Copenhagen Dreamin'

So President Obama and other world leaders have reached a "meaningful" accord on climate change. We confess we've given only a cursory glance at the initial article from the Times, but we're skeptical about how "meaningful" the accord is. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Consider what did NOT make it into the final agreement: "a collective agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050"; "language calling for a binding accord 'as soon as possible.'" Think about that latter excision: People can't even agree that they should come to an agreement! Is it any wonder we're skeptical?

At the risk of sounding pessimistic--you know we always try to be a beacon of sunshine and optimism--we can't shake the thought that it's way too late to turn down the thermostat--at least through international treaties and negotiations. We do think it's possible to reverse global warming, but it's ultimately going to be done by individual nations acting in their own interest. Whether that will be good or bad, though, is an open question.

An interesting article in The Atlantic discussed some of the more radical propositions for cooling the planet, primarily by blocking the sun's rays ("Re-Engineering the Earth"). Zeppelins that spew sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere! Ships constantly churning seawater into the air, creating extra clouds and effectively "painting the sky white"! Electromagnetic guns aimed at the midpoint between the earth and sun fire ceramic frisbees into space, creating a galactic sunscreen and plunging the earth into a semi-permanent state of eclipse!

These are real proposals.

The frisbee sunscreen would cost several trillion dollars. But what's most interesting--and frightening--about the other proposals is their relative cheapness. As Hillary Clinton pledges hundreds of billions of dollars to developing nations to help them go green--on top of however many billions (trillions?) of dollars the US would have to devote to its own environmental efforts--these and other climate "fixes" could be implemented for a fraction of the costs. The seawater project mentioned above would cost about $600 million dollars to start up and about $100 million a year to maintain; a fleet of sulfur-spewing zeppelins would incur similar costs.

Sure, this isn't pocket change, but to put it in perspective, this means that Bill Gates could, if he wanted, single-handedly stop global warming. No? OK, Steve Jobs, then. Whoever. The point is, one person or small group of people could decide to take matters into their own hands and save the planet. And while this idea has a certain appeal--if things get really, really desperate, the problem can be solved--the law of unintended consequences looms menacingly. Because even if these quick fixes work as expected, there's no telling what may happen next. If those sulfur zeppelins stop working, the result would not be global warming--global parboiling is more like it.

Ultimately, the best argument for collective action--and, again, we're skeptical it can be achieved--is not that something needs to be done, but that something will be done. We need to make sure it's responsible people that are doing it.

By the way, for the opinions of a more well-informed environmentalist, check out "Our Feet Are the Same." It's a good read.