The interesting thing about environmental politics is that everyone’s involved.

While many feel removed from some issues — Iraq, Israel, immigration — there isn’t a person on the planet who isn’t dependent on this planet. Even if you don’t think climates and ecosystems are worth your time, your lungs, immune system and wallet know better.

And right now, global-climate politics are louder and more important than ever. This Friday, the world’s scientists, policymakers and governments will publish the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If any still doubt the reality of global warming — only Exxon executives and a few Republicans remain — the University of Victoria’s Andrew Weaver, Canada’s official climate modeler, says the report isn’t just a “smoking gun,” but a “battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.” The 1,600-page report will be released in April.

The IPCC reports will show that sea levels are rising more quickly than anticipated, that Greenland is melting more quickly than previously thought and that extreme-weather incidents are on the rise. Lots of information about how climate change will affect agriculture, commercial fishing and disease will be shared.

Malaria, for instance, is predicted to spike because of increased humidity. In existing malaria zones, new strains will kill large numbers of people, but more mosquitoes with existing strains will punish places where few have any immunity — like Georgia.

Food and water insecurity will disrupt the continents and cost billions. Extreme weather in California just cost farmers over a billion dollars and 12,000 jobs — in a week.

What’s most important is confirmation that current emission levels have staggering consequences. The only uncertainty is whether we’ll actually listen to the IPCC and write policies to reduce current rates of pollution.

So do current efforts to reduce emissions meet these serious threats?

President Bush’s do not. Last week, he moved closer to mental sobriety when he acknowledged the “serious challenge of global climate change” and suggested the U.S. cut oil consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

Today, Americans use almost 21,000,000 barrels of oil a day — mostly in industry, then transport, then in your house (installing more efficient light bulbs may feel good, but isn’t a solution). Bush’s 20 percent reduction, however, is against projected increases. Everyone expects to see oil demand surge almost 60 percent by 2025. Bush wants us to reduce our projected use by 20 percent — like telling an alcoholic who plans to drink 24 shots to drink 19. If we cut down 20 percent, we’ll be where were in 2002, more than the combined use of China and Europe’s two billion people.

In the past two months, new coalitions have announced plans of their own. One, the US Climate Action Partnership looks to implement a carbon-trading system, in which polluters are awarded credits to pollute. Credits are then sold from companies that emit below target levels to those who exceed them. What’s missing here is an actual reduction in pollution. As with Bush’s plan, carbon trading does not aim to mitigate carbon emissions — only to stabilize them. As the IPCC will make crystal clear in the upcoming months, stabilizing emissions means we will cement the worst climate projections.

Additionally, the Evangelical Climate Initiative is working with the Union of Concerned Scientists. It’s great to see these groups proving climate change really does affect everyone, but little of substance has emerged. The former group encourages Americans first to pray for more awareness, then to sign a statement and finally to consider a more fuel-efficient vehicle. And though the Union of Concerned Scientists has a stronger policy record, they support a trading system in combination with increased efficiency standards. What’s missing — and most important — is a sharp reduction of emissions.

Closer to home, Cornell is hardly doing better. The University of Pennsylvania buys over a quarter of its electricity from wind farms, the largest such purchase by a university. College of the Atlantic has implemented zero-waste graduations and waste-free senior weeks. Using recycled and quick-compost materials and drastically reducing packaging and waste, College of the Atlantic embarrasses anyone who thinks Cornell is “top tier.”

Our central heating plant is the region’s worst emitter of sulfur dioxide, the main source of acid rain; our new nanotech and genomic facilities use huge amounts of energy. So when 62 solar panels were installed on Central Campus — generating enough power for just the lights on McGraw Tower — Cornell’s website bragged about our commitments to efficiency. But in fact, it was the fundraising efforts of KyotoNOW and an alumni donation that made it happen.

Day Hall’s $4-billion wishlist prioritizes a new pool for Helen Newman, instead of changing where we get our energy (49 percent of Cornell’s electricity comes from burning fossil fuels) and reducing how much we use (current plans expect our emissions to be 6 percent above 1990 levels in 2014). Remember the IPCC, and remember that current levels of pollution are the problem — so cosmetic adjustments are simply not efforts to avert climate change.

It’s simple — we are filling the sky with toxins that will come back to burn, freeze and sicken us. Real changes are needed, with serious adjustments to how we use energy and where we obtain it. This requires more than installing free solar panels and much more than reducing projected oil chugging.

Last year, the Provost’s Task Force on Sustainability recommended we create a School of Sustainable Development and a Sustainable Campus. But instead — at Cornell and in Washington — our leaders have suggested tiny changes they hold up as landmarks.

Their combined ignorance/indifference burdens generations, meaning that you are in this debate whether or not you have time.

Jeff Purcell is a graduate student in Africana Studies. He can be reached at jlp56@cornell.edu. Brutal Honesty appears Mondays.