diversification." Sharp claimed his plan to actively reduce U.S. and Canadian
economic and cultural links would "develop and strengthen the Canadian economy and other aspects of its
national life.” Mr. Harper is no Son of Sharp, but Obama’s economic nationalism and Green radicalism has nearly
made him so. Exports and imports between the two countries dominate both nation’s trade statistics. Exports and
imports are 29 percent and 30 percent, respectively, of Canadian GDP, and 11 percent and 14 percent in the
United States. Seventy-five percent of Canada’s exports go “down South,” and 50 percent of its imports come from
there. Nineteen percent and 14 percent are the corresponding American numbers.

In 2010, despite the recession, Canada’s exports to the United States grew 9 percent, and imports expanded 10
percent. Canada is a significant source of major U.S. total imports: food, 22 percent, metals and mining 20 percent,
energy 24 percent, chemicals 15 percent, wood and paper 49 percent, automobiles 24 percent, aerospace 27
percent. In every case, Canada is more important to the United States than any other nation. In 2009, Canada
exported $77.9 billion of energy products, 97 percent to the United States. Canada provided 21 percent of U.S.
crude oil imports.

Emerging Asia needs the same commodities. And they have the money to buy them. They are willing to help build
the East-West infrastructure—pipelines, railways, roads and ports—to enable the Canadian export machine to
redirect its trade. Obama’s pronouncement on jobs, only slightly modified, applies to Canadian-Chinese relations
too: if pushed into a shotgun marriage by Green radicals and economic nationalists, the new Trans-Pacific partners
will aim to optimize all natural resources, construct pathways to deliver electricity and fuel, remove obstacles that
threaten the development of energy projects and create jobs to build a mutually profitable energy infrastructure.

Cool-headed Canadians hope Obama's Keystone decision will not precipitate such a risky departure from U.S.-
Canadian mutual economic interests.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 24

Advantage/Harms: U.S.-Canada – Relations Key to U.S. Economy

(___) US-Canada Relations key to the U.S. and Canadian economies
Burney and Hampson, June 21, 2012 [Derek H., Former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Senior Research
Fellow at the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute and a Visiting Professor and Senior Distinguished
Fellow at Carleton University, and Fen Osler, Director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs
(NPSIA), Carleton University “How Obama Lost Canada: Botching Relations with the United States’ Biggest Trade
Partner”, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137744/derek-h-burney-and-fen-osler-hampson/how-obama-
lost-canada

Economically, Canada and the United States are joined at the hip. Each country is the other’s
number-one trading partner — in 2011, the two-way trade in goods and services totaled $681
billion, more than U.S. trade with Mexico or China — and trade with Canada supports more
than eight million U.S. jobs. Yet the Obama administration has recently jeopardized this
important relationship. It failed to combat the Buy American provision in Congress’ stimulus
bill, which inefficiently excluded Canadian participation in infrastructure spending.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 25

Advantage/Harms: U.S. Canada Relations – Economy Impact
(___) Economic crisis and downtown sparks world war

Mead 2009, Walter Russell, Senior Fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 2/4/2009, The New Republic, “Only Makes You Stronger,”
http://www.tnr.com/article/only-makes-you-stronger-0

So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies
that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time
goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that
of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the
merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist
society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists,
populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist
society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies
are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than
more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries
where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and
political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises
often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be
happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession.
History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their
leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal
part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone
powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven
Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war:
The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed
wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the poisoned German public opinion and
helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough
beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The
United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we
may still have to fight.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 26

Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Canada Shifting Towards China in the Status Quo
(___) Failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline will cause Canada to partner with China
instead of the U.S.

Madhani January 9, 2012 [Aamer, Correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, “Canada seeks alternative route
for Keystone XL pipeline,” USA Today, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-
canada-alternative-route-keystone-xl/1#.T-MBgbWcATZ]

While President Obama wants to delay a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline
until after the 2012 election, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper is stepping up efforts to
explore an alternative pipeline that would allow Canada to ship their tar sands oil to China. On
Tuesday, an independent federal panel in Canada will begin its review of a proposed western
pipeline that would carry the oil from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia. From British
Columbia, the oil would be shipped on tankers to oil-hungry China. "I think it's essential, based
on what's occurred with Keystone XL, that this country does diversify its energy-export
markets," Harper said in a radio interview on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reports.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 27

Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Shift Leads to Environmental Damage
(___)The alternative to Keystone is for Canada to send oil tankers to China. This is a worse
option because it increases emissions, the risk of oil spills, and environmental damage.

Faulkner, May 7, 2012 [Chris, President and CEO of Breitling Oil and Gas, “Bringing the Keystone Pipeline
Debate Back into Focus,” Oil Online, http://www.oilonline.com/blog/main.asp?Tid=45&id=252&cat )

You say neither, I say nyther: killing Keystone won’t be a win for the environment
Another hotly contested element of the Keystone Pipeline is the potential environmental
impact. It amazes me that so much coverage of the environmental concerns fails to mention
that the US Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs has stated that the project will be safer than any other domestic pipeline under
current regulations. (There’s already a network of more than 100,000 miles of crude trunk and
gathering pipeline in the US; the Keystone pipeline will add about 1,700 miles more.) What
many in the media also fail to consider is that the alternatives to the pipeline—tankers and
trains—are far more destructive from an emissions standpoint and just as dangerous in relation
to potential spills. And let’s not forget this simple fact: whether or not we allow this pipeline,
Canada will be increasing production from its tar sands and shipping that oil by whatever
method is available. Those hoping to stop the continued exploitation of the Canadian tar sands
by blocking the pipeline will only succeed in keeping that oil from reaching US refineries, with
the likely result of China taking advantage of our nation’s short-sightedness. And how will
Canada’s oil reach China? Overseas tankers, of course, creating a greater risk of oil spills as well
as additional emissions. Once again, the environment loses, as do American workers and
consumers.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 28

Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Impacts – Emissions/Global Warming
(___) Failure to curb emissions spurs global warming and leads to extinction

Deibel 2007, (Dr. Terry, Profesor of International Relations at Naval War College "Foreign
Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft," Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy
Today)

Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a
nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of
global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists
worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what
was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of
more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to
2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes
Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the
fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring
effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international
panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next
century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of
Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in
Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several
days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a
significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded
from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a
close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000
deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas
to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The
world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the
Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of
the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million
(ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm,
about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so
there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for
significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As
the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2
degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals,
species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of
Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West
Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover
North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 29

Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Impacts – Emissions/Global Warming

[Deibel 2007 continues…no text omitted]

to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the
Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its
latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the
United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe
warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway
greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the
atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age
transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took
place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon
into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s
continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette
with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor
Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to
het the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at
the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan
popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the
Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life
on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least
as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers
form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the
security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life
on this planet.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 30

Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Impacts – Biodiversity (Plankton)

(___) China-Canada oil tankers will kill the ocean environment --- including plankton and sea
lions

Byers, May 17, 2012 (Michael, Professor at the University of British Columbia and Canada Research Chair in
Global Politics and International Law, “Canada’s oil-sands bonanza could mean disaster for Alaska’s coastline,” The
Seattle Times, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2018232475_guest18byers.html)

Twenty-three years after the Exxon Valdez spilled more than half a million barrels of oil into Prince
William Sound, another threat looms over Alaska's remote and beautiful coastline — in the form of
heavy oil exports from Canada to China. Since the Earth is a sphere, the shortest shipping route
from Western Canada to China passes through the Aleutian Islands at a narrow strait called Unimak
Pass. Two pipeline companies want to dilute tar-like bitumen from the Alberta oil sands with
natural gas condensate so that it can be pumped west to the coast of British Columbia. The first
plan — a new pipeline called "Northern Gateway" — would carry 525,000 barrels per day to a
terminal just south of the Alaska Panhandle, where it would be loaded onto supertankers that
would sail westward toward Unimak Pass.

The second plan involves tripling the capacity of an existing pipeline to Vancouver so it can carry
850,000 barrels per day, and adding compressor stations so it can handle the diluted but still heavy
bitumen. The oil from this "Trans Mountain Pipeline" would also be shipped through Unimak Pass.
Unimak Pass is just 10 miles wide. Five thousand ships already use it each year, most of them large
container and bulk-cargo vessels. The tidal mixing of cold nutrient-rich waters in and around
Unimak Pass supports massive amounts of plankton, the basis of a rich food chain. The area is part
of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, which is home to 40 million seabirds. It's also
home to a wealth of marine mammals, including endangered Steller sea lions, northern fur seals,
sea otters and numerous species of whales. This ecosystem has considerable economical value. The
Bering Sea just north of Unimak Pass supports the largest commercial fishery in the United States,
worth $1 billion annually. Severe weather and sea conditions are common in Unimak Pass, along
with powerful tidal flows.

In December 2004, the Selendang Ayu, a 738-foot-long Malaysian cargo ship, had just cleared the
pass when it lost power in a storm. The vessel was blown aground and broke apart, spilling 335,000
gallons of fuel oil. Almost none of the oil was recovered due to the remote location, bad weather
and the near-complete absence of oil-spill-cleanup equipment and personnel in the Aleutians.
Complicating matters, the U.S. State Department has long accepted that Unimak Pass is an
"international strait" that foreign vessels can enter without permission or regulatory restriction. As
a result, there are no shipping lanes, or notification or pilotage requirements. There are a few steps
the federal government could take. It could station a large rescue tug and several oil-spill-cleanup
vessels at nearby Dutch Harbor. It could ask the International Maritime Organization to designate
Unimak Pass as a "particularly sensitive sea area," which would enable the U.S. to require advance
notification of passage and adherence to vessel traffic
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 31

Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Impacts – Biodiversity (Plankton)

[Byers 2012 continues…no text omitted]

separation rules. It could seek to persuade shipping companies to voluntarily route oil tankers
well south of the Aleutians, though this would increase both distance and cost. In the end,
however, none of these steps is likely to prevent hundreds of oil tankers from transiting Unimak
Pass each year. For the root of the problem is not the tankers, but Canada's disregard for the
environmental impacts of developing and selling its oil sands to China — impacts that include
the near-inevitability of another Exxon Valdez-type spill in U.S. waters, this time in Unimak Pass.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 32

Advantage/Harms: China Shift – Impacts – Biodiversity (Plankton)
(___) Plankton losses trigger ecosystem collapse that risks extinction

Alois and Chen, July 2007 [Paul and Victoria, Researchers at The Arlington Institute, “Keystone
Species Extinction Overview”, http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/wbp/species-extinction/443]

The most recent paradigm in ecological sciences posits that environmental change happens in a
rapid, non-linear fashion. This paper will examine certain species of organisms that have the
potential, once their numbers are low enough, to trigger a sudden collapse in the cycles that
provide human beings with food. 1. Aquatic Systems 1.1. Plankton Plankton is a blanket term
for many species of microorganisms that drift in open water and make up the base of the
aquatic food chain. There are two types of plankton, phytoplankton and zooplankton.
Phytoplankton make their own food through the process of photosynthesis, while zooplankton
feed on phytoplankton. Zooplankton are in turn eaten by larger animals. In this way these tiny
organisms sustain all life in the oceans. According to the NASA, phytoplankton populations in
the northern oceans have declined by as much as 30% since 1980.[4] While the cause of this
decline remains uncertain, there are several theories. [Continues] The preservation of the
fundamental cornerstones of the ecosystem must become a foremost goal in human
advancement, and it is clear that their destruction must be stopped. Plankton supporting
abundant sea life are dying, fish that is a staple part of the diet of many people around the
world are being fished to extinction, bees pollinating crops are threatened by many factors, and
topsoil sustaining agriculture is disappearing. To solve these problems, people must also
address bigger problems caused by human activity such as climate change, the destruction of
habitats, and the depletion of resources due to careless use. If any of these species examined
should be reduced to a low enough level, consequences for our own survival would be
profound. The loss of these actors is happening rapidly, and it is crucial that this be stopped and
reversed as soon as possible.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 33

Solvency – China Shift
(___) Keystone is critical to secure Canadian trade relations and lessen oil dependence ---
failure to act shifts Canadian oil to China.

Nocera, February 6, 2012 [Joe, Business columnist for the New York Times, “Poisoned Politics of Keystone
XL,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/opinion/nocera-the-poisoned-politics-of-
keystone-xl.html?_r=1]

I realize that President Obama rejected Keystone because, politically, he had no choice. My
guess is that, in his centrist heart of hearts, the president wanted to approve it. But to give the
go-ahead before the election was to risk losing the support of the environmentalists who make
up an important part of his base. I also understand that the Republican decision to force
Obama’s hand was a political stunt, allowing them to denounce his decision during the
campaign. As Jennifer Steinhauer put it in The Times recently, “Republicans are framing
Keystone as an urgent jobs and energy project at a time of high unemployment and creeping
gasoline prices.” Surely, though, what the Keystone decision really represents is the way our
poisoned politics damages the country. Environmental concerns notwithstanding, America will
be using oil — and lots of it — for the foreseeable future. It is the fundamental means by which
we transport ourselves, whether by air, car or truck. Where do we get that oil? Mostly from
countries that don’t like us, like Venezuela, which has the world’s second-largest oil reserves.

And here is Canada, a staunch American ally that has historically sold us virtually all of its crude
exports. Over the past two decades, energy companies have invested tens of billions of dollars
in the tar sands, so much so that Canada now ranks No. 3 in estimated oil reserves. Along with
the natural gas that can now be extracted thanks to hydraulic fracturing — which, of course, all
right-thinking environmentalists also oppose — the oil from the Canadian tar sands ought to be
viewed as a great gift that has been handed to North America. These two relatively new sources
of fossil fuels offer America its first real chance in decades to become, if not energy self-
sufficient, at least energy secure, no longer beholden to OPEC. Yet these gifts have been
transformed, like everything else, into political footballs. In Canada, the Keystone XL
controversy has created a surprising new resolve. “Keystone was a transformative turning point
in terms of how Harper sees the bilateral relationship,” says Fen Hampson, a professor of
international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa. Instead of blithely assuming the United
States would purchase its oil, Canada is now determined to find diverse buyers so it won’t be
held hostage by American politics. Hence, the newfound willingness to do business with China.
Canada has concluded that it simply can’t expect much from the United States, even on an issue
that would seem to be vital to our own interests.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 34

Solvency – U.S. Canada Trade Relations

(___)Keystone approval and investment would boost U.S.-Canada trade relations

If the U.S. government gives TransCanada the go ahead, the Keystone XL pipeline will give
another boost to U.S.-Canada trade relations. Canada — not China — is the largest U.S. trading
partner. And oil and gas accounted for more than a third of the $316.5 billion of U.S. imports
from Canada in 2011.

The oil in TransCanada’s existing Keystone and proposed Keystone XL lines alone could outstrip
the value of all U.S. imports from Brazil and, depending on the price, roughly equal those from
France or Taiwan.

The United States is a natural destination for that oil. “The best market is the one right next to
us demanding 10 million barrels of oil every day,” TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling said.
“It makes no sense having tankers moving to the U.S. from Europe and the Middle East and
tankers going to Asia from America.”
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 35

Solvency – U.S. Canada Trade Relations

(___)Keystone XL is inevitable, but approving now key to relations

In May 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy gave a speech before the Canadian parliament in
which he celebrated the deep ties between the United States and Canada. “Geography has
made us neighbors, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners, and
necessity has made us allies,” he said. What Kennedy stated then is still true today, and the two
countries, linked by shared values and a network of individual contacts, will continue to
cooperate for their mutual security and prosperity. Yet none of the truths he listed should
excuse neglect. Even relations between close allies require constant care. And when the world’s
most powerful country allows narrow political considerations to trample the high-priority
interests of its immediate neighbor, it raises questions not only about its ability to maintain an
entrenched alliance but also about its capacity for steady global leadership.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 36

Solvency – U.S. Canada Trade Relations

(___)The Keystone XL is key to rebuilding confidence in the U.S.-Canada trade relationship.

Burwell, May 3, 2012 [David – director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, Keystone XL pipeline, a post child for political posturing,
CNN Opinion, p. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/opinion/burwell-keystone-
pipeline/index.html]

The Keystone XL pipeline has turned into a poster child for political posturing. While it is merely
one of many pipelines crisscrossing North America, this project has become "red meat" that
both sides of the congressional aisle are using to weaken each other in an election season. To
make matters more complicated, Canadian public and private-sector officials have jumped into
the fray by coming to town to extol the virtues of the pipeline. The battle has become so
heated it's easy to lose sight of the main question on which the fate of the pipeline should rest -
- whether the project is in America's national interest and what are the measurable benefits
and costs. The pipeline, as originally proposed, would bring crude oil from the tar sands of
northern Canada through the Great Plains to the oil refineries in Texas and Louisiana, primarily
for export. Supporters tout that the project would bring much needed jobs. Opponents warn of
environmental risks. Unfortunately, the fight over whether to greenlight Keystone XL is creating
collateral damage that vastly outweighs the marginal benefit either side will gain from sticking
to its current position. Three victims among many deserve special mention: the U.S.
transportation bill, U.S.-Canadian relations and America's strategic interests. The transportation
bill, now in its ninth extension, is a critical piece of infrastructure legislation that consolidates
more than 100 separate programs into just five major investment categories (for efficiency) and
establishes performance standards for these investments (no more "Bridges to Nowhere"). It is
finally in the last stage of negotiations between the House of Representatives and Senate.
While the Senate passed a bill in March in a bipartisan 72-24 vote, the House has only a shell
bill to offer, plus its "non-negotiable" insistence on mandatory approval of Keystone XL. The
Senate majority has its own bazooka: a presidential veto if Keystone XL is in the bill. There is a
good possibility that a sound, bipartisan bill authorizing a program so important to our future
economic growth -- infrastructure -- will be tossed aside for a 10th extension and kicked into a
new Congress to start all over from scratch. If this happens, both parties must stand to account
in November for the damage done to our economy. America, which in 10 years has fallen from
fifth to 23rd place in the quality of its infrastructure compared with its global competitors, will
be the loser if the transportation bill becomes a victim of Keystone XL. If the project can't be
resolved soon, U.S.-Canadian relations could also be compromised. Canada is not only our
largest trading partner but also a great friend. Today, Canada supplies the largest share of U.S.
oil imports and buys our products with the money we pay them for it. Yet the Canadian
government risks becoming a pawn in our domestic political catfight. Keystone XL is being
egged on by the fossil fuel lobbyists on both sides of the border who have urged Canada to
double down against the initial permit denial and "turn up the political heat." In a recent
meeting with representatives of the Canadian government, a U.S. oil industry representative
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 37

Solvency – U.S. Canada Trade Relations

[Burwell, 2012 continues…no text omitted]

argued that Canada should have pulled its ambassador when the Keystone XL permit was
initially denied. That's crazy talk. Yet the Canadians have pushed hard for Keystone approval,
bringing in both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Alison Redford to praise
the pipeline and hosting the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers while in town to
brief Congress on the merits of the pipeline. All the pressures aside, the United States needs to
pause and think carefully about its national interest. Our future energy balance and supply
chain should not be short-stopped by attaching Keystone XL as a nongermane rider to a
transportation bill for temporary political gain. Politicians come and go; nations generally do
not. The long-term strategic interests of both Canada and the United States are better served if
all parties involved heed the analysis under way in the State Department rather than resort to
legislative fiat or a presidential veto. Calmer heads are already working on the details of a
better proposal: a new route, improved technology and perhaps cleaner oil. The Canadian
government should vigorously and publicly embrace the existing State Department analysis and
strongly oppose attaching Keystone XL as a rider to the transportation bill. Canada should not
be complicit in rushed, political decisions -- it should play by the rules. Congress should resist
the temptation to use Keystone XL as an opportunity for political brinkmanship. Both
Democrats and Republicans need to make sure that the real issues aren't lost in the partisan
noise of Washington and that we do our best to avoid all the collateral damage.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 38

AT: Gas Prices Turn

(___) The Keystone Pipeline would help reduce gas prices by stabilizing markets.

House Energy and Commerce Committee, No Date [“Waiting for the Keystone XL Pipeline”,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/keystonexl.shtml]

The recent run-up of gas prices is mostly attributable to threatened, disrupted, and restricted
oil supplies in the Middle East and North Africa due to political turmoil in producer nations.
These events have heightened anxiety among investors and physical traders of oil, which has
caused prices to rise and remain at high levels. Fluctuating gas prices demonstrate how our
economic and national security is threatened by reliance on unstable sources of oil.

Discovery of the Canadian oil sands has the potential to change the current gas price dynamic.
If this resource is allowed to be produced and brought to market as quickly and efficiently as
possible, it could significantly rebalance global oil markets toward North America’s favor.

The Keystone pipeline system can play a major role in maximizing this resource’s potential.
Bringing a massive amount of oil to market from a politically and economically secure source
can restore market confidence and bring down gas prices. The Department of Energy
determined this pipeline, along with vehicle efficiency improvements, could “essentially
eliminate” our Middle East oil imports.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 39

AT: Global Warming Turn

(___) The Keystone Pipeline would be environmentally sound and would not increase
greenhouse-gas emissions relative to alternatives.

Regarding the controversial issue of greenhouse-gas emissions generated by the transport or
mining of crude oil to be transported by the Keystone XL pipeline, it's important to note that
Canada's oil- sands resources will be developed whether or not the pipeline is built. Canada has
strong environmental oversight of its energy industry, unlike some other countries from which
we currently purchase oil. Of course, the transport of oil from the Middle East and similar far-
off production centers to refineries on the Gulf Coast creates its own emissions of greenhouse
gases.

Further, a U.S. Dept. of State-sponsored environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL
pipeline found that the heavy-crude-oil industry has made significant strides in monitoring and
managing air quality, land impact and water quality in oil-sands development. In addition to the
heavy-crude-oil industry improving its overall environmental performance, "oil-sands mining
projects have reduced greenhouse-gas emissions' intensity by an average of 39% between 1990
and 2008," says the report. The industry is working toward further reductions.
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 40

AT: Global Warming Turn

(___) Alternatives to the Keystone XL are worse for the environment -- They increase chances
of oil spills and energy costs of transporting long distances.

Sivy, January 24, 2012 [Michael, Chartered Financial Analyst and a former securities analyst for an
independent stock research firm, “The Unlikely Green Alternative to the Keystone Pipeline? Railroads,”
http://business.time.com/2012/01/24/railroads-the-unlikely-green-alternative-to-the-keystone-
pipeline/#ixzz20KcXHwFA]

President Obama’s decision last week to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline that would carry oil from
Canada to the U.S. was cheered by some environmental activists like Robert Redford. But many
mainstream commentators reacted with dismay. A Washington Post editorial called the
decision wrong on the substance of the question. And a columnist for the same newspaper
described it more hyperbolically as “an act of national insanity.” The argument for the pipeline
is not only that it would give the U.S. a secure source of oil with low transportation costs, create
jobs and help our close ally Canada, but also that the alternative is actually worse from an
environmental point of view. Canada is still going to produce its oil, and the U.S. is still going to
need energy. Without the pipeline, Canada will have to try to sell some of its oil to China, which
means building a pipeline to the Canadian West Coast. And we will buy more from the Middle
East or somewhere else. The overall result: more oil shipped longer distances and greater
chances of an oil spill
WDCA Keystone XL Affirmative 2012-2013
Novice Packet P a g e | 41

AT: Ogalala Aquifer
(___) State Department impact statements prove that Keystone will not harm the aquifer

Loris, December 19, 2011 (Nicolas, Policy Analyst in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies at the Heritage Foundation, “Unnecessary Keystone XL Pipeline Delay Obstructs Energy,
Jobs, The Cutting Edge,”
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=53424&pageid=16&pagename=Opini
on)

Much of the concern of environmentalists and Nebraskan residents has focused on the original
route of the pipeline, particularly the area where the pipeline crosses the Ogallala Aquifer—
despite the fact that thousands of miles of pipeline already cross the aquifer. In its “Final
Environmental Impact Statement,” the State Department studied the pipeline’s potential for
contaminating groundwater in the entire aquifer system, as well as for 200 public water-supply
wells within one mile of the centerline of the pipeline, and for 40 private wells within 100 feet
of the centerline of the pipeline, none of which is a sole or principal source of drinking water.
The impact statement rated the potential for water contamination as minimal and contained in
a limited area. Oil contamination of drinking water would not be likely in many instances
because the soil composition prevents or mitigates the downward migration of oil. The
Keystone XL pipeline will be equipped with thousands of sensors to monitor pressure and
detect leaks, and will have additional safety systems to prevent a major oil spill. Additionally, in
areas where a water table is near land surface, TransCanada will add a waterproof coating and
cement casing to the piping. The State Department also notes that “In no spill incident scenario
would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system [of which the Ogallala Aquifer is a part]
be adversely affected.” The State Department has already worked with the Bureau of Land
Management and state agencies to negotiate more than 340 minor route variations to address
environmental concerns.