Wake up, folks, we're No. 1. We're the best. Sit down, Shaq. Sit down, Tiger. We the people, we the United States of America, have set a new record, one that won't be surpassed for, say, maybe a year or two.

We're hot! We've never been hotter. Spring of the year 2000 was the hottest spring ever recorded! How about that? We kicked butt! Don't tell me about the World War II generation. How great were they? How hot were they? We're the ones who broke the record. We're the ones who should be bursting with pride. Write about us, Tom Brokaw.

I did my share. I prowl the city at night in my gasoline-powered taxicab, a large machine that just tosses carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But, hey, I'm not looking for credit. I know you guys did your bit, too. We all helped. That's us. We're a team. We're Americans. We're just burning this place up.

All of us in developed nations contribute to global warming, which some people might see as a problem. Some people might think that 24 consecutive hotter-than-average springs in the northern hemisphere might be a wakeup call.

Some people might see the ever-expanding hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica as cause for alarm. Some people might see the newly discovered hole in the ozone layer in the Arctic as a potential problem.

Most reputable scientists now predict that the earth will get significantly warmer in the next 100 years. Although the connection between burning fossil fuels like gasoline and the earth's ever-increasing heat cannot be firmly established, most rational thinkers think there's a connection.

Whereas some people might think it's time for mankind to sit up and take notice of a potential problem that might eventually destroy us all, our major political candidates aren't too worried.

Al Gore, the probable Democratic nominee, sells himself as an environmentalist, and his Gore-for-president Web site gives him extensive credit for "working to raise awareness of global warming." That seems like a pretty apt description. Gore has talked up the environment quite a bit, even written a book about it.

But his patience with industrial pollutors, particularly contributors to the Democratic Party, cheapens his talk. His dedication to Mother Earth seems to end when the mother's milk of politics shows up.

George W. Bush, the probable Republican nominee, desperately playing catchup with Gore on environmental issues, also appears to ignore global warming on his Web site, although the subject may be hidden away somewhere in a link I didn't find.

We're almost certain to get stuck with one of those two bozos next January, so you know we're going to continue to set new heat wave records for some time to come.

(By the way, congratulations, Texas, for experiencing your hottest spring ever. I hope y'all enjoyed it. Hey, Florida, how about that drought? Really fun, eh? Enjoy the fires, didya?)

Does anybody remember Ralph Nader? Hold your laughter. He's the likely Green Party candidate. No, really, don't laugh. Okay, laugh. The poor boob doesn't stand a chance. He's so far behind they won't even include him in the debates, if they have any. What a joke!

Ralph Nader, the joke, lists global warming first on his list of priorities on his Web site.

It's funny, isn't it, that the only guy who's figured out that saving the planet is more important than cutting taxes doesn't have a chance? What does this say about us?

The guy who has dedicated his life, with remarkable success, to making America a better place to live doesn't stand a chance, while the sure winner next November will be one of two guys who has dedicated his life to advancing his own political career.

What does this say about us?

Okay, I understand your problem. If you're a liberal, you feel a vote for Nader will be wasted and will, in fact, turn out to be a vote taken away from Gore and thus be a vote for Bush.

If you're a conservative, you're skeptical about a guy the liberals like, even though he embraces conservative principles more than most people who claim to be conservative. A conservative conserves. He respects the land. He respects traditional values. If there's any candidate who fits the true definition of "conservative," it's Ralph Nader.

So how can we get conservatives and liberals alike to vote for the guy who's best for America?

I don't know, but maybe we should start some kind of buddy system. What would happen if, across the land, honest liberals and caring conservatives joined with one another to vote for Nader and thus cancel out each other with the major parties?

If I'm a liberal and the guy at the next desk is a conservative, how would our votes be wasted if we both agreed to vote for Nader? We'd both be supporting the guy we really want and our second choice, the guy representing our favorite party, would not suffer any.

I know it's idealistic to suggest this, and idealism is frowned upon these days, but I really feel that we Americans owe it to ourselves and our nation to vote for the best candidate this year, even if we feel he "doesn't stand a chance."

In our heart of hearts (whatever that is), I don't think very many of us really support the political opportunists pushed to the forefront by our parties. What honest Democrat really believes that Al Gore is the best the Democrats have to offer? What honest Republican really believes that George W. Bush is the best the Republicans have to offer?

Global warming is serious. We can start dealing with it now, relatively cheaply, or we can try to deal with it later, at tremendous expense and at the risk of losing the planet altogether.

Your vote in November might actually be a vote for planetary survival.

Copyright 2000 San Francisco Examiner

###