Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tactitus
I think the best proof you could offer would be to meet your Kyoto targets (preferably without doing major damage to your economies). It seems silly to me to argue how emissions reductions sufficient to halt global warming are really quite affordable and doable while so many countries are failing to achieve even the modest Kyoto reductions. Something's not adding up.  |
"Meeting Kyoto targets without hurting your economy" when there is full participation and doing the same when there is not full paricipation in the treaty are completely different things.
Let's say I have a widget plant in Stillwater, MN, and keep costs low by dumping my waste mercury in the mississippi.
Eventually, minnesota talks to wisconsin about reducing mercury pollution and wisconsin says "if you can prove that it's possible to reduce mercury dumping without massive job loss, we'll opt in".
Minnesota approaches me about reducing my mercury dumping, and I say if they even think about it, I'm moving right over to Hudson, WI and continuing my dumping.
Minnesota could move forward with the new restrictions, which will result in: massive job loss, and no reduction in the river contamination, or they could give up.
Either way, Wisconsin will claim they were proven right. Which is an intellecutally dishonest viewpoint; if both had opted in, widget prices would have gone up a few %, but the economy would be fine and people would be better off.