Thursday, May 10, 2012


date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 10:20:16 CET
subject: re: re: positives and negatives
to: "m.hulme" <>

>Thanks for the comments. I agree about the idealism of Kyoto; I agree
>that scientifically none of the proposals are well-founded; and I agree
>that if the US really does stabilise by 2012 that would in itself be a
>massive achievement. I agree, for example, that the UK have no clear plan
>to achieve 20% reductions.
>But I also believe that without pressure and heckling then there would
>be few incentives for governments or businesses to begin to start
>thinking creatively about alternative transport policies, about non-
>fossil fuel obligations, about energy-efficiency legislation, etc., etc.
>This is why I am prepared to be part of such an initiative.


I'm glad that we agree in principle: The most important thing is to get
emission reduction going. I disagree, however, that supporting unrealistic
goals is helpful, as that may well lead to frustration and and polarization.
A slow start may be more effective in the long run.


No comments:

Post a Comment