That has been accomplished by all except a few fanatics who are still pretending that the glaciers are not melting.
Yes, but I would disagree that the size and scope of the problem is settled and that's a big hangup. The reason it's a big hangup is that the zealots insist that we have to act massively and now. After all, we have only eight of our ten years left until the point of no return. (Maybe that term would resonate better with Mary than "tipping point.") Which scares the hell out of business and lends itself to ridicule by moderates let alone skeptics.
The best solution has input from all sides including big business.
Indeed, which is why I suggested that Bob reevaluate his position and take a place at the table. But he's not going to do that as long as the zealots are running around yelling that the sky is falling (That's euphemism for "hysterical" <g>.
No one is interested in just throwing money at it, but why not work towards a solution?
If you want to get the job done in eight years, you're going to have to throw the kitchen sink at it.
Seriously, you couldn't even get a US working group producing ideas in eight years, let alone find a world solution and implement it.
So, it seems to me you have two choices. If the scenario is really as bad as Al Gore says it it, your working group should be looking at accommodation options, not cure options. If it isn't really that bad, you have to kick Al Gore and his ilk overboard as well as the troglodytes so that the serious people can get to work.
Huh? One is part of the solution to the other.
Yes, I understand that the big plan would eventually subsume all the little plans. Because of the enormous difference in scope, it's not useful to think of them that way. You just can't take a bunch of little steps that will eventually add up to a big solution. One day at a time doesn't work with a problem the solution to which may not be feasible. |
