Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 11 2005, 03:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 11 2005, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Looger@May 11 2005, 10:35 PM
being against kyoto seems to make people think you're anti-environment
|
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
I think the biggest issue pro-Kyoto advocates would point out is that the anti-Kyoto crowd doesn't seem to have a better solution. Doing nothing is generally frowned upon as a 'solution' to human impact on the planet.
If the anti-Kyoto crowd wants to defeat Kyoto AND not look like environment-bashing cash-grubbers, they need to come up with their own comprehensive solution. Are anti-Kyoto people honestly surprised that they're condemned as anti-environment? They're great at pointing out the problems, but I don't see many solutions.
Don't we all love the person who's great at pointing out the problem, but doesn't put forward their own idea? I know I do. [/b][/quote]
I actually take offence to that. You haven't any right to suggest that a person that questions Kyoto may actually be anti-environment.
I agree that a bad plan should be replaced by a good plan whenever possible, but that isn't to say that a bad plan should be just followed until a good plan comes along.
Why not take it easy have another look and come up with a more reasonable time frame in order to come to a consensus?
To just go ahead, in fact go ahead without even answering questions about the possibility that the data basis for the accord could be flawed or worse, rigged, is close minded and foolish.
If there is a better plan out there, but the world is knee deep in a foolish one, every one loses.
I think for starters I'd suggest a corporate tax cut plan tailored by industry in Canada that rewards environmental leaders with greater tax breaks than those that fall behind.
You'd kill two very important birds with one stone.