Permafrost, they say, is no longer permanent. Bid goodbye to Rocky Mountain meadows. Fare thee well, coastal marshes. This month, the EPA released its "U.S. Climate Action Report 2002" detailing impacts of global climate change on American landscapes. It's the first time the Bush Administration has acknowledged that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for startling alterations in our climate.

Global warming can wreak havoc on weather patterns, causing hotter, drier climates. Warning signs abound:

• Wildfires have torched 1.4 million acres from coast to coast. 2002 may be the worst fire year in history.
  
  
• One-third of the country is experiencing abnormal to extreme drought conditions.
  
  
• Insects have decimated 4 million acres of Alaskan spruce forest. Scientists blame rising temperatures.

Boston, welcome to Bermuda! The debate no longer centers on whether global warming is real but on what - if anything - we should do about it. The EPA does not advocate mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions but instead adapting to "inevitable" changes. But will we adapt and at what cost?

Good news: there's still time to change. Through concerted public and private action, greenhouse emissions could stabilize over the next few decades, says the UN, mitigating global warming's most disastrous effects.

• All 6 New England states signed a compact with 5 Canadian provinces to dramatically lower emissions.
  
  
• Congress saw twice as many climate proposals in the past year as in the last four years combined.
  
  
• Dozens of major corporations are setting their own strict targets for lowering climate-altering emissions.

Most scientists say there are cost-effective and technically feasible ways to turn the tide now. Should we place our bets on a high-stakes game of climate roulette or act now to weather the approaching storm?