I am interested in the Keystone Pipeline question because the protection of our environment is important not only for the present but for the future generations.   The construction of the pipeline will release numerous toxins; greenhouse gases like methane, and will damage the infrastructure of North American ecosystems.  Not only does the pipeline threaten wildlife and lead to more CO2 emissions in the air, but it also has will lead to contamination of drinking water (groundwater) and will contaminate the biggest water aquifer in the United States, the Ogallala aquifer.  This question does not question my values but questions the values of the ideas and mindsets of other Americans and people who choose whether the construction of the pipeline is for the greater good of our people.  I do not have any personal experience with this exact topic but I am researching it because the answer to this question varies for many people.  Some people think of the pipeline as an economic plus and some think of it as a dump waiting to pollute our environment and threaten the safety of our children as contaminated water is proven to lead to higher rates in mental illnesses.  I believe the safety of our people and the protection of our environment is much more important than a giant check.   

KeystoneXl.xom- The claim of this article is that the pipeline will create thousands of permanent jobs, is committed to a less carbon intensive future, and will work with Native American tribes.  It is disclaiming all the negatives that environmentalists and economists are drilling it for.   The main interest of this article is to build the Keystone Pipeline because there are a lot of "myths" that the pipeline will hurt America's infrastructure.  The bias of this source is that the people who want to construct the Pipeline so of course they're going to lie and give fixed statistics/ views created it.  However, there are statistics in this article that could be used in a counterclaim to make the argument up for dispute.

 National Wildlife Service- The addition of the Keystone Pipeline will carry up to 830,000 barrels of tar sands everyday carrying those over six states in which the biggest water aquifer in all of the United States happens to be. A bigger uptake of barrels will drive gas prices down.  When gas prices are driven down then fossil fuels will be used more leading to an excess amount of CO2 in the air.  Excess amounts of CO2 in the air will Also the Pipeline will carry tar sands from Canada all the way down the Gulf of Mexico.  Lastly, it will also release methane, a terrible greenhouse gas.  The major value and interest of this source it to protect the ecosystems in which the Pipeline will destroy and to diminish or reduce the amount of greenhouse gases this country already releases into the environment.  The bias of this source is that the source is obviously not going to look at the economic boom the pipeline offers and look at the ecosystems instead.

The third source I selected is about two conservative legislators from Iowa who decided to reject the keystone pipeline because of eminent domain purposes.  Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private owned property and force them to move from where they leave in an instant.  The Iowa legislators opposed the pipeline for another reason and that is to protect their giant water aquifer that supplies water to over two million people.  The legislators felt that the building of the pipeline would be unfair to private landowners and would force them off land, which they have lived on for years.  The Iowa legislators are opposed to this pipeline because it will take away rights of the people and is a potential hazard for the people who live on that aquifer. Eminent domain is one of the many common things that the government does when building such structures.  When Bush built the fence on the border, the fence was allowed to reject many rules like the endangered species act and the clean water act.  It would be foolish to believe that the same wouldn't be allowed for the construction of the keystone pipeline. 

The research is arguable because most politicians and economists would argue that the construction of the pipeline will diminish the foreign oil coming into this construction and will allow Americans to persevere.  However constant drilling and pipelines are due to leak into our local water systems.  The agreements of the sources would be that tar sands are clearly bad for the environment but the disagreements come when people weigh out the economic benefit with the environmental hazards. The different arguments lead me to believe the rest of the keystone pipeline should not be built because of its environmental dangers, and instead of the pipeline America should resort to green energy, solar and wind energy, which will create more jobs than fossil fuels and the pipeline all together.  If conservatives want to be self-sufficient and generate tons of jobs than solar and wind energy is the best option.  I do not need to revise my question because I believe that it can be argued both ways and is a question with tons of research done on it.  The only thing I have to introduce to the question is that he vetoed the addition to the pipeline because part of the pipeline has already been built through the United States from Canada.   Also introduce tar sands into the question because that is the potential environmental hazard I am going to be talking about for most of the article. Climatologists believe our climate is due to rise anywhere from 3-12 degrees by the turn of the century.  It is presumed that sea level rise will affect 17 million people in the United States alone.  Our climate is changing and by approving the keystone pipeline we will only be moving this country in wrong direction and adding on more to those statistics.

