July 25, 2008

We are now faced with a similarly momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we’re fighting at all—and by most accounts, we’re not—we’re fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn’t intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations ratified the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. While even developing China has boosted its mileage standards to 35., the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer. Oh, there are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen—someday. But for a country that rightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, we’re taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It’s hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of the country’s coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy—and for those of the world at large as well.

The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there’s far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America’s growth. But let’s assume that those interested parties and others will always be at the table and will always—sensibly—demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave us both environmentally safe and economically sound?

Forget precedents like the Manhattan Project, which developed the atom bomb, or the Apollo program that put men on the moon—single-focus programs both, however hard they were to pull off. Think instead of the overnight conversion of the World War II�era industrial sector into a vast machine capable of churning out 60,000 tanks and 300,000 planes, an effort that not only didn’t bankrupt the nation but instead made it rich and powerful beyond its imagining and—oh, yes—won the war in the process.


due to global warming their is the existance of the  polar bear. Steger is a legendary polar explorer, the first person to make a dogsled trip to the North Pole, and winner of the National Geographic Adventure Lifetime Achievement Award. He’s at home in those frozen, hostile parts of the world that few of us will ever tread. But he’s also a dedicated environmentalist who was early to ring the alarm bell on global warming, the effects of which he saw firsthand in his frequent polar expeditions, both in the Arctic and Antarctica. To help raise awareness of the damage climate change is wreaking on the polar regions, next month Steger will be leading a team of six young adventurers on a 1,400-mile, 60-day-long dogsled expedition across Ellesmere Island, in the far Canadian Arctic. The rest of us will be able to observe Steger’s journey — intended to appeal to what he calls “emerging young leaders” below the age of 3 still trim as a Navy ship at 64. “We provide the spark with this expedition.

Steger’s expedition will benefit from some celebrity association, with Sam Branson — the 22-year-old son of British airline tycoon Richard Branson — part of the team. Also on the expedition will be 27-year-old Norwegian Sigrid Ekran, who last year became only the second woman to win Rookie of the Year for the Iditarod — not a small deal in the world of dog sledding. The team will be uploading video, text and photos to the website as the journey progresses, allowing classrooms — Steger’s foundation is working with the National Education Association on the project — to follow their progress firsthand. “We can actually bring the audience up there.

sharuk stills

July 13, 2008