American moviegoers spent an estimated $86 million over the weekend to watch Dennis Quaid battle the effects of global warming in “The Day After Tomorrow.” The film has faced strong criticism for over-dramatizing the consequences of global warming, but most viewers understand that it’s a work of fiction.

Despite the fact-stretching, anything that brings global warming to the forefront of public conversation is a welcome development. Global warming may be the most under-addressed issue in contemporary politics.
Global warming, as even President Bush admits, is real. A 2001 National Science Foundation study said “overwhelming odds” point to a rise in global temperatures of four to seven degrees over the next century. Such an increase would dwarf the less than one-degree rise in global temperatures during the 20th century.
An increase that severe could cause flooding in coastal areas. This represents a potential disaster because 53 percent of the U.S. population resides in coastal areas, according to NASA.
A dramatic increase in global temperature could also cause significant problems for national security, warns a frightening report commissioned by the Defense Department. In the event of a sudden shift in climate — which has happened in the past — border skirmishes, invasions and wars could break out over dwindling water and energy supplies, the report says.
While the report imagines a worst-case scenario, it has garnered attention because of the source — one doesn’t usually equate the Pentagon with “the sky is falling” environmental scenarios — and the Bush administration’s head-in-the-sand approach to global warming. While the Bush administration may believe ignoring global warming means good politics, the attitude also makes for horrible policy.
The tactic is clearly intentional, as revealed by a memorandum from the prominent Republican strategist Frank Luntz, which has received well-deserved and widespread publicity. In the memorandum, Luntz urged Republicans to continue questioning the scientific basis for global warming because, “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.”
The Bush administration’s policy calls for endless study and inadequate action. President Bush, in a June 2001 speech, detailed how his Cabinet-level working group is “recommending a number of initial steps.” He directed the secretary of commerce to “set priorities for additional investments in climate change research” and promised to “enhance partnerships in applied research.”
Of course, Bush doesn’t call global warming by its name. It’s “climate change,” another suggestion from Luntz. “Global warming,” Luntz feels, gives impressionable voters a negative connotation of rising temperatures.
While Bush has called for reduced emissions, increased scientific funding and tax breaks for consumers who buy hybrid cars, his proposals fall far short of what the situation demands. Rather than recommending, setting priorities and enhancing partnerships in applied research, the president needs to immediately launch a major effort to combat global warming. A JFK-style send-a-man-to-the-moon-scale effort would demonstrate that the president takes global warming seriously.
Don’t hold your breath. Bush has treated global warming as a non-issue since he broke a campaign promise only two months after his inauguration to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at power plants.
A Senate bill introduced by two notable moderates would take a significant step in the right direction. Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., introduced the Climate Stewardship Act. The legislation would impose reasonable caps on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, requiring manufacturing, energy and transportation firms to cut emissions to their 2000 level by 2010.
On Oct. 30, the Senate defeated the bill 55-43, but the surprisingly narrow margin raised hopes that politicians may soon gather the political will to deal with global warming earnestly.
Americans produce more of the world’s greenhouse gases than people of any other nation. A sweeping campaign could have the potential to significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We need to take immediate, significant steps to stem the rising temperatures.