An Environmental Debate

The first round is for acceptance and a choosing of a topic.

I will have three debate topics and you will choose ONE.

Debate Topics:

1. The rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline was the correct decision.
2. Offshore drilling should not be expanded (or should be completely banned. It's your decision).
3. Nuclear Power is less efficient than any form of alternative energy.

Challenge accepted, good sir! I would like to manifestly debate about the Keystone Pipeline and how it should have been put in place!

Point 1: The Keystone XL Pipeline would have created at least thousands of permenant workers and tens of thousands of temporary workers.

Jobs Needed for the Pipeline:
1. To dig the materials to build the pipeline from the ground. (Temporary Jobs)
2. To mold the materials into steel. (Some temporary, some permenant)
3. To ship the steel to the location. (Temporary Jobs)
4. To build the pipeline. (Temporary Jobs)
5. To maintain the pipeline. (Permenant Jobs)
6. To maintain spills (Semi-Permenant Jobs)
7. To administer the pipeline (Permenant Jobs)

This requires tens of thousands of people to adequately fill all of the job positions in the seven categories above.

Environmentalists often argue that the number of jobs created would be below 1000. But by nature, this is impossible because of the amount of materials, the magnitude of the project, and the maintaining of it after it is built.

"That figure, based on a report by a consulting firm hired by Transcanada to assess the project's economic impact, has been widely cited by Keystone backers on Capitol Hill. Other estimates advanced by supporters of the pipeline have been even more optimistic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claiming it could create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs."[1]

"According to the Department of Energy, this one project will "essentially eliminate" oil imports from the Middle East. It will create more than 100,000 jobs and strengthen our relationship with a close ally and trading partner. A project like this should be a no-brainer, and there's simply no good reason it has been stuck in the State Department's red tape for nearly three years."[2]

"Costing $7 billion, the pipeline would create 20,000 well-paying construction jobs immediately. Midwest construction workers, one of the demographics hit hardest by the economic downturn, desperately need this project. While blue-collar workers would receive many of the direct benefits from Keystone���‚��„�s construction, thousands of businesses from nearly every state would have reaped indirect business were Obama to simply allow the Keystone project to be built. 2,400 American companies in 49 states are involved in the production of Canadian oil sands."[3]

Point 2: The Keystone XL Pipeline would be a great boost to the economy.

In addition to adding tens of thousands of jobs and decreasing the unemployment rate significantly, the tens of thousands of people who are employed would have more money to spend, and when they do spend more money, they make a greater contribution to overall GDP. In addition to that, there is 7 billion spent on GDP and 5 billion in annual land fees, so there is an additional contribution to GDP. But most importantly, it would lower gas prices by having a big supply of oil in America, away from highly overpriced Middle Eastern Oil. With that, individuals and companies can spend less on gas and the individuals would be able to spend more, increasing GDP and companies would be able to have a larger profit, lowering prices and allowing the company to expand, which increases GDP initially and overtime and decreases unemployment.

Arguments extended.

Vote con.