date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 10:20:16 CET from: richard.tol@ivm.vu.nl 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. Mike, 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. Richard