BLOOMINGTON -- Illinois can bid goodbye to cool summers like the one just past if global warming continues unchecked, says the Chicago-based Union of Concerned Scientists.

By the end of the century, climate change could force Chicagoans to endure summers with more than 70 days of temperatures reaching more than 90 degrees, and a month or more when the mercury climbs above 100 degrees, the USC says. More heat-related deaths will occur as Chicago residents face at least two summer heat waves each year like the one that killed several hundred people there in 1995. Currently, Chicago sees about 15 days higher than 90 degrees and one day above 100, on average.

Temperatures downstate might be worse, according to UCS Midwest office director Ron Burke. A related UCS study predicted people in Indianapolis, which is located more in line with Bloomington and Decatur, could sweat through more than 80 days of 90-degree temperatures and another 28 days at 100 degrees or more.

"That's virtually the entire summer," Burke said.

By mid-century, all Illinois summers will be hotter than the summer of 1988, a drought year when a heat wave cost America $40 billion, mostly in crop losses, the UCS said. Illinois corn and soybean yields dropped that year by more than 75 percent of their average annual yields from 1978 to 1997, according to UCS figures that are part of recently published study, "Confronting Climate Change in Illinois."

Environment Illinois, another group worried about the climate, earlier estimated global warming could cost Illinois corn growers $243 million a year.

The UCS research also concluded average annual rainfall will increase by 15 percent by 2050 and 30 percent by the end of the century, but summer rainfall will decrease by 15 percent by 2100.

That means much of the added rain will fall during critical planting and harvest times, Burke said. The National Wildlife Federation projects big storms historically seen only once every 20 years could happen as often as once every four to six years.

"The Midwest climate is already changing. Over the past 50 years, we've seen higher average annual temperatures, more frequent downpours, longer growing seasons, and fewer cold snaps," said Don Wuebbles, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois who co-authored the UCS report.

"They think, 'That's not going to affect me. That's going to be polar bears and the coastal cities,' " added Burke. "But we're talking about completely transforming the face of the earth if we don't reign in global warming."

Release of the study was timed to turn up the heat on the U.S Senate that soon will consider the American Clean Energy and Security Act. By a narrow 219-212 vote, the House in June passed the bill, H.R. 2454, that is aimed at reducing harmful emissions, improving energy conservation and encouraging green forms of energy, such as wind, solar and biofuels.

U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson, D-Ill., voted in favor of the measure in the House. The co-chair of the moderate New Democrat Coalition's Energy Task Force said the bill, among other things, would reduce America's reliance on foreign energy sources, provide incentives for using renewable energy, cap emissions of greenhouse gases and "spur investment in clean energy technology."

"It's clear we need to change the direction of energy policy in this country, and this legislation will move us towards clean, renewable, home grown energy. I believe the 11th District (that includes the Twin Cities) has a lot to gain from this bill, including potential investments in wind and biofuels," she said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated the cost of the bill to the average household would be 22 to 30 cents a day, less than the cost of a postage stamp. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost at 48 cents per day for an average household by 2020. At the same time, household savings from greater efficiency in appliances and homes would bring the average household $4,000 in annual savings by 2030, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Tim Johnson, R-Ill., who also represents the Twin City area, voted against the bill. A spokesman for Johnson could not be reached.

But the Illinois Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau Federation oppose the measure, arguing that caps on emissions and limits on the use of fossil fuels would increase energy costs, lead to higher prices for goods and services and leave farmers in the lurch because they couldn't pass added costs onto consumers.

Farmers also could be at a competitive disadvantage in global markets if other countries don't follow suit, the IBF said following the House action.

While Congress remains embroiled in the debate over health care reform, Burke expects the Senate to act on energy in October. Sens. Dick Durbin and Roland Burris, both Illinois Democrats, have not taken a position. They're waiting to see specific proposals contained in the Senate's version of the bill, said Burke.

He hopes Congress will act before the next worldwide conference on climate change in December in Copenhagen, so the Obama administration can show America is ready to lead the way on the issue.

Meanwhile, Environment Illinois wants stronger provisions, including a mandate for utility companies to give incentives and assistance to help customers make their homes and businesses more energy efficient. The group argues its plan would give Illinois consumers a saving of $252 a year and create more than 30,000 jobs.

But not all environmental groups are in agreement. Friends of the Earth criticizes a major provision of the House bill that allows companies to buy "offsets."

Rather than reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at a factory or plant, a company could pay for projects in developing countries to make equivalent reductions in emissions that cause global warming. Though the idea may make sense in theory, FOE thinks offsets "fail to deliver the promised results and can often lead to increased emissions making climate change worse."

Burke stressed it's not too late and Wuebbles agreed the "likely changes documented in this report are sobering. The good news is that we can avoid the worst of them if we substantially cut global warming emissions and start doing it now."

"I think it is the ultimate challenge of our generation," said Burke

---

Energy bill

According to a summary prepared by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the American Clean Energy and Security Act as passed narrowly by the House would;

-- Require electric utilities to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020;

-- Order reduction of carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17 percent by 2020 and more than 80 percent by 2050.

-- Require major sources of emissions to obtain allowances for each ton of carbon or its equivalent emitted into the atmosphere. The money generated from the payments is estimated at $70 to $80 billion in 2015 and $90 to $120 billion in 2030. The cash would be used to protect consumers from energy price increases, assist trade-vulnerable and other industries to make the transition to a clean energy economy and support investments in clean energy and energy efficiency.

-- Require $60 billion in new investments in carbon capture and sequestration; $20 billion in vehicles using electricity and other advanced technology; and $20 billion in basic scientific research and development;

-- Establish new energy-saving standards for new buildings and appliances;

-- Promise investments to prevent tropical deforestation;

-- Protect consumers from energy price increases.