It's reported as a slap down for Blair and for the environmental concerns he was seeking to promote. But I wonder whether it is so easy. REad this:
"The White House said last week that 'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job'."
That's not a direct refutation is it? That's almost and invitation to be persuaded that provided jobs are not lost then it may be possible. Given the need to decentralise and localise, it is not hard to make the case that reducing GHG's should make jobs in the local economies. Perhaps what is needed are concrete examples of that?
href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=585076">News:
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christian England? Maybe not...
I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
No comments:
Post a Comment