NASA Administrator Michael Griffin was interviewed today on NPR, and the conversation turned to global climate change. He said he thought it "arrogant" to propose that certain people at a certain place or time could decide what sort of climate the planet should have. To listen to the full interview, or read a bit of it, click here.

Some might suggest the arrogance lies with those - all of us - whose daily activities contribute significantly to changes already underway. Implicit in those activities is an assertion of our right as humans to change the planet's climate for all other living things.  Now that's arrogant.

Meanwhile, President Bush seems to be out in front of his NASA administrator, proposing to convene a meeting of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emittors in an effort to do just that - set goals for emissions in order to head off just the sort of climate change Griffin seems willing to accept.

That has drawn a cool response from Eileen Claussen, President of Pew Center on Global Climate Change:

"Six years after rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush has finally offered an alternative proposal, but it falls well short of what's needed. Agreement among the major emitting countries on a long-term global goal would be helpful. But far more critical is getting binding commitments on near- and mid-term action to reduce emissions.

"From all appearances, what the president is proposing is a strictly voluntary approach that won't deliver real results. We've tried the voluntary approach, both in the United States and internationally, and it doesn't work. The bottom line is we need binding commitments from all the major economies. The president isn't offering commitments and isn't asking for commitments, and without them we won't get the job done."

The unanswered question may be whether human institutions have the capacity to derail or even slow the changes we've helped to accelerate.