|
I don't understand many of the opinions and motivations here. I believe that conservation is not only the ethical thing to do, but it is also preferrable on political, economic and social grounds as well.
Who gets to design all the new energy efficient stuff? Who gets to live in more pleasant surroundings? Who gets to shed the yoke of over dependancy on Middle Eastern Oil? Exactly in what way would failure to sign up to Kyoto be bad for a country?
Sorry, but whinging on about climate models not being 100% accurate is unhelpfull and itself and expression of bad scientific principles. There never ever has been any such thing as 100% proof until after the even occurs. I could build a number models that would suggest that running across a highway during rush hour would result in an accident, and you could (quite rightly) argue that because I don't know all the variables etc, that my model is flawed and that my results inaccurate.
If you are such a good analysist of the facts, then please explain what detremental effects there are involved in having more efficienct and better technology, better living conditions and in curbing the rampant and unsustainable stripping of resources that we engage in today?
|