[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well, I'd prefer to stick in the real world. I would enact Kyoto, barring any other environmental strategic alternatives. Were others to pop up, I'd take a serious look at them and judge which is best.

Well... it shouldn't. I'm using personal experience (hence; "I"), and it seems to me that more people I debate this stuff with are interested in retracting Kyoto than researching a new alternative.

So, once again, instead of freely thinking of a solution (which you are challenging others to do) you are relying on the intelligence and thought of somebody else.

Can't you see the problem there? You're more interested in promoting/adopting/justifying Kyoto than researching a new alternative. You've even agreed that it's not the best solution!

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Have you heard of any new alternatives? Cause I've certainly heard a lot of bashing Kyoto... It certainly should not be a mutually exclusive situation, but my personal experience points that way.

I haven't heard any, no.... but I haven't looked either. I am using my own intelligence to come up with a plan. It may not be the best plan, and would no doubtedly need tweaking if it were to come into the public light and be criticized (which it would). I'm not afraid of having my own ideas and ideals being examined/criticized. You appear to not want to take the time and effort to even think about it.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I hear ya. I pick Kyoto. Its not perfect, but its the best we have. I don't think anyone in this thread is actually capable of, on their own, thinking of a new comprehensive environmental strategy. In fact a huge meeting was already conducted to try and create a strategy... Kyoto.

Kyoto. Remind me again. Was this a government thing or a scientist thing?

I don't see why anyone in this thread CAN'T come up with an environmental strategy. I just see that most people don't WANT to, yourself included. "I"m not the expert". Wah wah wah.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

? 'Piggybacking' an existing strategy is better, as far as I'm concerned, than 'piggybacking' the 'lets do nothing' or 'lets trash Kyoto... and replace it with...' crowds. Like I've said ad nauseum, something has to be done, if not Kyoto, what? I seriously and eagerly await any other bodies out there to put forth an international solution. I have a job (as I'm sure the rest of you do), and can't spend the time/effort to do these things myself. Thats why I've chosen from the options in front of me (very minimal). When there are more options, maybe I'll change my tune.

And yet you spend the time/effort on this very board debating (ad nauseum) what should be done.

Come up with your own proposal. It doesn't have to be comprehensive. Look at what you want to happen, look at what is proposed, look at the flaws. Propose something.

If not? What right do you have to criticize others who are doing the same thing (Kyoto is all we have and it sucks, but I"m too lazy to put my pen to paper)?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

As far as I'm concerned, we all have the same 3 choices on the table. Follow Kyoto, follow another strategy, or do nothing. So far I feel like I'm picking the first, and many others the last. I don't feel like I'm copping out by picking the 'best available' strategy presented to me. I'm just questioning those who blindly refute it, yakking about $ and hippies and cows.

I'm just questioning those who blindly accept/promote it. It's clearly not the best thing available.... and yet "it's the best we have" is acceptable to you? If a decade is a drop in the bucket as far as time is concerned, why does this have to be implemented RIGHT NOW?