1. Here's the way I look at the Keystone Pipeline.

2. It's a private venture. Does it make economic sense, given all the alternatives? I don't know. The people building it think it does, and they're the ones taking the (economic) risk.

3. Does it pose other risks? Possibly yes, but the question is relative to what? The oil is currently moving by rail cars, which poses its own risks. Oil from elsewhere comes with all sorts of other risk factors, as well.

4. Yes, reducing the cost of transportation may encourage more production, but last I checked oil is a legal product. I don't think creating obstacles to producing and shipping it more cheaply is - by itself - a valid argument.

5. I'm not ignoring the externalities here, which many people are legitimately concerned about. It's one thing if you want to argue the project poses substantially greater risks to the public than either the existing or possible alternatives.

6. It's another if you want to say oil is bad, and we should prohibit any project that reduces existing obstacles to transporting it because, you know, oil is bad.

7. The aggravating thing about this kind of thread is the people who respond to one statement without reading the rest of the thread and seeing that statement in context.

8. Many people debate whether it would create jobs or not. Honestly, I don't think we want the government prohibiting business ventures solely on the basis of whether they create more jobs than they replace, or not.

9. If we start down that road, you can forget about Netflix.