"But the politicians' bickering over the emissions trading scheme demonstrates their shameful unwillingness to tackle this incredibly pressing problem."If it wasn't for the spineless Opposition, this bill should have been dead in the water yonks ago. And if you think that paying the government (in the form of higher taxes) reduce the amount of CO2, well.... how much did the buying of indulgences in the middle ages reduce the incidence of sin?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Indulgences? Or just eating the dog?
Other than the (almost-tongue-in-cheek) suggestion that we should get eat our dogs...to save the earth (a joke repeated about 3 times), the scariest thing about this op-ed is the way the author has internalized the idea that the Australian Goverments Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will save the the planet:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
At first glance I was not convinced your metaphor was appropriate. More a chance for you to behave like a lefty and make outrageous claims that you could then state you "just put out for a reaction but now I've got your attention isn't the point valid?"
However, as I try to formulate an argument about the hypocrisy of the Indulgences and the outrage that should have surrounded them I find that I can't actually formulate an argument against the comparison.
Have been very busy, hence lack of detailed responses recently.
Is that because my metaphor was exquisitely well chosen?
Or is it because yr busy?
methinks the first, and you can't help but agree....
Post a Comment