senate hearing right now and the secret service is looking into the data breaches that affected tens of millions of americans. >> those are the headlines and tony harris and inside story is next on al jazeera america. that long awaited report on the keystone pipeline is being made public. it is not the support they need to end the argument. canada and u.s. oil is the inside story. hello, i'm ray suarez and there

is a lot of petroleum trapped in the sands. canada wants to send it to the south throughout the u.s. to the coast and the obama administration is moving slowly in killing or approving the project and pitting the environmentalist. there's no making everyone happy on this one. you either build the pipeline and ship the oil or you don't. somebody's not going to get what they want. the president kicked the decision to the state department, the state commissioned a report and assessing the project from all of the angels and decision time the growing closer. most americans don't know that the oil is coming from canada. thanks to new technologies, canada churned out oil in amounts previously unimaginable and for this the u.s. is seeking

a new way to get the oil to this market. thus the keystone pipeline plan and bringing the oil and jobs to the u.s. in large quantities. because the project is crossing international borders the state department was assigned to produce an environmental impact report that came last week. in that long awaited report the state department opened the door to building the pipeline and the statement concluded with out or without the pipeline extension canada's oil is going to find a way to get by market, if not by the pipelines railways. this is leaving the president with a difficult decision. >> we welcome the state department's report and encouraged that it concluded that keystone wouldn't have a significant environmental impact. >> the pipeline extension will

transport nearly a million barrels of oil a day from can do to the gulf coast from alberta to texas and louisiana and connecting with the existing keystone pipeline in nebraska. >> let's work together on building the keystone pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs created as a result. >> it is a powerful symbol. those in favor find it necessary for the independence from oil and the need for jobs in a flagging economy. the debate galvanized the protestor and became a part of the presidential race and remains an issue in the mitted term elections year. president obama talked about the keystone pipeline during the speech last summer. >> our national interests will

be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of pollution. >> it is facing tough opposition in conference, cap and trade emissions legislation failed during the first term, the president since focussed on executive action, such as issuing new epa regulations and john kerry made climate change a priority as well issuing directives to include climate change talks in all of the meetings with the foreign governments. a 30 day review is open for public comment and other federal agencies have three months to weigh in on a final assessment. president obama will decide whether or not to sign off and weighing all of the costs, political, economic, and environmental.

>> joining us now to talk about the political implications and environmental impact of the keystone pipeline is charles, director of the brookings institution and susan, director of the international program at natural resources defense counsel and working to stop the expansion of the pipelines and michael, executive vice president of consumer energy alliance that leads the build kxl now.org campaign. the elegantly named kxl. michael, does the report that came out friday help you make your case that it should be built and it is a good thing for the united states? >> i think it does. when you look at the conclusions of not having a negative impact in terms of a the environment

and it is not going to significantly up crease the carbon emissions and creating 4,000 direct construction jobs and support 42,000 jobs and have a significant increase in terms of economic development here in the united states, we look at this as a complete win. and we are very excited to move forward to the next steps. >> susan, is that what the report is saying it is making a slam dunk case? >> it is not making a slam dunk case for or against it. it is laying out a number of scenarios and on climate change and water impacts and showing that the president has the grounds to reject it. the report is showing that it is driving the expansion and the associated climate impacts that have a strong impact on water if there are spills from it and it

is basically a pipeline that is exporting most of the mile. >> it is about the number of jobs created as michael suggested? >> what this pipeline would do is create 35 permanent jobs and construction jobs. we can get those jobs through clean energy projects which are happening across america in much greater numbers than a single pipeline project. >> charles, does this make the president's job any easier? is he caught by the am bah queueties in the report and the situation? >> the president is caught up in that and the second review by the state department actually has a lot of a scenarios of oil spills greater than the previous report and still reached the conclusions it did that on

balance it is not dangerous, more dangerous for climate change. we have lost sight of the fact that the oil is moving south, largely by tank car and we have seen railway accidents and it is safer if we are able to build the pipeline to move the oil rather than by tank cars and the oil is going to move regardless by a keystone or other mechanisms. >> susan, isn't that the bottom line, canada means to get the oil out and if by the pipeline or not it is extracted and moved and going to get burned. >> actually, development of the tar sands is not inevitable. there is opposition across canada and the u.s. to all oof the projects proposed and in fact this report found that for

example that the proposed northern gateway pipeline across british columbia wouldn't happen. the expansion to vancouver is unlikely to happen. rail put forward as on option, we are seeing it more with the light crude from the north dakota than we are seeing it as option for tar sands. when it comes to tar sands rail is more expensive and more difficult and unlikely to move the tar sands in the quantities that the pipeline could. >> extracting the oil is more expensive and more complicated. yes, in terms of the world oil markets, there is a demand for the oil. it is going to be developed and exported and in terms of opposition you are seeing in canada, you have the government and the different governments

strongly support the construction of the other pipelines that can move the product to the coast, the we is are you bringing it volunteers to the asian markets and using it here in the united states. the complex in the gulf coast is going to get the oil. they are going to continue to get the oil. the question is how they are going to get it from the overseas sources or bringing it down by train or bringing it done by the pipeline. in terms of cost for getting the oil from the resource base to market as well as the environmental impacts they have concluded this is the safest and most cost effective way to get the oil to the united states. >> if you just look at a map of north america, it seems like the pacific coast ports of canada

and the united states are closer to new orleans where the oil is being extract and how come the happy enthusiasm for getting the oil to go south instead of west? >> it is coming from the fact that we have a huge refining capacity down on the texas louisiana gulf coast. and so when the oil comes down it is easily processed into various products. >> so the present oil infrastructure is already there? >> yes, that favors it that way rather than to the west coast. the point is, the environmental community made a big point that the oil -- is much worse than other crude oils. they are certainly high. but i think if you look at some of the crude oil that we produce, heavy crude oil in california, you will find that california crude is of the same consistency pretty close to what we are seeing in the oil

sappeds. >> your response, susan? >> i would like to respond to two of the points. one is the state department and the oil industry made it clear that much of the product that would flow through the pipelines is not staying in the united states. it is meant for exports. tdz turned into diesel and exporting to latin america and european. we are looking a pipeline through america not to america. what are the options, we need, of course we need the energy, we have a high demand for the energy but we have cleaner options than tar sands oil or some of the other dirty crudes. those cleaner options include all different ways to transport ourselves looking at renewable energy and fuel efficiency standards, there is a lot we can do to inmany miez and reduz the dependence on oil.

>> i understand the point about the refined product, aren't those refineries working by the american workers that would derive the value added and some of the economic activity by doing the work on the u.s. gulf coast? >> the point is are we willing to point america's farms at risk of oil spills and american lands and people at risk of the climate change in order for the oil industry to reach the overseas markets so they can get the higher prices for their oils. >> you have a chance to respond when we come back and talk about the alternatives, if there are logical plausible alternatives to building the pipeline through the united states. you are watching inside story. stay with us.

welcome back to inside

story. i'm ray suarez and the state department issued a report on the keystone pipeline and the proposed system would move the oil from the tar sands in canada to refineries on the gulf coast. the stage is set for the final reviews and recommendation to president obama and michael, just before the break, you heard susan talking about the fact that there are alternatives and one of them is leaving the stuff in the ground because of the potential and the real down sides of taking it out. how do you respond? >> well, the government of canada, the industry up in canada, the government of alberta has made it clear they are anticipating they are going to develop this. the state department concluded that their oil is going to be developed and moved to market. so the alternatives are bringing it down keystone or rail or you

can move it over to the pacific coast and send it into other markets and replace it with oil that is coming from venezuela and the middle east and with all of that, keystone is the safest pipeline every built in the united states and lower carbon emissions rate than the other rates, we feel this is the best move for the environment and in addition, bringing the discounted oil down and the oil price going into the gate is what sets the gas prices, so this going to reduce the prices across board and the safest pipeline built and all conclusions in the state department report. charles, there are profiles of alternative routes, alternative lengths of the pipeline, ones that take it through less sensitive territories and involving farmland less, one is called the i-90 proposal going

nearby the right of way already established interstate and longer and creating more jobs and less risk of a failure, and yet that is not the proposed route or the favored option, why not? >> it is longer and more expensive and most importantly it is the second time that the state department has found that the route of the pipeline is fine from a climate perspective and from an accident perspective. they bypass the sand hills on the first route because of legitimate environmental concerns. the states involved signed off on the routing through their states. who is objecting to this except for a few environmental organizations. another point to make quickly is susan mentioned a lot of this

oil will be exported. americans don't know we expert 4 million barrels right now. americans don't have any idea about that. we are talking additional exports going into the market. the oil flows to the demand for it. >> we are not going to have addition alex ports because the refineries you know are coming up with the diesel as a by product and operating from the keystone or oil from the middle east of venezuela and there are exports regardless. >> susan? >> to the opposition of the pipeline, you know, tonight in a few minutes when i leave the show i'm joining a vigil in front of the white house and gathering to ask the president to reject the keystone pipeline

and this is one of hundreds of vigils organized just over the weekend and public sentiment against the pieb line project in almost every single state in the country people are going to be gathering together at 6:00 p.m. local time to say no to the keystone pipeline and this is showing that the pipeline touch add chord in america. people see it as a line in the sand to say no to dirty energy products, the alternatives are not the other pipeline, they are the clean emergency products. >> do you think having this oil sort of distracts us from the work we should be doing now to create a less energy intense future sooner? >> over the last year the united states has been decreasing dependence on oil with the policies like fuel efficiency standards. that is the path forward. when you start to build large

infrastructure projects for dirty forms of energy you start to lock us in into a continued dependence on the dirty energy. this report from the state department, it clearly says that keystone under a low price and constrained pipeline capacity scenario can drive production and therefore drive climate emissions. it is giving the president to grouped to reject the pipeline. we'll talk about the politics and the way forward for all of the sides of the argument when we come back. this is inside story, stay with us.

more fun than the camp because it teaches us and makes us

welcome back to inside story. i'm ray suarez. on this edition of the program, we are talking about canada's oil and america's energy policy, the keystone pipeline is

becoming a symbol in the abstract and on the ground as the country debates jobs and carbon emissions and energy. susan and charles, and michael, executive vice president of consumer energy alliance. charles, what are the politics now. we talked about the president being in a tough spot. is this report moving the ball that frees him to take one of two routes on this? >> it is time for the president to make a decision. he's not gaining anything supporting the pipeline. the energy industry is not friendly to this administration. the environmental community as we hear is making this line in the sand and as we move to the

midterm elections, i don't see what the president would gain in making a decision until at least after the elections. i anticipate a decision will be made after the congressional elections and what that will be i wouldn't guess. >> can it be dragged out that long. we are starting a 30 day comment period and a revie period following that and the election, i don't know, about ten months from now, can they really make it all the way to election day? >> what we have been hearing from the white house in the recent days they are going to make sure they have the sound analysis to make the decisions and it is a difficult decision to make from the perspective of how quickly the energy picture in the united states is evolving and changing and as we go to the national interest determination,

the social issues and international issues, they have to take the time to get it right. from my analysis, the president has what he needs to reject the keystone pipeline and i expect him to do it. this is not in our national interests. >> what do you make about charles' point, this is not an tri being good to this president, even though during the administration there is a boom in favorable terms on the public land. >> 65% of the american people depending on the polls support this pipeline. you have strong bipartisan in the house and senate that are calling for the pipeline to be built. you have got senators like haga from north carolina calling on the president to get this done

and they are feeling the political pressure to support the pipeline, the american people are supporting this project. we look at it the energy consumers, the drivers of america and the people wanting to jobs are supportive of the president, they have elected him twice & not surprising the the house and senate are supporting this. >> susan, some of the senators not only come from oil states and are democrats but face re-election in 2014, tough time for them? >> what we feel when we look at what the american people want is overwhelming the american people want clean energy. that is something a you see in all of the polls across the board and the more people learn about what keystone will carry and learn about the tar sands

and what the extraction means for the climate and land and water and communities, the more people turn against it. >> we argue exactly the opposite. the american people are learning about this pipeline for five years as we have gone through the process at the state department and every single year the support, the polling numbers are going up because the more the american people weighed on the facts and bringing it in from the partners in canada and realizing the economic benefits they are supporting it, they are supporting it even more. i think as this document gives the president cover to do the right thing. it is giving him the defensible document and based on the analysis from the state document i'm going to grant this permit. that is a fair point, the polls are going the other way? >> the recent polls have

actually shown the trend towards people being very concerned about the pipeline. the poll today for example showed a decrease in the number of people that are supporting it and increasing in the opposition to it. when people are asked it like just another pipeline but learning about the tar sands after high cost to the local nunt communities and piped across the united states lands they tend to oppose it. >> charles, and susan and michael great to have you with ug us. thanks for being with us. the program is over but the conversation is continuing. we want to hear what you think about the issues on this or any of the shows, log on the facebook, send us your thoughts on twitter, ag inside story am minds at race water news.

see you for the next inside story in washington, ray suarez. >> slavery in nepal has been abolished, by law. but behind the high walls of many city homes here, young girls continue to serve as slaves. known as kamlari, they are the daughters of indebted farmers, sold to landlords for little to no money.