ok..take the lomberg reference as a boo-boo..but i don’t think you can dismiss everything he says..

the most recent example is on this blog where jeanette proposed some bureaucratic overlord to some quota system regulating car importers as the solution to our fuel/pollution problems ..cor!

i, and others, shot this down and proposed a range of more workable models, most involving market forces of some ilk..

but of course the greens are fully in support of a lessening of a focus on personal taxation and a move to environmentally based revenue gathering..and using this as a carrot and stick approach to effect change..

and that is surely using market forces?..something james claims the greens aren’t doing/thinking about..he’s wrong on that but right that there needs to be more solutions..less just identifying of/banging on about, problems..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I clicked through to the link in the Herald – to find Colin James shooting himself in the foot in the second paragraph. Just in case James doesn’t know, Lomborg is funded by the very industries that are causing massive environmental problems.

In the case of Lomborg vs some 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists (including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences), the jury has come back with a verdict.
The warning issued originally in 1992 (see http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1009) has changed for the worse. That’s not alarmist, but backed up by hard data.

Verdict on James article. “Could do much better” if he bothered researching first.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)