By now, everyone has heard that unmitigated climate change can lead to ice caps melting, sea levels rising and heat waves escalating. But the world is just now starting to listen to major national Republicans who are pleading with their party’s current leaders to accept the phenomenon as real and to help shape an outcome.

It all comes atop a U.S. Supreme Court decision last week that has essentially given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the right to regulate 83 percent of the emissions that are released from power plants. That’s conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's assessment, who acknowledged that this is nearly everything the agency had requested.

In a phone interview, the former EPA chief under George W. Bush and the former Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, told this reporter that many national conservatives are deferential to those scientists who say that global warming is largely a function of man-made emissions, notably from burning fossil fuels. But she admits that such thinkers are generally “moderate” and, by nature, are not as vocal as some of the more extreme members of the party.

Such challenges and obstacles, however, are no reason to give up -- that the scientists are saying that the worst effects of climate change are yet to come. She adds that the money spent repairing the most recent natural disasters is a glimpse into the future. As a governor, Whitman said that she devoted countless hours and public funds to cleaning New Jersey’s shoreline -- investments accompanied by handsome returns in terms tourism dollars.

To this end, she says that the United States should take a similar approach and that public investments in newer and cleaner technologies will likewise bear fruit. The former EPA chief says that she is sympathetic to those states whose economies have relied on coal and whose coal miners will be adversely affected. But Whitman says that responsible leadership is about making difficult choices.

“One thing you learn when you are in a position to make decisions is that you have to do what is in the best interest of the greatest number,” Whitman says. “The decision will have the same impact on everyone but you have to mitigate the negative impact. I’d rather see us bring the new energy technologies to those states most affected. You cannot walk away from what will have the biggest benefit because there will be people who don’t get as good of a deal. At some point, you have to have leadership.”

Whitman recognizes that the leaders of certain states that are reliant on coal or coal-fired generation will not be able to advocate for climate change mitigation. As such, party leaders should allow them to vote against such legislation but that coalitions should be built to get meaningful laws through Congress.

As the leader of a state who had prided herself on job creation, Whitman is not tone deaf to the economic fallout in states such as Kentucky and West Virginia. But their strategy should be to angle themselves to attract the public funds that will flow into greener technologies, which she says are not just renewables but also nuclear energy -- or the services that surround such plants.

The nation’s cities, she adds, are at the forefront of adopting sustainability standards -- choosing to improve the quality of life and to attract people and jobs -- to their regions. Whitman points to major companies that are actively improving their communities by pledging to reduce their carbon footprints, as well as that of their suppliers: Texas Instruments Inc., United Technologies Corp. and WalMart.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in 2007 that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act of 1990. Challenges to that ruling have been upheld, including the latest one that does limit the agency’s reach to “major emitters.” With the wind at its back, the Obama administration released an executive order in June that pushes states to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

Those jurisdictions can achieve that by substituting nuclear, natural gas or renewables for coal as well as by improving energy efficiencies and implementing free market cap-and-trade programs. That executive order will assuredly get challenged in the courts. But the U.S. Supreme Court has already shown that it will uphold environmental protections, within limits.

“Ultimately, it would be far better to have Congress do this because executive orders are not enforceable until they go through the courts,” Whitman says, who is the CASEnergy Coalition Chair. “There are a number of Republicans across the country who get this but they are reluctant to step out. There is a litmus test.”

Whitman appeared last week before a U.S. Senate panel along with three other former Republican EPA chairs, all of whom say that they are convinced that climate change is real and that the best approach going forward is to work toward a resolution. The others: William Ruckelshaus, who served under Presidents Nixon and Reagan; Lee Thomas, who also served under President Reagan and, William Reilly, who served under the first President Bush.

In his testimony, Ruckelshaus said that ever since the EPA’s inception in 1970 under President Nixon, there have been dire predictions about the ensuing environmental rules and regulations. Meantime, none of the “predicted economic and social calamity” ever came to pass.

“We believe there is a legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change but no legitimate debate over the fact of the earth’s warming or over man’s contribution,” adds Ruckelshaus.

With their toughest political battles behind them, the four former EPA chiefs are freer to speak their minds and to champion science over politics. Today’s political reality, of course, is divisive and derisive, and nastier than ever before. As Whitman says, though, the climate may be challenging but the cause has never been more important.