Quote:
|
Originally Posted by calculoso
You brought it up... and subsequently marginalized it.
|
Well... I identified it as the main 'con' to Kyoto, and then 'marginilized' it as less important than the quality of life on the earth itself. I stand by my 'marginlization'.
Quote:
|
If $s are going to the poorer countries, they can't be used as incentives for companies to create better technology.
|
Well... I don't see massive incentives OR Kyoto being implemented... were I to see at least one implemented I'd be a happier individual.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Sounds good to me. So what does help? What is the answer? And why is more time being spent refuting Kyoto than figuring out a better solution? I've heard a lot more 'no-to-Kyoto' then 'yes-to-anything else'. Thats why I stick by Kyoto; its the only option I see on the table. I would love for other options to crop up, but until they do, I can't sympathize with those who are against Kyoto 'because there are better ways to achieve the goal'. What ways?