Issue 1: Climate Cha...

Actually, let's call it what it is: Global Warming. And according to The Independent, plan A has already failed:

An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions may become necessary.

The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air. This "geoengineering" approach – including schemes such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms – would have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of climate change, at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.

Wonderful. We've reached the point where atmospheric liposuction, if not quite a gastric bypass, is the preferred route to creating a "sustainable" environment.

"Sustainable" is, of course, the operative word here; the earth, whether we want to admit it or not, has finite resources. And legislation like the Kyoto Treaty has done nothing to curb our hunger for fossil fuels, as you can see from the graph above. Nonetheless, revisiting Kyoto should be high on President Obama's list of priorities.

Almost everyone who thought that geoengineering should be studied as a possible plan B said that it must not be seen as an alternative to international agreements on cutting carbon emissions but something that runs in parallel to binding treaties in case climate change runs out of control and there an urgent need to cool the planet quickly.

Which makes this article from the Times that much more interesting. Right now Obama's energy team is divided into two camps. The first, led by Carol Browner, wants aggressive, immediate and direct action to reduce our carbon emissions. The second, led by Larry Summers, wants a more cautious approach for fear of damaging the economy and further deepening the recession.

Striking the right balance - or perhaps eschewing balance all-together in favor of aggressive action on behalf of one concern or the other is the type of "first hundred days" challenge that could come to define Obama's first term. I don't know the right answer here; hopefully he does.