[Agamemnon]

I'm thinking you didn't actually read my post.

Well, its not like I saw your name, and posted an assumptive response. My post was a reaction to yours, that's why I quoted it.

Nowhere do I say that Kyoto is flawed, I think you'll find the word "may" littered throughout. If it IS flawed then you should halt the train right now. If it MAY be flawed then I think some pause would be smart to work out the issues. That is all I said, the rest was added by you.

So you don't think Kyoto is flawed? Or you don't know? I'd like to know what 'flawed' means. Expensive? Wrong? Right-but-tomorrow-not-today? If the science is explicitly wrong (as apparently pointed out by the academic bastion the Toronto Sun), then lets work on another solution.

I'm just really, really tired of people pointing out the things that are wrong with Kyoto. Why not spend that time and energy developing an alternative, instead of simply saying 'there must be one, i'm sure there is'. Find it. Sell it. I'm ready and waiting to buy it. Right now, there's only one solution for sale... I think its a good idea to go for it. I'd rather make a colossal blunder in an effort to help the situation, than a colossal blunder because I did nothing to stop it.

I guess I think its better to do something than nothing. No other somethings have presented themselves at the international stage. No other solution or strategy, currently, matches the scope of Kyoto. Why not? If Kyoto is so flawed, and so many scientists are aware of it, then why aren't they pushing the 'right' way to go?

And I gave an alternative. Go to the heart of business itself. The bottom line. Big splashy federal pronouncements of corporate tax relief for the stars in industries with green house gas issues. Won't take long before CEOs will start pounding on their underlings to improve their standing on these lists to a) get the tax cut, and b) look better in the media.

Brilliant. You run for PM, and I'll vote for you. Have you been reading Green policy lately? I don't think you and I are enough. Maybe you should get it ratified by half the world first, and then I'll consider it a viable 'alternative'. It's easy enough to say 'sure, I've got a solution, cut pollution'. I think everyone knows what needs to be done (more or less), its how to go about doing it on a global scale, rather than local. If Calgary cuts emissions by 50%, that's a tiny drop in a massive bucket. Localized solutions sound great, but don't work if most locales don't develop/implement a coherent policy.

Leaving things as they are without even a discussion at the federal level is unacceptable.

But its not like Kyoto hasn't been discussed period. Hell, every political Party in Canada was/is talking about it. How is this not 'even a discussion'? I'm sure every single MP is well-aware of what Kyoto means to them and their parties. The Conservatives sure seem to be, and have no problem letting Canada know about it. Would debat in the House honestly do anything? Would some wild new figures and stats come out of it? Doubtful.

But then ... where there's smoke there's likely fire.

A question was posed earlier as to why anti-Kyoto people 'looke like' anti-environment people. I said it was because they lacked an alternative, and look like a bunch of 'can't do's' instead of 'can do's'. That's the image problem for the anti-Kyoto crowd, as I see it. Whether or not you take offence to my theory is up to you I guess, but I certainly don't imply any.