Kyoto II

I'm responding to some of the comments left on my previous posts...

We are already using economic incentives to promote evironmentaly sound activities. Unfotunately, we use straight proscriptions and regulations much more regularly. I think that government incentives are a better way to get things done than allowing the government to use coercive force, but why are we turning to the government for this at all? If it's something that needs to be done, convince the people who will have to live with the consequences, not the government officials who will just make life harder for the rest of us.
True evironmental change will only come from a willing populace supporting environmentally friendly companies, and they will only spend the extra money if you can show them it's worth it. If you just use the government to force them, then every time a new technology that produces goods/services along with extra pollution comes along, or some new form of environmental harm is discovered, then you will need to have the government enact legislation against that too...and severe damage could be done in the meantime.
If you can convince the population that the environment is worth worrying about, then the sollution will be persued more vigorously than otherwise. If you can't convince the population that a healthy enviroment is so important, then why are you bothering to save their lives from environmental harm? Moreover, is it even right to allow the government to enact legislation that most of the population does not support?
The solution to polution will not be found with treaties. Any thing that will work in the long term will have to come from indiviuals changing their habbits, and nothing that governments do in the meantime will have any serious signifigance.