This summer, not long after catching a short bit of the spectacle that was Live Earth on TV, I came to a conclusion. You might find it silly, or offensive. Probably both.

Al Gore is a modern-day Moses.

How so? I will explain. For years, Al Gore was groomed to be the heir apparent to the leader of the land, Bill Clinton, just as Moses stood in line to succeed the pharaoh (according to Cecil B. DeMille he did, at least). Unfortunately, appearances were misleading for both men. Moses wasn't actually Egyptian royalty, and Al Gore wasn't actually presidential material. So both men went into exile, where they grew beards (again, I'm relying on DeMille).

Al Gore intentionally maintained a low profile during his exile, so little is known about his post-Washington years. It seems clear, though, that one day, Al Gore wandered across a burning bush. Again, there were no media accounts of this episode, because he was avoiding the public spotlight at the time. Al Gore was puzzled by the burning bush, but he concluded that it could only be the work of global climate change.

With that, Al Gore vowed a return to the public arena, where he sported a new look and a radical new message — the world was doomed if it did not take immediate action to ward off catastrophic climate change, and he would be the one to lead humanity to the promised land of clean air, clean water and normal temperatures. Also, he was fatter.

At first, Americans were not altogether receptive to Al Gore's message. In response, he vowed to unleash a series of plagues on the land. First, he would frighten the populace with his film debut, "An Inconvenient Truth." While somewhat successful, the movie did not spur the government to take any action. Al Gore then brought in musicians to spread his philosophy in a series of global concerts. Hence was borne his second plague, Live Earth.

This brings us to the present day. A few safe predictions can be made concerning Al Gore's future path, thanks to the Book of Carbon Exodus. In the years to come, Al Gore will unleash a series of progressively worse plagues until the U.S. government finally agrees to cut pollution dramatically. His work done, Al Gore will leave, but he'll be followed by angry officials who find easing up on emissions isn't so easy. Al Gore will make a daring escape by crossing the Potomac, which will dry up due to climate change. He'll spend the rest of his days wandering the corridors of the Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York, taking time to finish his Global Warming Commandments (he already has seven of them) before dying at an advanced age.

Now, I could be wrong with this theory, though it seems pretty airtight to me. What does seem almost indisputable, however, is that Mr. Gore's global warming campaign has something of a religious feel to it.

Don't believe me? Mr. Gore said so himself in a New York Times op-ed earlier this year, calling the fight against global warming a chance "to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge."

This could be a problem, because if there's one thing religion doesn't mix with, it's science. Or at least that's what we're told.

One thing science can mix with is economics. In fact, economics is a science — the dismal one.

Take the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The pact is essentially a prisoner's dilemma. The world as a whole is best off if every country agrees to abide by its provisions. But an individual country is probably best served by not ratifying the protocol. These nations can free-ride on other countries' efforts to curb pollution while fully maintaining their own industrial capabilities. The U.S. and Australia, the two major countries that didn't sign on to Kyoto, have been the beneficiaries of this strategy so far — though it would be a simplification to suggest either country held out solely for this reason.

Kyoto expires in 2012, and work is already well underway on a successor agreement. The U.S. and Australia might sign on this time. But will India or China? Both countries technically ratified Kyoto, but they were exempt from abiding by its provisions as developing nations. Given each country's desire to maintain booming economic growth, it would seem wise for both to reject a Kyoto successor. It would be within their rights to do so, as would any other country that follows the same strategy.

The traditional manner for overcoming a prisoner's dilemma is by playing the game repeatedly. Eventually the parties learn that cooperation is in the overall best interest, and "cheaters" can be identified and punished. Countries that fail to live up to their Kyoto-type obligations can be punished at the next negotiating round, of course, but what can be done to nations that don't sign on to international emissions pacts? Trade sanctions? Maybe, but that could end up hurting everyone involved.

Global warming could be a "spiritual challenge" someday, but for now it's an economic challenge. Instead of going overboard with Kyoto-type agreements — which cost far too much for modest environmental gains — money should be invested in clean energy sources. If it becomes cheap enough, countries will be far more willing to voluntarily reduce fossil fuel usage. Countries can continue to negotiate international emissions treaties, and indeed they should, but expectations should be tempered to acknowledge that progress will be slow so long as alternative energy sources are too expensive. Capping emissions too stringently too soon only leaves countries in an economic bind that will lead them to operate outside of international agreements.

All of which means Al Gore, frustrated by the slow progress, will launch another plague. You've been warned.

Ryan Masse ([email protected]) is a first-year law student.