We only have one Earth, one little habitable chunk of rock careening through space.

It is hardly a controversial claim to make and, barring several groundbreaking scientific advancements, this little rock will have to do for some time yet.

Some people have not figured that out. Certainly not those in Congress, who last week proposed a draft of legislation to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which they think is a power best left to Congress.

Giving environmental regulation powers to politicians in the pockets of oil company lobbyists is bad enough, but the reasoning behind the bill is worse.

EPA regulations, according to the proponents of the legislation, will kill jobs and reduce competition. Here’s an idea: allocate more money to alternative energy research and create more jobs instead.

But this column is not just about combative politicians. This is about you, and me, and the big elephant in the room between us all: climate change.

According to Paul Loubere, professor of geology and environmental geosciences, last year was the hottest on record, with 2005 in second.

“Once climate reaches a 2 degree increase, we may begin to see irreversible damage,” said Loubere. “Right now, we are at 0.7; we are almost halfway there. By the end of the century, we could pass the threshold.”

This estimation comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which published its most recent collection of findings in 2007.

And yet there is a prevailing attitude that climate change really is not a big deal, is over-exaggerated or, worse yet, is a hoax perpetuated by a cabal of tree-hugging scientists.

Detractors might point at the massive blizzard that recently dumped more than 20 inches of snow on the Midwest, but they would be confusing “weather” with “climate.” And contrary to popular belief, there is not fervent debate about the existence of global climate change among scientists.

“Scientifically, we have moved beyond doubting whether warming is happening,” said Loubere. “It is now a matter of what will happen and when.”

Let us assume for a moment that global warming is not happening, or at least not as dramatically as is currently thought. If that were the case, could anyone still argue that massive deforestation, kicking up soot and pollutants into the air, and dumping toxic waste into our lake water is a good idea?

I find such a position hard to defend from a rational standpoint, other than “finding a better solution is hard.” But then I thought the Aesop was “doing the right thing is rarely easy.”

We can either agree to put aside our loyalties and biases long enough to agree that protecting the earth is important for everyone, or we can accept the consequences of failing to do anything when we are baking inside our own skins.

That, or we can hope for some shuttles to take us to another rock. I hear Mars is lovely this time of year.