What will we look like in 2050?

America's climate and energy future

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 3:10 PM on 03 Dec 2007

This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

A few weeks ago, one of the presidential candidates' advisors challenged a group of climate leaders to describe America's future. His challenge triggered a flurry of e-mails as we attempted to articulate a vision.

We talked about carbon caps and price signals and new investments in R&D. That's fine, the advisor responded, but what it the vision? What is America's perfect future?

I'm not sure we ever satisfactorily answered this very good question, but I found myself trying to describe what America might look like 10, 20, and 40 years from now.

2010: As the first decade of the 21st century came to a close, the American people turned a historic corner. The growing number of droughts, wildfires, violent storms and other problems persuaded even the deniers that we were experiencing the first dangerous symptoms of global warming. Resource conflicts were growing worldwide as developing and developed nations competed for oil and other finite resources. Now, in wry acknowledgment of the world's deteriorating condition, a song recorded by the Kingston Trio 50 years ago -- "The Merry Minuet" -- has climbed to the top of the charts again. Voters are demanding that the president and Congress chart a new course in which economic and ecological security are recognized as interconnected, and continued reliance on nuclear and fossil fuels are regarded as "threat multipliers" for national security.

2020: America's transition to a clean energy economy is well underway. More than 20 percent of the nation's electricity now is generated from renewable resources. Due to breakthrough technologies and pressure from Washington, the passenger vehicle fleet averages 50 miles per gallon, on the way to a goal of 200 mpg by mid-century. America has reduced its oil consumption by half and no longer imports petroleum from the Persian Gulf. Because conventional coal-fired power plants were banned 10 years ago, urban air quality and public health -- particularly asthma in children -- have improved dramatically. Americans have reduced their per capita carbon emissions by half, and greenhouse-gas emissions nationwide have declined 30 percent from their 2010 level.

Everyone now regards energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies as tools of national security. Photovoltaic panels are as critical as M-16s; plug-in hybrids are as important as Hummers. International defense organizations like NATO have become international climate-action collaborations.

On the international scene, the United States has led the development of a "grand deal" in which wealthy nations no longer subsidize fossil energy projects in developing countries -- a practice that was motivated by not by altruism but by the desire of rich nations to gain access to energy resources in poorer nation (PDF). Today, international loans and trade policies support energy efficiency and diversified, decentralized renewable energy systems to raise quality of life with simple, decentralized renewable technologies that have democratized energy production.

After the ugly deterioration of its international reputation in the first decade of the century, the United States has earned back enormous good will for using its wealth and talent to help the people of all nations attain decent living standards. Foreign aid for clean energy and water projects is far bigger business than weapons sales. The United States has joined an international "race to the bottom" -- i.e., a competition to become virtually carbon-free economies. Terrorist organizations, starved for sanctuary, money and recruits, will not attack the United States, which is regarded as the leading global force for dignity, health and prosperity for the world's poorest people.

Young people are required to give at least two years to some type of national service in the United States or overseas, and they do so enthusiastically. They are helping communities adapt to climate change, teaching in inner-city schools, setting up emergency response systems, helping build clean energy systems in developing communities. In exchange, the federal government, in partnership with private philanthropies, grants graduates of the program funds for college tuition, home ownership, vocational training, or small business creation.

2030: Rural farms and communities are enjoying unprecedented wealth as the nation's primary energy suppliers. America has grown, rather than drilled, its way out of energy insecurity. Farms are growing food, fiber, and fuels; practicing conservation tillage to see carbon offsets by keeping carbon sequestered in the soil; and managing forests for carbon sequestration. Solar and wind farms dot the countryside. Bio-refineries are common in rural communities, providing high-quality jobs that have increased the rural tax base and reversed the out-migration of youth.

Every new building in America is properly sized for its use and is carbon and energy neutral. A state-of-the-art high-speed rail system provides an attractive alternative to air travel between America's major metropolitan areas (lost luggage and airport security lines are, for most us, a thing of the past), and safe and convenient mass transit has virtually eliminated traffic congestion in cities. Urban sprawl has been stopped.

Personal vehicles, insofar as people still own them, are powered by electricity and are recharged by distributed solar panels on top of carports and garages. Many are rolling power plants that produce almost as much energy as they consume. Green industries are serving the enormous world market for ecologically-sound development and have become America's most important job engine. Not all is perfect. Our communities, farms, forests, water supplies, and public health have been feeling the growing impacts of climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions caused decades ago. There have been droughts, wildfires, floods, severe weather, public health challenges. But for the most part, Americans are learning to adapt (PDF).

2050: Our cities are composed of compact "urban villages", each a community in its own right with schools, churches, libraries, stores, and other necessary services within a 15-minute walk. Roofs, roads and other paved surfaces are light in color to reduce the "urban heat island" effect. Parks and green spaces are sprinkled throughout the urban villages, further reducing the need for cooling and providing people with places to enjoy natural beauty. Public transit has become so safe, efficient, and appealing that few urban residents own cars. America no longer imports any petroleum and uses virtually no oil. Coal mining stopped long ago, as coal-fired electricity grew more expensive than power from sunlight, wind, and geothermal sources. Price spikes, supply disruptions, air pollution, mercury pollution, Middle Eastern wars, high trade imbalances, perverse foreign policies, and "resource wars" are memories. No one asks why we're not using fossil energy any more. Instead, we ask why we didn't stop much sooner.

Motivated by astronomical insurance rates, communities have moved out of disaster-prone areas along rivers and coasts. Those areas now are public access beaches, nature preserves and recreational sites. Levees, dams and other "disaster control" structures have fallen into disfavor because they failed under the increasing pressures of severe weather attributed to global warming. Instead, regions have restored wetlands, replanted watersheds and put the meander back into rivers -- in other words, big structures named after Congressmen have given way to natural systems to prevent disasters.

World's Fair

The classic American example of communicating a vision of the future is, of course, the New York World's Fair of 1939, "Building the World of Tomorrow."

That vision, in the words of the University of Virginia American Studies program, "promoted one of the last great metanarratives of the Machine Age: the unqualified belief in science and technology as a means to economic prosperity and personal freedom.

"Wedged between the greatest economic disaster in America and the growing international tension that would result in World War II, The World of Tomorrow was a much-needed antidote to the depression and confusion of the times. It provided the one saving grace which all of America needed -- it provided hope."

The 2008 election is not the World's Fair. But it is a venue in which we should be talking about our national vision -- an antidote to the disturbing pictures that have emerged from climate science and from those parts of the world already experiencing the effects of global warming.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: What will we look like in 2050?
15 Comments | Post a Comment

I Like 2050

One thing I would change is to focus on mass transit and high-speed rail sooner. These are proven technologies. Relying on technological breakthroughs is rather risky and unpredictable.

by racc at 4:15 PM on 03 Dec 2007

How to not prevent global warming

A good approach would be to reject a well established, safe and effective replacement for carbon emitting electrical generating technology. Insist on using intermittent technology that will never produce electricity more than 50% of the time. Hope that a new technology will some how bridge the gap and prevent reliance of fossil fuel during the 50%+ time when renewables are not available.

Focus on mass transit, rather than electrifying personal transport. Ignore freight hauling. Don't sau that local trucking should be electrified and interstate trucking should be eliminated, and that all interurban freight should be transported by electrical rail.

Don't mention the problem posed by aircraft transportation, and above all don't mention the other "N" word. That unsayable word that sets David Roberts off.

Charles Barton

by Charles Barton at 4:48 PM on 03 Dec 2007

Building a world for today, come what may.........

...........with the firm intention that our children will have to fend for themselves, come what may.

If the human community, for whatever reasons, chooses not to respond ably to the requirements of practical reality with regard to climate change, but rather to indulge the insatiable consumption objectives of my "Me Generation" here and now, then concern about the year 2050 will likely be a moot point, will it not?

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 5:12 PM on 03 Dec 2007

Utopia with an iron fist?

A lot of seeming common sense in this idealized view of a future. Some of the ideas are commendable (like cleaning up coal pollution).

But, how do we get there without some kind of near totalitarian regulatory system?

Rationing the square feet allowed for homes and businesses?

Getting rid of personal transportation?

Stripping all streams, rivers and coastlines of inhabitants?

Replacing all overly crowded urban zones and wide spread suburban zones with (centrally planned?) perfect little self-contained Hamlets?

Guess that means the end of private property?

And where does a free market fit in this? Guess that would be out to - along with the creative and personal incentives that only a free market place can bring.

Just wondering.

Best,

by Grist1227 at 9:41 PM on 03 Dec 2007

Holy Shit! Some vision finally.

Am I hallucinating?

Most of my bitchin' and harumping comes from one source. My great frustration with so many people and organizations I know and respect being so damned timid and careful. I guess I am getting old, but I remember a time when bold visions and bold plans were a dime a dozen. It was a time when the operative word was "Yes!"

Since entering the super max prison of conservative hegemony, the operative word is "No!" The result is timidity, caution and almost a hostility to any proposal that shows some imagination, militancy and guts to it. We have all become well behaved children.

So, let this sour faced curmudgeon, smile like scrooge with Tiny Tim on his shoulders. Damn, there is some vision out there!

Rand Cunningham "the harumper"

Randy Cunningham

by randino at 6:11 AM on 04 Dec 2007

vaporware

Might want to run the numbers on power generation again. If renewable energy only generates 20% of our electricity demand in 2020 while coal is banned (and nuclear is deemed a national security threat), that leaves a bit of a void.

by vogz at 7:25 AM on 04 Dec 2007

Zeger and Evans Are Laughing At You

Your predictions are so...linear.

How about this:

Genetic engineering figures out how to engineer leg genes that make the average person able to walk or jog a mile without a second thought.

Suddenly "mass transit" becomes feasible as we only have a build stations a few miles apart.

Then they add a super thin, super insulated layer of skin that makes heating and cooling homes unnecessary.

Energy needs are cut by 75 percent.

by jabailo at 7:47 AM on 04 Dec 2007

43 years from now

If the only thing acomplished were the mass production of the best technology we already have now. Thereby replacing 90% of GHG producing fossil fuel use. That gradually increasing ramp up to that point would have halted the human addition to GHG climate change.

Let's go for it.

But of course there is another factor. Technology will make great leaps and bounds by then. Making that goal of replacing GHG energy sources even further and faster even easier.

But even now there is a technology that if it is installed now, need not be dismantled and recycled until maybe 50 years from now. It will still be a cost effective source of renewable electricity in 50 years. Huge wind machines on the northern midwestern prairie.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 8:07 AM on 04 Dec 2007

How to get to 2050.........from here and now?

Dear Joe Romm,

Perhaps we could follow what we already know from good science, reasoning and common sense. We can choose to respond ably and differently, in a more reality-oriented way, to the global challenges before humanity, the challenges that we can manage because they have been induced by the spectacular unrestrained overgrowth of human activities now threatening to engulf the surface of Earth.

Of course, it is fair to ask what the family of humanity could choose to do "ably and differently." There are several ideas that come to mind.

Implement a universal, voluntary program that encourages people to limit the number of offspring to one child per family.
Establish an upper limit on the growth of the individual human footprint.
Restrict immediately the reckless dissipation of limited natural resources so that the Earth is given time to replenish them for human benefit.
Substitute clean, renewable sources of energy, through the use of substantial economic incentives, for the fossil fuels we rely upon now.
Recognize that everything human beings do on the surface of our planetary home utterly depend on the finite resources of Earth. One consequence of this realization is understanding that there can be no such thing as an endlessly expanding global economy, given its current scale and growth rate, on a relatively small and noticeably frangible planet the size of Earth.

Thanks,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 8:42 AM on 04 Dec 2007

Re: How to get to 2050

Steven,

We're already doing #4 through Renewable Portfolio Standards and Production Tax Credits. The problem is the laws of physics, and specifically of thermodynamics. This is made implicit in existing state RPS requirements, for which even the most optimistic targets are well short of 50% (Minnesota is currently the leader with an accelerated target of 30% by 2020). This begs the question: where is the rest of the power going to come from?

by vogz at 10:00 AM on 04 Dec 2007

Churches in 2050?

Unless the churches all go away, I doubt any of this will happen. But if this all does "come to pass" by 2050 and utopia is upon us, what use will we have for religion? Please, no church in my "compact urban village."

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

by John former Marine at 11:21 AM on 04 Dec 2007

SoCal in 2050

The US Chamber of Commerce has a darker vision: by 2050, SoCal will be freezing cold, and its residents will be stranded without oil or any viable alternatives. They'll run along abandoned freeways to get around and keep warm. It's like "The Day After Tomorrow," but without the Army helicopters coming to the rescue at the end. It's a world out of gas.

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XevRKc82soI

vigorousnorth.blogspot.com A field guide to the wilderness areas of American inner cities.

by cneal at 11:27 AM on 04 Dec 2007

Optimistic view of Earth in 2050

...assuming that neutron-free fusion power has not been perfected and that artificial intelligence does not have other plans for us:

All fossil fuels have been outlawed. Fission reactors fuelled with uranium, plutonium and thorium are the largest single energy sources; the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle is under the strict control of a democratic international regime with military enforcement powers to prevent weaponization (thorium is not under this control because it is impossible to weaponize). Wind, ground-based Solar, geothermal, ocean thermal, and tidal power are widespread with all the best sites already developed. Many existing hydro sites have become unuseable because of sedimentation or lack of rain and are being dismantled; water for drinking and irrigation is commonly provided by seawater desalination plants. The first space-based Solar power stations have entered commercial service; completely clean and essentially unlimited, it is expected that this will provide the great majority of future growth in energy supply.

All aircraft, ships, cars and trucks are fuelled by artificial liquid hydrocarbons made from atmospheric CO2 and water, and which are thus carbon-neutral. Road vehicles are all plug-in hybrids; their energy-storage units are strictly limited in size and constantly monitored because it would be easy to use high-energy units as bombs. Much long-distance transport is by electrified trains.

Most of the world now has a high standard of living; consequently the rate of population growth is dropping rapidly and Earth's population will probably never exceed nine billion. The great majority live in large, dense cities, as these allow the most efficient distribution and use of energy and materials. But the leveling off of atmospheric CO2 came too late and the Greenland ice sheet is collapsing, creating a quarter-billion refugees from low-lying countries. There are fierce debates about which parts of which coastal cities can be protected by seawalls and which must be abandoned.

by richard schumacher at 8:11 AM on 05 Dec 2007

It won't be like that ...

but if I told you what it'll be like, I'd then have to post the string of characters that causes literate observers to think, "Are those characters random?" and then fall over dead.

There is no genuine concern over weapons proliferation by misuse of today's nuclear power systems; everyone has noticed that in 50-plus years, no such proliferation has occurred. The wicked spend much effort, often successfully, in setting up a strawman -- that such misuse must be impossible -- when all that it has to be, for nuclear power systems' perfect weapons-nonproliferation record to make sense, is more difficult than working from scratch.

It is certainly possible to weaponize thorium with the aid of a fission power reactor, even a thorium-fuelled one; a soft thermal neutron spectrum prevents the formation of the 232-U that is touted as making 233-U show-stoppingly hard for a clandestine bomb-maker to handle, and thorium doesn't fission much at all in such a spectrum. It may, like weaponizing uranium by that means, be a long way around that no-one has ever taken or would take, but then again it may not.

Schumacher falls into a trap whose occupants know that it is unethical but lucrative to oppose fission power, but by supporting varieties of reactor that are not now depriving governments of fossil fuel revenue on spurious grounds that if true would disfavour those that are depriving them of that, they can stay friends with the money, and with its friends, but not defile themselves, because they're still supporting fission!

Hydrocarbons made from air and water would preserve this. What do you so dislike about my B2O3-boron proposal that keeping this is better, Mr. Schumacher?

--- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
How shall cars gain nuclear cachet?
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

by GRLCowan at 10:49 AM on 05 Dec 2007

What About the Rest of the World?

Will the future of other countries be the same as that of the U.S.? If so, won't these other countries end up fighting for the same resources as the U.S.?

What happens when population growth continues? When consumption levels per capita rises together with that leading to fewer resources for everyone? When more people from developing nations move to (previously?) developed ones? Given the possiblity of increasing population and increasing consumption per person, is it possible that many other things (including materials needed for renewable energy, if not food, water caused by long-term effects of global warming, and medicine and other necessities) will eventually be scarce?

How will the U.S. offer foreign aid given mounting debts? If the last century involved industrialised nations taking large amounts of resources (e.g., the U.S. has only five percent of the world's population but consumes 25 percent of the world's oil supply) using force and other means, will the new powers of this future do the same?

If it is shown that much of the damage caused by peak oil and global warming was due partly from overconsumption in industrialised countries, will these countries pay for the damages? If so, how will that affect the optimistic future given in the piece? If not, will new military powers retaliate?

Given the possibility that renewable sources of energy will not be able to provide enough power for things like standing armies and heavy industry, will those countries that still have access to enough oil try become new military powers and do what previous military powers did to weaker nations during the Cold War?

Finally, how will the global population growth plateau by 2050? Will it do so because most people on earth will be so comfortable that they won't see the need to have more children, or will it be because human suffering will be so intense that most people will decide not to bring more children into such a world?

by ralfy at 5:09 AM on 09 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.