This Issue:

Table of Contents

Cover Story

Grades 4-6

The Heat Is On!

Imagine the earth as a hotter place--something scientists are warning about. Would it really be so bad? Fewer of us would have to shovel snow. Farmers in the Midwest could grow crops nearly year-round. You might be able to swim outside in October even if you lived up North.

But a warmer world would mean big trouble too. Weather patterns would change. The American Midwest, which produces much of the country's food, might have more dry spells and floods. Heavy rains in California could result in dangerous mudslides all year, not just in winter. Hurricanes and typhoons would become more powerful. Insects that carry tropical diseases like malaria would start to appear in places they've never been before.

Global warming would cause some ice at the North and South Poles to melt. Oceans would then rise at least a foot or two. That would put some parts of Florida and Louisiana underwater. Countries with very little high ground, like Bangladesh, would mostly disappear.

Global Greenhouse
Unfortunately, the world is already getting warmer. It's happening very slowly--by only about 1°F over the past hundred years. But it's happening steadily, and scientists think humans are at least partly to blame. Every time we burn something--gasoline to make a car run, coal to make electricity in a power plant, trees to clear land for farming--pollution goes into the air.

Part of that pollution is carbon-dioxide gas. When carbon dioxide (CO₂) gets into the atmosphere, it acts something like the glass walls and ceiling of a greenhouse. It lets sunlight in to warm things up, but it doesn't let the heat escape. The planet, like a greenhouse, gets warmer and warmer. That's why scientists began to call this warming of the earth the greenhouse effect.

At first, no one wanted to believe global warming was real. But in recent years, leaders of many nations have become convinced that they must take action. The U.S. is under special pressure. It has just 4% of the world's people but spews out 22% of the world's carbon-dioxide pollution.

Last week President Clinton announced a new plan. By the year 2012, he wants rich countries, including the U.S., Japan and England, to cut CO₂ pollution to levels that existed in 1990. The cuts would be part of an agreement to be signed by more than 150 nations. World leaders hope to sign such a treaty in Kyoto, Japan, this December.

According to the President's proposal, each country could choose its own ways to cut pollution. In the U.S., Clinton wants to encourage companies to cut back on pollution by rewarding them with lower taxes. The government would also spend billions of dollars developing cleaner sources of energy, like solar power.

"The problem is real," the President said. "And if we do not change our course now, the consequences, sooner or later, will be destructive for America and the world."

A Plan With Some Problems
Lots of people say the President's plan isn't tough enough. Some European countries have already cut their carbon-dioxide pollution. They are pushing for aggressive action now. Why should the U.S. wait for 2012?

Back in 1993, President Clinton said the U.S. would try to bring carbon-dioxide pollution down to 1990 levels by the year 2000. But the U.S. has failed to meet that goal. In fact, our nation, with its rich, booming economy--and smokestacks--is polluting more than ever.

Environmentalists say the President's new plan won't work either. They believe that even if countries reach the new goal, it won't slow down global warming fast enough to prevent changes in the Earth's climate.

"The Clinton plan fights a five-alarm blaze with a garden hose," complains Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, an environmental group.

On the other side, many companies and Congressmen say the plan is too tough. Putting new, less polluting equipment in factories will cost money and hurt business. "This means lower employment and a lower American standard of living," said Gail McDonald, president of Global Climate Coalition, which represents oil and coal companies.

President Clinton insists that his plan is the best way to attack global warming without upsetting the American economy. He has to persuade Congress to support it. And, in December, he must convince other world leaders gathering in Kyoto that the world's biggest polluter is doing its fair share to solve one hot problem.

---

Global Warming
Carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere form a warm blanket around the earth. Without it, our planet would be freezing: 60°F colder than it is now. But pollution is making the blanket too thick, heating up the earth.

• Sunlight hits the earth, giving it warmth and energy.
• Carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere traps some of the heat, keeping the earth warm.
• As pollution increases, CO₂ and other heat-trapping gases build up. The earth grows hotter.

Clean Machines
One way to fight global warming is to reduce pollution from cars. Electric cars like GM's EV-1, below, run on fume-free batteries instead of gas. But they can go just a limited distance before the batteries must be recharged. Only about 4,000 Americans now use electric cars.

Last week researchers announced a new way to power cars. A new "fuel cell" mixes oxygen from the air with hydrogen in gasoline to create electricity. The cell makes twice as much energy per gallon as a regular car engine--with almost no pollution. Superclean fuel-cell cars may hit the road in the next decade.

Next: North Korea's Quiet Hunger