Hang in there, Mother Earth. Help is on the way in the form of a group aptly named “Global Cool.”

With the global warming rhetoric hitting a fever pitch, a group of Hollywood glitterati have taken it upon themselves to help all of us set a goal for reducing greenhouse gasses. Orlando Bloom, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Josh Hartnett, among others, have signed on to Global Cool’s simple, if ambitious plan: If one billion people can reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by one ton each year, that’s 10 billion tons that we can take out of the doomsday projections.

At the opening press conference, Hartnett explained his own experience of global warming. “I grew up in Minnesota which is usually a cold place, but we’ve seen abnormally warm winters the last couple of years, which is unnerving," he said. "If water levels continue to rise at this rate, my house in New York will be underwater, and I’ll have to get a gondola to get around. It’s frightening.”

Frightening, indeed. From the way Hartnett describes it, the Hudson River is already lapping at the West Side Highway. And rising.

“I’m not on a mission or anything like that, that would be ridiculous,” he added, “I just want to tell people why I’m concerned about climate change and if they want to make a change in their own lives that’s great."

Whew. Good thing he’s not on a mission. That would be ridiculous.

Like any group with a cause to promote, Global Cool has set up a website - http://www.global-cool.com - to educate the public and offer tips for saving energy. Among their suggestions:

1. ”If you really must take a bath, save energy and share it with a really dirty friend.”

Now, I’ve got some good friends. I’ve probably also got some dirty friends (I rarely check). I don’t, however, have any dirty friends who are that good. How does a guy even start that conversation, much less explain it to the missus? Don’t get the wrong idea, honey. I’m not getting all Jack Twist on you – just saving the planet.

2. ”Do you really need to holiday abroad? And those relatives across the world - if they really loved you, wouldn't they move closer?”

It’s tough to sound stupid and condescending in the same breath, but give Global Cool some credit for pulling it off. Consider yourself scolded if you are on of those people who lives in Chicago and can’t survive without your week in the tropics every winter. As for the dispersed family, who’s not showing the love for living so far away: me, or the relatives? Is there a recommended maximum distance?

3. ”Veg(etables) from a mile away is just as tasty as veg(etables) from half the world away and doesn't have to be flown to you in energy-guzzling airplanes.”

A brilliant idea, so long as I would always be content with New Jersey staples like tomatoes, sweet corn, or blueberries. If I ever wanted a kiwi or a banana, however, I’d be out of luck. And sorry, Alaska, but you’re screwed.

The average savings for each of these ideas: 4 tons of carbon dioxide per family, per year.

I’m sure the Global Cool team is trying to be upbeat, but their message is discouraging: don’t travel or visit family outside your zip code, try bathing with your friends, and limit your diet to food that can grow in local soil.

I don’t mind helping the cause, but it would be nice if we could do so and still enjoy ourselves a little - and not lose our dignity - while we’re at it.

A news item from this week added some irony to the Global Cool story. Hollywood, according to a UCLA report, is among the worst polluters in Southern California. Between trailers, generators, special effects, and exploding cars, the movie industry spews 140,000 tons of ozone and diesel fuel particulates into the sky.

Hollywood has been accused of producing too much crap lately. Now we have the figures to prove it.

Global Cool’s intentions may be in the right place, and it’s tough to argue against taking modest steps to conserve energy. However, it’s the motivation of people like Hartnett that bears scrutiny. Somewhat unique among scientific discussions, global warming now allows subjective, personal experience to equal hard fact: of course it’s a problem, because I’ve been on the business end of it. The danger there is that such thinking winds up influencing the actual science.

Still, it will be interesting to see if Hartnett and his pals bring the same level of scrutiny to their own industry. Jack Kyser, economist for the LA County Economic Development Corp., cautioned against stronger environmental regulation for the movie business. He said, “There would be a risk because you have other states out there quite anxious to get a pieces of the film industry.”

Funny how a pro-Kyoto type of town is suddenly not so keen on strict environmental controls once the economic impact hits too close to home.

Go get ‘em, Global Cool. Mother Earth is counting on you.