[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

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.

As far as I'm concerned I'm a Kyoto supporter. There are those in this thread who believe Kyoto is not the way to go. How am _I_ responsible for finding other people's phantom 'third ways'?

I see two choices on the table and I picked one. Many have picked the other, but are apparently so embarrased by it that attacking Kyoto is their best defense.

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!

Yeah, I am. Because no new alternative has been presented to me. As I said, I've got a job, and my resources don't quite equal several nations and multinational organizations around the world. Thats basically why I 'have' to pick from the options in front of me. I'm as incapable as devising a new solution as you, so I've chosen from the available.

Apparently choosing from the options available is hypocritical? Why is it my responsibility to find an alternative to Kyoto when I support it as the best current strategy? Shouldn't that the be the responsibility of those who believe there are better ways than Kyoto?

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.

I'm pretty sure a comprehensive global environmental strategy is beyond your or my ability to 'use our own intelligence to come up with a plan'. I am not nearly intelligent or knowledgable enough to come up with my own global environmental strategy. Thats why I have to pick from the available... or not, apparently.

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.

I think you underrate 'expertise'.

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.

Why? I'm supporting Kyoto. 'You guys' are the ones refuting it as the best way to go. I'm asking for a better solution from Kyoto nay-sayers, and then I'm being told to come up with it? Wacky...

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)?

I'm criticizing those who believe that 'doing nothing' when it comes to a comprehensive global environmental strategy is better than adapting Kyoto. If there's a third way, present it. Otherwise I figure anti-Kyoto (currently) = pro-nothing. If they espoused a different idea then they're contributing to the solution as opposed to vascillating and delaying.

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?

I'm questioning those who blindly reject/refute it. Obviously it _is_ the best plan available; its the only plan available (again, excluding doing nothing). I feel like I'm being hammered for selecting the only decent option I see available. I didn't create that option, and I won't be creating the next one; I don't have the resources or time.

If a decade is a drop in the bucket as far as time is concerned, why does this have to be implemented RIGHT NOW?

Well... I suppose I just consider that a bad attitude. "If we don't _have_ to do it today, why not do it tomorrow?". Seems like putting off an issue that should be dealt with today. 'Time' came into this because you claimed that environmental incentive legislation 'takes time'... I figure a decade isn't that long when it comes to legislation/industrial adoption.

But you're right, we could just keep pushing it back, decade after decade, doing nothing. I figure this is probably what will actually happen anyway...