I hope everybody has a happy Earth day. I celebrated early, and I had a great time. How will you celebrate it? Maybe you will be like me and get inebriated while watching as many episodes of “Planet Earth” as you could find on your DVR. OK, so I didn’t get that inebriated, but Planet Earth is still a sweet show. Nevertheless, I’m sure much of the country spent the day finding something on TV or on campus about how we are ruining the earth.

I found it on the History Channel, which told me that global warming is more of a threat to our humanity than, say, a nuclear winter or a global epidemic. Unfortunately for the History Channel, I still hold true to the notion that science, not entertainment or politics, is correct.

But tree huggers can relax. I don’t want to argue. I’m not here to acid rain on your Earth day parade. I want to call a truce, a peace offering, if you will. I want to compromise. And I’m willing to ignore some of the claims that environmentalists make. Like how most of this “scientific evidence” that is pointed to as proof is either data taken grossly out of context (which drove a top expert from the International Panel on Climate Change to a January 2005 resignation to protest that IPCC science was being misrepresented by claims that the recent trend in intense hurricanes was being exacerbated by global warming) or that which is taken from theoretical climate models that are usually a “worst case scenario” (like how it was reported that Oxford University findings showed that temperatures may increase by up to 11 degrees Celsius over the next century, but the fact that the report said a change in the 2-4 degree range is much more likely wasn’t mentioned).

I will also try not to mention the fact that this “scientific consensus” about global warming does not actually exist, but, in fact, 17,000 scientists have signed a petition from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s climate.”

I’ll try not to mention any of that, because it turns out that you, the environmentalist and myself, the engineer, have a common enemy. In fact, everyone can take heed in the fact that this debate can be successfully un-politicized – as Al Gore tries so hard but fails to do simply because he is, well, Al Gore. This enemy is oil. And no, it’s not the oil companies, but the black gooey itself, the Texas tea, the – well, you get the idea. The carbon and hydrogen that make up the chemical composition of petroleum is causing quite a stir for more than one reason – and even if it does cause global warming, that should be the least of our worries – just check out the Middle East.

But the most pressing oil-related issue is that we are running out – some estimates put it around a century away, give or take. As an engineer, it is impressive to see the new technology that is used for both finding new oil fields and drilling in areas previously thought improbable. As a human being and a money-loving American citizen who would like to see gas prices not reach $10 a gallon, I’m ready to move on. So if you would, environmentalists, let’s team up. And not just against oil but most fossil fuels in general. It would be far more beneficial for your cause to draw the attention away from the granola movement, with claims of global warming, and begin to focus on the fact that fuel costs a lot of money.

This shift in focus would hopefully cause this issue to be declassified as a political issue, which will then allow previous dissenters to jump on board with the movement rather than be drawn away by mindless droning. You guys can be in charge of organizing and putting on festivals and all that good jazz, while we the engineers sit in our laboratories, un-interrupted by political jargon, until we finally come up with a solution that is affordable and efficient. (Contrary to popular belief, we haven’t actually found one that we can truly mass-produce, but we’re close).

The global warming argument is unnecessary, and, whether true or not, alienates people who do not agree with the claims – including leading scientists. But everyone wants money. And it would be hard to believe that energy companies would be against this effort, as they are the ones leading the research now anyway (and would still be making bank when the new massive source of fuel comes to market). If we could just swallow our pride and learn to work together, both of our agendas will be successful and oil will be no more.

– Andy Gionnette is a senior in mechanical engineering from Chanhassen, Minn.