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:
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
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 -
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment