December 12, 2015

The Paris conference is over, and member nations have unanimously adopted a resolution to keep global mean temperature within 1.5°C of that which existed before the industrial era and to help needy nations cope with the effects of global warming.

Pundits are already criticizing it due to its vague clauses and lack of legally binding mechanisms forcing nations to perform in a specific manner. The criticism is a serious analytical mistake. They should keep in mind that it is primarily a political framework among sovereign nations to cooperate against a deadly common enemy. As such, each nation must contend with internal political forces that may or may not seek to derail the agreement, with potentially catastrophic ramifications. Foremost among them is the United States, the world’s 2nd. biggest polluter, where some Republican candidates and members of Congress refuse to even accept that anthropogenic global warming is indeed real. In fact the current Congress would likely not ratify a treaty, and it still may well become become a political football in the upcoming elections. Under the circumstances, given the (still) enormous American footprint in the world’s political stage, this agreement is pragmatic, defensible and achievable.

In economic terms, which will define each nation’s speed and methods to cope with its share of the burden, the treaty is actually an even bigger victory. As the only effective way to limit carbon emissions is to quit using fossil fuels, the treaty’s purposeful vagueness will encourage competition among the more enlightened to find a way to export renewable energy to the biggest consumers, China, the U.S. (and eventually) India. Enter hydrogen, the only energy carrier with a matchless ability to produce pure water as a byproduct. In addition to enormous energy needs, all three markets urgently need a new, permanent source of water. All it will take is any one nation to start producing as per Plan A; as the profits mount, and everyone else will want a piece of the pie.