This month, 160 nations will meet in Kyoto, Japan, to consider an international treaty intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The global warming issue the treaty is meant to address is political dynamite, both here in the U.S. and internationally.

Although some groups are skeptical that greenhouse gas emissions are really causing global warming, the scientific community is beginning to reach a consensus that the threat is real. The political problem is the economic impact. It will raise the energy price tag for all of us.

Scientists predict an increase in global temperatures from 2 to 6 degrees F. if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate. Over 900 scientists from 40 countries participated in the study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. In addition to the scientists participating in the study, 2,400 more have signed a letter endorsing the findings.

With 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. produces 20 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. Japan, Canada and other countries could also feel the impact of global air quality controls. Of the 160 nations involved, 130 could be exempted from enforceable air emission caps, leaving the remaining 30 to foot the bill. This could create a trade disadvantage for many industries, including U.S. agriculture.

While politicians promise not to increase the price of energy to deal with global warming, others predict an increase of 50 percent or so in the price of fossil fuels. Electricity, three-fourths of which is generated by coal, would cost more. Natural gas prices would increase. Gasoline could go up 50 cents a gallon. Naturally, farmers, who use a lot of fuel, are concerned, but so are truckers and other motorist.

On the bright side, some are proposing solutions. Geothermal and nuclear power advocates reminded us of the benefits of those two energy technologies, and add that they'll help solve the problem.

To offset carbon dioxide emissions, utilities are even seriously exploring the idea of converting pastures to woodlands and encouraging the maintenance of old-growth forests. Although environmental groups are skeptical and utilities agree no one answer will solve the problem, utilities considering the option point out that trees absorb carbon dioxide. For every cubic foot of wood that grows, 35 pounds of carbon is stored. One acre of forest could store one or two tons of carbon.

The Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium noted that President Bill Clinton, speaking at a White House conference on climate change, praised geothermal heating and cooling as a way to reduce global warming while saving homeowners money.

The president said he believed the threat of climate change was real, and that he favors the use of flexible market-based approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He cited geothermal heating and cooling as one market-based approach.

"Geothermal systems are the most energy efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems available."

The president said any reduction of heat-trapping pollution should be done through technology changes and rejected any new energy taxes or other measures that would make energy more costly.

The consortium noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says geothermal systems are the most energy efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems available. Some 40,000 geothermal systems are installed annually now. If yearly installations were increased to 400,000, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by more than 1 million metric tons a year. That would be equal to taking more than a half million cars off the road or planting a million acres of trees.

Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has asserted that nuclear energy supplies 20 percent of the nation's electricity and offsets significant amounts of greenhouse gases. In 1996, U.S. nuclear plants prevented the discharge of 147 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere

20 ILLINOIS COUNTRY LIVING DECEMBER 1997

more than double the 70-million ton reduction the president has called for. They also eliminated the need for 2.2 billion barrels of oil and 3.2 billion tons of coal since 1973.

Still, NEI overlooks the fact that nuclear wastes are hard to dispose of and our politicians have not come to terms with exactly how and where to store the waste. Nuclear energy is used extensively in many countries like France, but here in the U.S. there are no plants under construction or even on the drawing board. There is too much financial risk for utilities and too much public's concern over safety.

Illinois, with its vast reserves of coal, has a stake in the deliberations. Illinois coal, which is high in sulphur, is expensive to clean, and increases in environmental standards makes it less competitive with other fuels. With thousands of downstate jobs hanging in the balance, southern Illinoisans are understandably concerned.

Illinois' coal industry, universities and utilities are working hard on clean coal technologies that will provide some answers. For example, Southern Illinois Power Cooperative participated in a test of coal/water slurry in cyclone boilers at its Lake of Egypt plant south of Marion. The study explored ways to reduce nitrogen oxide levels as well as sulphur dioxide and paniculate in flue gas.

The agricultural community is worried, too. Many believe that farmers will have to pay more for fuel and fertilizer. And that's a grim prospect in a time when developing countries that aren't bound by the treaty enter the market as ag producers. Nonetheless, environmental groups and scientists warn that doing nothing about global warming could cause weather changes that would have an even greater impact on farmers as well as the rest of us.

DECEMBER 1997 ILLINOIS COUNTRY LIVING 21