How do you attack a problem with no solution?
I found myself asking this question while reading of Liberal front-runner
Michael Ignatieff's plans for the environment. Ignatieff has essentially abandoned the Kyoto Accords, instead opting for a more modest plan to be updated every decade. And I'm not sure this is such a bad idea.
As a leftist, my knee-jerk reaction is to support the Kyoto Accords. Clearly, though, Canada has not even come close to reaching the standards set out. Perhaps it is time to take a more pragmatic, and less idealistic, approach.
The problem is that the Kyoto Accords are not nearly enough. Our environment will not be saved by Kyoto, and certainly not by less stringent guidelines. This is the paradox of any environmental activism. Do we support large leaps, which may or may not make a significant contribution? Or do we support realistic baby steps that, although they may lead to small improvements, will not come close to addressing the larger problem.
Or is just time for me to buy a farm in northern Ontario and stock up on canned food and M16s?