TimG Posted July 8, 2010 Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 (edited) you strongly emphasized that, “people like me stop trying to take your money to pay for these hair brained schemes.” I assume you meant only the hair brained mitigation schemes – hey? In your acceptance to adaptation (only)… do you expect that none of “your money” will be used to pay for adaptation solutions… in particular global adaptation solutions?I probably should have stated the problem differently. Governments only have so much to spend. If they spend $8 billion on useless windmills that is $8 billion that cannot be spent on upgrading the transformers in Etobicoke. The people of Toronto had to live with this kind of misallocation of resources this week.The problem I have with CO2 mitigation schemes is I believe they will fail miserably as Kyoto has and will waste billions that could have been spent on much more worthwhile things. I am not interested 'trying them out' because we know from experience that these schemes create vested interests that make it impossible to cut the programs once there uselessness is proven. The only real option is to never create them in the first place. Basically, I will support no program unless it has a reasonable chance of success and/or it is strictly short term and does not create a class of vested interests. Edited July 8, 2010 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.