Copenhagen Summit appeared to be - all at the same time - a waxing and waning commitment to reducing global warming.  Some thought it was too expensive, others too impractical, others think that 'others' are responsible.  In the end the question is: Wouldn't it be more expensive if one would not address this issue effectively?  A thought comes to mind.  If a society would decide on a certain threshold after which preventing murder would be considered too costly, what would this mean? In the same terms, if a society would decide on a certain threshold after which preserving life of our planet would be considered too costly, what would this mean?