The Tripod

Jay Leno hit it on the mark when he said, "Arnold Schwarzenegger is blaming man for global warming. And today, Al Gore agreed with him. That's so typical. Two cyborgs. 'Oh, let's blame the humans.'" This isn't meant to demean either gentleman. Both "cyborgs" are in fact probably right that greenhouse gases do play a role in climate change. What is more, their very concern for the issue displays a sense of responsibility that is somewhat uncommon these days.

However, by exclusively "blaming man," Gore and Schwarzenegger have still backed themselves into the usual corner.

They only see global warming in environmental terms, which then leads to the same solutions: emissions cuts, more nukes, and windmills littering our landscape. While we all want a cleaner planet, it helps to be rational.

To stem climate change, then, five steps are needed, most of which are going to have to be initiated by the current administration. Let's begin with the first two.

For step-one, President Bush must state the dangers of global warming. Though this sounds rudimentary, we can't forget his decision to simply not see An Inconvenient Truth.

For step-two, Bush needs to declare that Congress's efforts are ineffective and call for a more workable plan. He might also want to rebuke the noble, though misplaced, idea that humans should deal with global warming if polar bears are placed on the endangered species list.

There's a specific logic behind both steps. He has nothing to lose since it's one of the perks of being a lame-duck president, and also, as a result, he isn't expected to accomplish anything.

By following these steps, Bush could usher the global warming debate to new heights. He would indeed be pulling off his own "Nixon-goes-to-China," showing that the GOP is just as focused on climate change as the Democrats.

This has the making for an eminently curious sight. But that doesn't mean he can alienate anyone. He should instead use this opportunity to find common ground with Congress.

And if it's his legacy that he's worried about, then Bush should definitely carry out steps one and two. Just look at Eisenhower. Ike toed a hard line against the Soviets for eight years before warning of a "military-industrial complex." And that's how people remember him these days. Likewise, even if Bush were to stop here, he would still be the man who fought terrorism, invaded Iraq, and pushed the global warming discourse forward.

However Bush shouldn't stop here. He should proceed to step-three, under which he would reinterpret the threat of climate change. No longer would it be a mere environmental hazard, but rather a breach of planetary security. Is this a real distinction? Probably not. But under the rubric of "planetary security," global warming has a better chance of being picked up by the Pentagon (which would be a true change of pace).

Step-four. Because of this breach of planetary security, the administration should shore up a new "coalition of the willing" to fight climate change by building a shield in space. Proposed by several astronomers and scientists, the shield would literally block the sun's rays.

This is where we unfortunately go from the playful banter of politics to the cruel objectivity of science. Numerous questions now arise. What would the shield look like? How would it be built? Would it work?

The New York Times took up the idea in a hefty piece last June. According to Roger Angel, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, the "shield" would consist of trillions of tiny lenses, each a few feet in diameter, and all "weighing little more than a butterfly."

They would then be used to form six large mirrors for deflecting the sun's rays, reducing earthbound solar energy by about 2 percent. This would purportedly offset current global warming trends.

At first glance, a shield does sound far-fetched, especially when Angel estimates that it could cost $3 trillion and over two decades to build. But with temperatures rising, and Kyoto looking increasingly meaningless, it's something to investigate. And with proper funding, it has a chance of working. NASA seems to agree, considering they asked Angel to flesh out the concept for them last year.

Finally, this brings us to step-five: building the shield. If the U.S. was to persuade the world into doing it, everything would change. A global consortium would have to be created, while regulations would maintain the shield and keep it safe from space-based weaponry. As one may expect, such a future entails distinct advantages and disadvantages.

First there's the headache of actually constructing the shield. According to Angel, this would be the work of robots and human auxiliaries. Then there's the overwhelming possibility that Americans would shoulder a chunk of the costs, forcing the nation deeper into debt. But on the flip side, the U.S. would have the chance to ensure the planetary interest, unite the world, and even prevent the militarization of space.

Again, we do need to keep an open mind about global warming, and it's also dubious how many of these steps could be handled at one time. But the administration should at least begin flirting with the possibility of a shield. After all, that's the easy part.

Article Tools