Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
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.
|
I see 2 choices too. Kyoto and a better option to Kyoto (whether it currently exists or not is irrelevant). I choose the better option. It must be nice to not want to strive for improvements and just choose the "best available". I'm really glad that the whole world isn't like you, as we would not have computers as fast as we have (or at all), cars as efficient as they are (with improvement yet to come), etc.
Experts, while having an increased knowledge base to work from, should not get a free pass from questioning. While they can address most issues that the common person would question, they are not immune to overlooks or to focussing too much on one aspect and ignoring the rest. They are not the end-all be-all. If you think they are, you'd better not ever question anybody - including Flames management or players.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
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.
|
The best inventions in the world do not come from experts. They come from someone who came up with an idea and then found experts to help bring that idea to fruition.
I'm definitely getting the sense that instead of coming up with better ideas, you're happy with letting others do ALL the work instead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
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.
|
It's the only plan available, so it's the best plan? WOW!
I'm not saying that you have to come up with an entire solution. Just give the 15,000 ft version. Give an overview. Surely you can even do that. How would you improve on Kyoto?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
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.
|
so... "If we don't have to do it today, why not do it tomorrow" is a bad attitude... but "The first idea is the best idea and how dare you criticize it" isn't?
Believe it or not, there is something worse than spending more time to come up with alternate solutions... it's jumping in with both feet to a bad and obviously flawed solution. Sure it's a solution, and in an ideal world it might get to the same end point.. but the chances of it getting there are slim and the expenses incurred along the way are great. Give people time to come up with another solution, instead of hammering them on not believing in the only current proposal.