Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
I don't want to get in the middle of anything here but the suggestion of "well why don't you come up with something if you know it's not perfect" is very unrealistic.
|
How? I'm not asking for a whole dissertation, I'm just asking for one way (or more, if they exist) to improve on it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
I don't like the accord either (it's too wimpy) but it's all we have. It's a start. It's weak, imperfect and it's ultimate goals are probably not going to be met, but it's a start. It's all we've got. Conjuring up another agreement that 160 countries are going to agree on is going to take another 10 years and another 10 after that to get the thing working. From what I've read, we don't have that kind of time.
|
I'll help you out. You would improve on Kyoto by making it less wimpy. How easy was that? I'd prefer that it'd be a little more fleshed out.. like making the penalties worse or making the gov'ts/companies more accountable.. but at least "making it less wimpy" is something.
Saying "it's the best we have" is a serious cop-out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Shouldn't we at least try to slow things down (actually try instead of commissioning another study and then another study and then another study and then making a bumper sticker) and change the "how we try" as time goes by. Use the one thing we've got until we come up with something better? It's a start. Don't we need a start?
|
It all depends on what that start is. A $12 billion over 7 years start is not the way to go.