Quote:
Originally posted by Bingo@May 12 2005, 04:03 PM
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.
|
You take offence to that? I thought I was being fairly polite. Do you offend easily?
1. Kyoto has not been 'proved' to be a 'bad plan'. Many believe it is a good plan, and many don't. It may be sunk in your eyes, but your word on the issue is hardly final.
2. There is no comprehensive alternative.
3. Those who should be pushing an alternative the most, the anti-Kyoto crowd, haven't found one, and don't really seem to be looking.
4. I fail to see how Kyoto could make this planet a worse place to live. Expensive? Sure. Innefficent? Maybe. But, like the poor shotgun analogy above, unless there's another gun, saw, or other device (solution) around, I don't see the point in delaying.
If Kyoto is truly, truly the absolute wrong way to go, then why hasn't consensus been reached? Why is there still debate about it? I'm not convinced that it is a ruinous plan, and millions of others agree.
Come up with a better plan, compare the two, and if yours is better, I'll be first in line. If its not, I'll stick with Kyoto. Seems fair to me.