it is as big as a football field and now mostly undisturbed. thanks for watching al jazeera america. i'm del walters in new york. "inside story" is next. supporters or opponents needed to end the argument. canada, u.s. and oil are the "inside story." >> hello, i'm ray suarez.

there's a phenomenal amount of petroleum trapped in the tar sands of canada. canada wants to send it south through the united states by pipeline to the u.s. coast. the obama administration moved slowly in either killing or approving the project as it pits environmentalists against the big close trading partner. there's no making everyone happy. you either build the pipeline and ship the oil through it, or you don't. somebody is not going to get what they want. the president kicked the decision to the state department. state commissioned a new report. decision time is getting closer. >> most americans don't know the united states gets most of its imported oil from canada. thanks to new technologies canada churned out oil in amounts unimaginable and for this the u.s. is seeking a new way to get that oil to this market.

thus, the keystone xl pipeline plan, a project bringing oil and jobs to the u.s. in significant quantities. because the project crosses an international border the state department was required to produce an environmental impact report that came last week. in the long-awaited report it opened the door for building the pipeline. with or without the pipeline extension, canada's oil will find a way to get to market - if not by pipeline, by railway. either way the carbon footprint is significant, and that has environmentalists in revolt. it leaves the president with a difficult decision. we welcome the u.s. state department report and encourage that it concludes that keystone xl would not have a significant environmental impact. >> the keystone pipeline extension will transport nearly

a million barrels of oil a day, from canada do the gulf coast, from the tar sands to refineries in texas and louisville. the project would create a route connecting with the existing pipeline in nebraska. >> tens of thousands of jobs would be created as a result. >> from the beginning, the key stop xl pipeline has been a powerful symbol. those in favour see it as necessary for american independence and a source of need needed jobs in a flagging economy. the keystone debate galvanised the environmental movement in opposition. it became a flesh point in the presidential race in 2012 and is a potent issue in the midterm elections year. president obama talked about the key stop pipeline during his change speech last summer. >> our national interest will be

served only if the project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of climate pollution. >> aggressive cap in trade carbon emission trade failed during the president's first term. he's focussed an executive action. like issuing epa rules. secretary of state john kerry made climate change a priority, issuing talks to be included in all meetings with foreign governments. a 30-day review will be open to public comment. other federal agencies, vining the environmental protection department and the interior have fully months to weigh in. president obama will decide whether to sign off on the completion of the pipe line. he'll weigh all the costs, political, economic and environmental.

>> joining us now to talk about the political implications and environmental impact of the keystone xl pipeline is the director of the security initiative at the brookings institution. the director of the program at the natural resources program. they work to stop the expansion of pipelines, and michael wadly, executive vice president of consumer energy alliance, leading the build kxlnow.org campaign. michael wadly, does the report that came out friday help you to built. >> i think it does. when you look at the conclusions that it will not have a negative impact, that it will not significantly increase the carbon emissions, which has been alleged over and over against the pipeline, the fact it will

create 4,000 construction jobs and support 42,000 jobs and have an increase in terms of economical development, we look at this as a win, and we are excited to move ford to the next steps. susan casey, is that what the report says? does it make the heard? >> it does not make a slam dunk forrar against the pipeline. there are many scenarios on climate change. they show clearly that the president has the grounds to reject keystone xl. it shows that keystone xl will have a strong knooct on water. if there are spill froms it, basically it's a pipeline that will be exporting oil. security. >> is it as categorical about

the number of jobs created as michael wattly suggested. >> it would create 35 permanent jobs and construction jobs. we can get those jobs through clean energy projects which are happening all across america in greater numbers than we can from a single pipeline project. >> charles, does this make the president's job any easier? isn't he really by the ambiguities. >> the president is caught by the ambiguities. the second review by the state department has a lot of snerns were there might be a still of significantly greater volume than the previous report, and reach the conclusions that on balance it was not exorbitantly more dangerous for climate change. we have lost site of the fact that the oil is moving south,

largely by tank car, we've seen a number of railway accidents. it will be safe if we build a pipeline. and the oil will move regardless of whether it moves via keystone or other mechanisms. >> isn't that in some ways the bottom line, that canada means to get the oil out. if it's by the pipeline or not it will be extracted, moved and burned. >> what we are seeing is that actually development of the tar sands is not inevitable. there is opposition across canada and the united states to every project proposed. this report found differently from earlier reports that the proposed northern gateway pipeline was not to happen, there's strong opposition to it,

that the expansion to vancouver, statistically difficult. rail - we so it with the light crude that you have from ball can so north dakota than we see it as an option for tar sand. when it comes to tar sand rail is more expensive, more difficult, and it's unlikely to move tar sands in the quantities that a pipeline could. extracting the oil, in the first place is more expensive, intensive. >> it is, but when you look at where we are in terms of the world oil markets there's a demand. it will be developed and exported. in terms of opposition, you have the harper government and the provincial governments supporting the construction of the other pipe line projects that will move the project to the coast. the kevin is are you going to bring it overseas to asian

markets, or are we going to bring it down through keystone xl and use it in the united states. the refinery complex will get oil. that's a conclusion that they made in the reports. they'll continue to get oil. the question is will they get it from overseas sources, such as venezuela or the middle east, or will they bring it down by train or keystone pipeline, in terms of cost, getting the oil from resource base to market, and the environmental impacts. they conclude that this is the safest and cost effective way to markets. >> i know that it's not a scholarly way of looking at it. if you look at a map of north america, it seems like the pacific coast ports of canada and the united states are closer than new orleans, to where the oil is being extracted. how come the happy enthusiasm

for getting it to go south instead of west? >> i think the happy enthusiasm emminiates from the fact that we have huge refining capacity on the texas to louisville golf coast. when the oil comes dawn it can be processed into various petroleum products. there... >> it favours it moving that way rather than to the west coast. a point i'd like to make is the environmental community made a big point that the oil sayers are worse from an environmental standpoint than other crude oils, and they are high. if you look at some of the crude ail that we produced in california, it's the same consistency, close, to what we see in the oil sands. >> your response, susan? >> i'd like to respond to two points. one is both the state department and the oil industry made it

clear that much of the product that would flow through keystone xl is not meant to stay in the united states, it's meant for export. a lot is turned into diesel what we are looking at is a pipeline through america, not to america. when it comes to, you know, what are the options, you nope, we need - of course we need energy, energy. we have cleaner options than tar stands oil or some of the other dirtier crude. those cleaner options include different ways to transport ourselves, looking at renewable energy, looking at energy efficiency through fuel efficiency standards. there's a lot we can do to minimise and reduce dependence on oil. >> i understand the point about the refined product. the refine ris operate and work by american workers who will

derive the value-added, some of the economic activity from doing the work on the u.s. golf coast. >> the point we have to ask ourselves is are we willing to put american heartland and farms at risk of oil feeds and american lands and people at risk of climate change for the oil industry to reach overseas markets where they get higher prices for the oil. that's what the project is about. when we come back, i'll give you a chance to respond. and we'll talk about the alternatives, if there are al-ternives. you are watching "inside story." stay was.

al jazeera america gives you the

total news experience anytime, anywhere. more on every screen. digital, mobile, social. visit aljazeera.com. follow @ajam on twitter. and like aljazeera america on facebook for more stories, more access, more conversations. so you don't just stay on top of the news, go deeper and get more perspectives on every issue. al jazeera america. >> welcome back to "inside story", i'm ray suarez. the state department issued a report on the keystone xl pipe line. the proposed system would move

petroleum from the tar sands on western canada to refineries. the stage is set for final reviews and a recommendation to president obama. and michael wattly, before the break, you heard susan casey levtowichz talk about there's alternatives, to leave the stuff in the ground because of the potential and downsides to taking it out. how do you respond. >> the government of canada. the industry, the government of alberta made it clear that they are anticipating this. they believe that their oil is going to be developed. it will be moved to market. the alternatives are bring it down keystone xl. put it on rail. or you can move it over to the pacific coast and send it in to other markets and replace it with oil coming in from venezuela and middle east. of all of those scenarios, given

that keystone will be the safest pipeline built in the united states and have a lower carbon emission rate than any other rate, we feel it's the best move for the environment. in addition, it's going to bring discounted oil down, and the oil price that went this is what sets the gasoline prices. this will reduce prices. these are conclusions that are in the state department reportism. >> charles, there are some profiles of alternative routes, alternative lengths, of the pipeline, ones that take it through less sensitive territory, involving aquifers. one is called the i-90 proposal, which goes along or nearby the right of way of an established interstate. it's longer, but creates more jobs, and creates less possibility of a catastrophic

failure. yet that is not the proposed route. it's not the favoured option. >> i think for the reasons you said. it's longer, more expensive. more importantly is the fact that this is the second time that the state department found the route of the pipeline is fine from a climate perspective and accident perexpective. they bypass the sandhills on the first route because of legitimate environmental concerns. the states signed off on the rooting through their states. who is objecting to this except a few small or large environmental avo case organizations. susan mentioned that the oil would be exported. americans may not know that we oiled four minutes a day right now. americans don't want any idea of

that. we are talking about exports on the market and that's because we are dealing with a market where is. >> you can argue that we'll not have additional exports. the refine rice are coming up with diesel as a by-product. they are operating from keystone xl or on oil coming from the middle east. they'll be exports. >> i wanted to pick up on a point made about the opposition to the pipeline. tonight, in a few minutes, when i leave the show, i'll join a vinyling ill in front of the white house of activists gathering to ask of the president to reject the keystone xl pipeline. this is one of hundreds that have been organised over the weekend. a huge outpouring of public sentiment against the pipeline project in almost every single state in the country.

people will gather at 6:00 pm local time to say no to the keystone xl pipeline. i think what had shows is that the pipeline touched a cord in america. people see it as a line in the sand to say no to dirty energy projects because the alternatives are clean energy projects. >> do you think having the oil sort of distracts us from the work we should be doing now to create a less energy intense future sooner? >> you know, what is interesting is over the last year the united states has been decreasing dependentens on oil through excellent policies like fuel efficiency standards. that's the path forward. when you start to build large infrastructure projects you locus into a continued dependence on dirtier sources of

energy at the time because of major threats of climate change we need to reduce it. >> the report from the state department says that keystone xl can drive production and climate emissions. it gives the president the ground to reject the pipeline. >> we'll talk about the pol tickets and the way forward for all the different sides of the argument when we come back. this is "inside story." stay with us.

>> welcome back to "inside story", i'm ray suarez. we are talking about canada's oil and america's energy policy, the keystone xl pipe stone has become an important symbol in the abstract and on the ground

as the country debates energy security. we are joined by director of the brookings institution, director of the national resources defense counsel, and michael wattly, executive vice president of consumer energy alliance. charles, what are the politics. we talked about the president being in a tough spot. does the state department report move the ball in any way that frees him to take one of two routes on this. >> i think it's time for the president to make a decision. i don't think the president has anything to gain. the energy industry has not been friendly to this administration. the environmental community is making this a line in the sand. as we move to the midterm elections, i don't see what the president would gain by making a

decision until after the elections whereas he could antag nice the constituency, and gain little. i anticipate it will be made elections. >> susan casey, can it be dragged out that long. we are about to start a 30 day comment period. then there's a review period following that, the election is, i don't know, 10 months from now. day. >> what we have been hearing is that they will make sure they have the sound analysis and science on which to make the decision. it's dive to make from the perspective of how the energy picture in the united states has evolved and changed. >> as we go into the national security issues, they need to take the time they need to get

it right. ultimately, i think, from my analysis, the president has what he needs to reject the keystone pipeline. i expect him to do it. >> michael wattly, what do you make of charles's point that this is not an industry that's been good to the president. during his administration there has been a boom. >> 75% of the american peep support the pipeline. now you have strong bipartisan majorities in the house and the senate calling for the pipeline to be built, and senators like kay hagen, mary landrew, from alaska, calling on the president to get this done, grant the permit, and they are feeling political pressure to support the pipe line, because the

people support the project the the way we look at it is the energy consumers, the drivers of america, the people that want to see the jobs they have been supportive. they granted the democrats majority. it's not surprising that the house, the senate store this on a bipartisan basis. >> susan casey. some of the senators michael named not only come from oil states and are democrats, but they face re-election in 2014. tough time for them? >> you know, what we see when we look at what the american people have been saying that they want is overwhelmingly they want clean energy. that's something you see in every poll across the board. the more people learn about what keystone xl carries, the more they learn about what tar sonands

is, what it means for the environment. we argue the opposite. the american people have been learning about the pipe line as we go through the regulatory process. every year the support, the polling numbers for keystone xl have gone up. the more the american people have weighed the decision and found the facts that we are going to be bringing in oil from overseas markets or bringing it in from our best friend and trading partner in canada and realise what the economic benefits are for it, they support it more. i think that as this document gives the president cover to do the right thing. it gives him a defensible document that he can say based on the analysis that we have seen from the state department, i'll grand the permit. >> is that a fair point. that is a lot of the polls have been on the other way. >> the most recent polls have shown the drend towards people being

concerned about keystone. a poll showed a decrease in the number of people that support it and increase in the opposition to it. basically when people are asked about it, they think it's none other. when they learn it's tar sands, at a high cost in local communities, it will be piped across u.s. lands. they changed their mind. they tend to oppose it. >> great to have you all with us. this is not over. that brings us to the end of this edition of "inside story." the program may be over, the conversation continues. we want to hear what you think about the issues on this or any show. you can log on to the facebook page, send us your thoughts on twitter. the handle is inside story. see you for the next story in washington.

i'm ray suarez. bloc >> welcome to al jazeera america, i'm del walters, these are the stories we're following for you. >> this industrial accident affected our school system and envieded our homes. >> congress is demanding answer in the chemical leak in west virginia. there is a new report out that claims that the afghan president has been in secret talks with the taliban. and cutting the number of collisions on the ro