yes we can all accept that there are many factors that influence global warming, some of which are beyond man's control and are controversial and debateable as to the extent of their relevance, and others such as co2 emissions, that not.
yes, we can also accept that America- the biggest polluter- does not wish to risk the possible short term commercial disadvantages of signing up to the Kyoto agreement, even though the monumental changes that are necessary to improve the situation will only come about when the only world power deems it necessary.
what is dfficult to understand is how all the hotshots in industry and all the politicians that are dads and grandads aunts and uncles, can look at all the children in their immediate family and not ask themselves whether the environment they are creating for their immedediate offspring and all the other kids in the world is one that these same kids will applaud their forefathers for 50/60 years down the line.
or whether the thunderous s
or whether the thunderous silence they might anticipate is just enough to prompt a fresh look at K.
next week, next year, the year after, might just be a tad too late.
it all starts here.
As we have seen in Indonesia this past week, poor countries have difficulty dealing with disasters.
Rich economies spur investment and technological progress.
Assuming that there is a causal link between CO2 emissions and warming (which I don't accept, and at best is a half degree over the next century), then why would the best course of action be to depress wealth and technology creation? Why deprive billions in the third world their progress out of poverty? What kind of trade-off is that? SS
Wobble Point, Ms. Shaker has just informed me of your distinguished identity. . . as such, stepping out of my Spear Shaker persona, I say: there is a compassionate, environmentally-conscious, and moral approach to environmental stewardship, but the hysteria of global warming has far exceeded the science.
100 years ago no one could possibly conceive of the technology within our society today, similarly, 100 years from today we will be far beyond fossil fuels and into other means to support our living standards. . . taking half-measures to solve undefined problems today, given their assured negative consequences, is not the best approach to insure environmental integrity. . . generated wealth breeds surplus which breeds research and innovation, Kyoto, I believe will stymie this dynamic for no discernible return. SS
By contrast China is the worlds largest polutter, followed by India, then Brazil, not the US as stated by Wobble Point. Oh, BTW, have you ever been to Mexico City and breathed in its georgous slate-gray hydrocarbonized skies?
Wobble Point, et al, feeds the crocodiles hoping desperately to be eaten last. It is a shame that the passions of so many, are misdirected and misused by so few.
Commenting by HaloScan
