Quote:
|
Originally Posted by calculoso
I choose the option to refuse Kyoto because another, better, solution is coming. If Kyoto is the only solution anyone ever puts any effort into, then of course there will be no more solutions.
I've put forth some ideas on how things could be improved. You, on the other hand, think there are problems with Kyoto yet choose to ignore them.
I'll keep that in mind the next time that you decide to comment on a topic. "It didn't come from the mouth of an expert, so it means nothing".
I'm not any where close to dismissing it. I don't know what profession you're in, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that some non-expert can't look at my work and suggest an improvement, or ask a critical question which may lead to an improvement.
Take your car mechanic example. If the "expert" recommends that you need a new engine, are you going to take that at face value or are you going to question it? Are you going to ask questions? Look for a second opinion?
Perhaps they've already thought of the criticisms that are being levied upon Kyoto. Perhaps they haven't. Criticism and evaluation of an expert's work should still happen.
Obviously I've put more time into it, as it doesn't look as though you've devoted one second into coming up with a better idea.
If we have a flying car that can only fly for 5 minutes before needing recharging, it's gotta be obviously the best since it's the only one. Who cares if we can make one that will fly for 10 minutes. Let's just promote this one and come down on anyone who criticizes it.
Is that what you're saying?
You're obviously confusing me with someone else. I've put forth ideas on how to improve it. Incentives to create cleaner technology, not paying another country for polution credits. Gee. That took a whole 20 seconds to type.
You, on the other hand, acknowledge that there are problems and yet choose to ignore them. You also, obviously, have failed to even look for alternatives. All I did was look up the Kyoto protocol on wikipedia, and I found that other link.
Most people obviously did wait for a better solution where computers were involved. They did not buy one until it was smaller and much more affordable. How many people bought computers that were the size of rooms? Only the most wealthy. Until the technology matured and became more affordable, the general public looked at computes with awe but remained on the sidelines.
I'm saying, and I think others are too, that the same approach should be taken with the environment. One idea is not enough. One idea, the first idea, is not going to be anywhere as efficient, affordable or effective enough.
I have ideas (and have mentioned some) that I think would improve things. I'm willing to have these ideas examined, criticized, possibly rebuked or accepted.
I want to see your evaluation of the problems of Kyoto (even at a high and simple level) and possible or alternate solutions to those problems. From your developing track record, I doubt I'll see anything.
|
I wrote a whole response to this, but it seems pointless. You're not on the same wavelength I am. For some reason you're taking this debate to 'who can create a better Kyoto'. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to think I could whip out a few sentences and say 'there, a better plan!'. Utterly laughable considering the time, expense, and academia that went into the first plan.
I stand by my original point; if people want to bash Kyoto, Great! Provide an alternative solution and promote that. Be a 'can do' as opposed to a 'can't do'. Thats all I've ever been saying. I'm surprised its rankled you so badly. If the few ideas you've put forward in this thread, or the link you've provided are your alternative comprehensive global environmental strategies... sounds good. Thats all I asked for at the beginning of the thread. I had to pull them out of you like teeth, but eventually you came around.
I presume you'll now push your new strategy in the next round of Kyoto debates to be brought up by some newbie trolls?