Global warming is one of the most serious environmental threats to our way of life. That may seem a bit extreme, but it is true. Global warming is serious because we now have evidence that it has far-reaching consequences.

Last month, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found links between human activity, levels of greenhouse gases and global climate changes.

Like it or not, global warming is good science and based on facts. The IPCC report has solid and incontrovertible evidence that human activity is affecting the global climate. Just how much the climate will change and how long it will take is still being researched and debated.

Any serious change in global temperatures will have disastrous repercussions. IPCC analysis indicates that temperature increases will cause increased flooding along the West Coast, the Eastern seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico. There is already evidence, according to the IPCC, that average sea levels have increased by 0.1 to 0.2 meters.

Also, evidence from satellites has shown that air temperatures in the lower 8 kilometers of the atmosphere have increased, as well as overall global surface temperatures. If this trend continues, the ecological impact can be disastrous. Marine life is especially sensitive to changes in water temperature, and changes to the natural habitats across large areas of water can drive a species to extinction. Our very own Scripps Institution of Oceanography has found connections between human activity and increases in ocean temperature.

Last month, President George W. Bush signaled that he would not regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and that the administration would not support the Kyoto Treaty. This signaled a storm of criticism from abroad, particularly from the European Union. It is embarrassing, if not disgraceful, that we as the American people comprise 4 percent of the world’s population, yet we contribute 25 percent of the pollution. It is irresponsible if the administration, and of us as a nation to decline to take part and find a solution to a global problem. The most recent reports on the Bush administration’s energy policy do not offer any reasonable plan for taking on global warming or solving the current energy crisis. Instead, the Bush plan promises to be a windfall for coal, oil and nuclear energy companies. They are the very industries that contributed heavily to Bush’s campaign.

The Kyoto Treaty has its faults, but they could have been, and should have been, worked out in good faith. Bush’s argument that carbon dioxide regulation is harmful to our economy is also shortsighted. The economic costs of pollution and global warming are much higher and longer-lasting then the short term costs of reforming and refitting our energy policy. In addition, there is serious economic profit in properly developing and implementing clean energies.

There are workable solutions. The environmental mantra, “”Think globally, act locally,”” could not be more true. In addition to being the worst world polluter, the United States is also among the least efficient with the available resources. Vice President Dick Cheney may think that conservation is nothing more then a personal virtue. However, simple changes in how we use energy can have a great effect; not only in cost but in pollution as well.

It is a lesson that we in California learned the hard way. Keeping unneeded lights off and leaving the thermostat off at night will decrease the power needed and lower electricity bills. Replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones will be even better. Transportation is another source of pollution. Carpooling and using public transportation will not only decrease pollution, but lower traffic and commuter times as well.

The greatest opportunities we have to alleviate global warming are the development of alternative energy sources. This week, progressive groups at UCSD, including the College Democrats at UCSD, Che Cafe and CalPIRG, will be hosting a progressive issues fair to highlight issues ignored and discarded by the current administration.

The on-campus environmental community will take steps to provide students with examples of some of the places at risk if Bush’s energy ideas become public policy.

Currently at risk is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Also known as America’s Serengeti, the refuge is one of the last truly wild places left in the United States. This pristine land will be lost forever if Bush’s drill first, ask questions later, policy passes.

If we fail to act, we may inherit problems that will be more of a hamstring to our economy than anything that Bush is currently concerned about. The future, as they say, is ours, and how we choose to prepare for is may be our final testament to it.