I do find it a compelling and convincing argument.
Never said there wasn't compelling argument. I did however say that it was 'silly' to attribute a specific hurricane to global warming or to give another type of example, to point to a day that is either unusually hot or unusually cold and then say the reason is global warming or the return of the ice age. To point to Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans (and others) as a phenomena is incorrect, to have the Nile flood, and then attribute the known propensity for floodng to global warming is silly.
True. But you can only do that if chai is available. If the only way you could get chai was to go to Sri Lanka yourself it wouldn't be a feasible option, would it? How long will you have to wait for your government to say, OK, we'll start producing chai here so that it is cheap and accessible? Until they think they'll lose votes if they don't.
The price of fuel increases to a point where I am burdened by the cost, what do I do?
  I would search out alternative sources of heat and alternative methods of transportation. Because I live in a free market, I have these alternative choices.
 So what happens? The automobile manufacturers notices an increased desire for fuel efficient and alternative fuel cars and finds that the poor mileage gas guzzler sales have decreased sharply. The manufacturers scramble to retain and increase their share of the market and to meet demands.
Politically? I vote my dissatisfaction, and if enough people feel the same way I do then public policy changes follows.Â
If the market wishes my money or the politician my vote, and again, enough people feel the same way that I do, then they will respond.
In the US, there are increasing choices in fuel efficient and fuel alternative cars. The suv (gas guzzling variety) and those lovely 300 hp+ sports cars market shares is decreasing.
China and India will suck up all the oil over the next hundred years. So it would be good if governments could get busy, rather than waiting 99 years from now.
Some people would argue that the market will change the government not the government the market.
I actually believe that there may be a partnership between a government and its people but I would dispute that the government necessarily will take the leadership role. You forget I am of the Libertarian bent.
This could be a very persuasive argument - unfortunately it's dead in the water because the first phrase is "with good leadership." Yeah, right. It's SO going to happen.
(I love it when you're funny, Regull.)
At last! Someone has actually cottoned to my humor.
 Sadly true, as it stands, China is one of the most polluted countries in the world, there is little reason to suppose that there will be a radical change in leadership or freedoms in the near future. On the bright side, after all, I do have a little one, and I would like to be optimistic instead of continously reaching for a glass of Pinot, there was Tiannanmen Square, and the Chinese people are very resourceful.
As for the Kyoto Accord - whether or you believe its goals are achievable, the basic premise is that wealthy, industrialised, resourced nations take a step towards reducing pollution.
Again, I never said the basic premise was incorrect. Honestly there have been some strides in the reduction of pollution in industrialized nations, obviously there could be more done. I will give you my state, New Hampshire, as an example:
   At the end of the 19th c. my state was 95% deforested, today, it is 95% forested. My state is in better condition today, in spite of having a larger and more prosperous population, than it was a 100 yrs ago. I might add that one of the reasons for the change, was markets.
Â