Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
I didn't dismiss cost... I brought it up. I just don't see $ as the single most important resource we have. It can be spent to improve other resources. I'd considering it an investment in the future.
|
You brought it up... and subsequently marginalized it.
If $s are going to the poorer countries, they can't be used as incentives for companies to create better technology.
The is the biggest problem with Kyoto. It's a huge cash cow. It should take a whole lot less than $12 billion over 7 years to offer incentives for companies to come up with cleaner technology. Incentives may not be the best but ad campaigns, like the useless "One Tonne Challenge", sure don't help.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Creating a better quality of living for the human race (through the elimination of massive pollution) is a great idea. One of the very best ideas; and it deserves some investment.
|
Sure it is... but there are better ways to do it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Blink of an eye as far as I'm (and the earth is) concerned. Had heavy incentives begun a decade ago... they'd be kicking in right now! How many more decades should we wait?
|
A decade is a blink of an eye, and yet since one idea is brought up you want it implemented ASAP with no time to develop another proposal?