>> Vaska dear: >> >> Great, then pay us not to drive our SUVs. Don't force us to stop >> driving them AND have to pay you some arbitrarily obnoxious sum >> because we did. >> > No dear, it's the other way round. Let's see if I can put it > sufficiently easy for you. Brazil also has to pay. The BALANCE of what > Brazil has to pay for it's SUVs and what it is owed for saving the > forest is what the rest of the world owes Brazil. In your case, if all > you do is destroy the environment and nothing in favour of it, then > you'll have to pay (as will any other country in your position, don't > play "Oh! poor me!" bullshit).
Vaska love (and I wish these terms of endearment translated from Russian to English conveyed the same sense of irony as they do in the original---Russians are notoriously homophobic), In order for any such schemes of reciprocal climate credits to work, regulatory-wise, we'd have to have each other's white-gloved hands so deeply embedded in each other's collective colons, that moving without governmental permission would not just be impossible, it would be painful; and I must confess I'd rather the earth erupt into a jolly red giant. Which of course is pure nonsense because it is in no demonstrable threat of doing so, and the proposed solution to this make believe problem has jack shit to do with saving the planet's ecology. At the end of the day, it's about robbing peter to pay paul, or in our example, Pedro. That's great while Peter's got some cash, but the funny thing is, capital dries up faster than a saucer full of water in the Sahara, under all these so called "social justice" schemes. - Publius > "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
