Climate change is occurring much quicker than most people thought it would. This is in part due to positive feedback loops one of which is the melting of the ice caps which results in less heat being reflected back into space,
The following is my offering of what the next 20-30 years might bring. It is intended to give a flavour of the situation we might be in. Please ignore any contradictions and accept it as just one possible fictional scenario. I hope it will contain some lessons of what we can avoid.
With temperatures often exceeding 45 degree, last year, 2039 was the hottest summer yet recorded. Public health authorities officially designated hospital admissions due to heat exhaustion as an epidemic with thousands dying often due to inadequate facilities for treating heat stroke.
We weekly get official statistics of how emissions are falling having stabilised a few years ago. With no gas or oil being used from very limited remaining reserves, gases other than carbon dioxide are the main causes. Because of the long retention period, it will be decades before concentrations of the relevant gases begin to decrease.
We are now able to use coal again for limited uses. the Environmental Forum (EF) has finally giving carbon capture and storage the green light following some alarming reports of gases escaping. The EF has diverted resources to protecting these storage facilities because of eco-terrorist threats.
Nuclear energy has also played its part though it is of concern that certain countries, taking advantage of the funds available for building these plants, seem to have taken risks with their construction in Africa. There have been several accidental releases of radioactive emissions and the authorities have closed one reactor following the failure of its contingency arrangements. Radiation levels are increasing worldwide though no one seems certain what the cause is.
The sea level rise over the last decade has meant thousands of people losing their homes adding to a migrant emergency that worsens each year. The poorest are most effected and no one seems to want to take responsibility for them. As usual, the United Nations has formed a department with limited funds to care for them.
World food shortages continue to challenge nations to feed themselves, let alone those living in countries that due to the increasing temperatures are becoming barren. Debate continues whether it is better to move people or food. Some suspect food shortages are being used to control the population.
Fresh water is also in short supply. The use of solar energy to convert sea to fresh water suitable for drinking is helping this situation though as usual the implementation of this life saving technology is fraught with political, economic and equity challenges.
We are approaching a situation where deforestation has increased, mainly for food production, to such an extent that weather patterns are seriously affected. The worst not expected result is the unpredictability of the weather with violent winds raging over vast areas. Hurricanes have also increased in frequency and severity with the effects being as if not more serious than those due to sea level rise.
Fires have also been a problem contributing to loss of forests. There is some evidence that oxygen levels are falling from lack of photosynthesis though electrolysis of seawater is beginning to counteract this.
There has been a huge increase in isolationism. Countries in Europe, Africa and the Middle East are hardly speaking to each other. Conflicts are rising due to competition for limited resources. This is having a catastrophic effect on emissions, resources available for combating climate change and investment in research.
On a brighter note, there is general acceptance that low input agriculture is the way forward. Gene modification caused major problems in 2015 with the cereal crop due to cross fertilisation of different gene modified versions of the same crop. This resulted in the creation of a poisonous version of maize, resistant to all known chemicals that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths across the globe. It was necessary to purge huge swathes of productive land to solve the problem. Scientists fear the mutations still exist in bacteria in birds that are proving difficult to eradicate.
Organic agriculture has blossomed with huge numbers in the developed world returning to a life as agricultural workers with a resulting improvement in quality of life and longevity. There has also been a welcome reduction in obesity patterns across the planet because of food becoming more expensive.
Renewable energy has become the main method of using energy. Worldwide solar energy has had the most impact though wind and wave have also contributed enormously. Microgeneration has become the norm with a whole industry developing to manufacture, install and maintain them.
The “back to basics” culture has grown enormously with people reverting to growing their own food and producing their own energy. There are numerous instances of communities cutting themselves off from the outside world. Suicides have increased considerably though it is difficult to obtain reliable statistics.
The population has stabilised and is now falling quickly due to the above. Some societies have opted for various methods of controlling their populations. There is a greater sense of fairness and liberty with emphasis on the quality rather than the length of life. Religion and spirituality has increased across the globe.
The higher temperature has caused major epidemics of what were once tropical diseases. Planes are now equipped with sufficient facilities for quarantine periods of up to a month with solar panels providing the energy for refrigeration, human waste being degraded by bacteria to produce food and recycling of urine for drinking purposes.
Peter Hirst is a member of Green Lib Dems executive.
Share:
9 Comments
This article makes a lot of sense – now could we start talking seriously about reconsidering our opposition to nuclear please?
No this article doesn’t make a lot of sense. Yes, climate change is happening, but also everything else in there is wrong.
“Public health authorities officially designated hospital admissions due to heat exhaustion as an epidemic”
Heat exhaustion isn’t a disease so it can’t be an epidemic. Crisis yes, epidemic no.
“With no gas or oil being used from very limited remaining reserves, gases other than carbon dioxide are the main causes. Because of the long retention period, it will be decades before concentrations of the relevant gases begin to decrease.”
Very vague. And while other gases like methane do need to be limited, eliminating CO2 would mean that these gases wouldn’t be that much of a problem.
“Nuclear energy has also played its part though it is of concern that certain countries, taking advantage of the funds available for building these plants, seem to have taken risks with their construction in Africa. There have been several accidental releases of radioactive emissions and the authorities have closed one reactor following the failure of its contingency arrangements. Radiation levels are increasing worldwide though no one seems certain what the cause is.”
This paragraph makes no sense. Nuclear power isn’t perfectly safe, but it also doesn’t cause the problems you suggest, not unless we had inept standards. I agree with mark, nuclear power needs to be reconsidered. Renewables alone aren’t enough for this country.
“On a brighter note, there is general acceptance that low input agriculture is the way forward. Gene modification caused major problems in 2015 with the cereal crop due to cross fertilisation of different gene modified versions of the same crop. This resulted in the creation of a poisonous version of maize, resistant to all known chemicals that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths across the globe. It was necessary to purge huge swathes of productive land to solve the problem. Scientists fear the mutations still exist in bacteria in birds that are proving difficult to eradicate.”
This paragraph also makes no sense. Scientifically, any problems from GM are minuscule, particularly when compared to pesticides. And it should be obvious that the people of the world can’t be fed on organic food alone. People in other countries are starving, and so need GM food.
“Organic agriculture has blossomed with huge numbers in the developed world returning to a life as agricultural workers with a resulting improvement in quality of life and longevity. There has also been a welcome reduction in obesity patterns across the planet because of food becoming more expensive.”
Again, doesn’t make sense.
“Religion and spirituality has increased across the globe.”
I hope not!
“With no gas or oil being used from very limited remaining reserves”. That – in 2039, is unlikely if you take into account unconventional sources. The Canadian tar-sands alone will last longer than that, which is why James Hanson is saying that we must not use the unconventional oil sources. However, in 2039 the biggest potential source of C02 emissions will be, as now, coal.
It is not clear to me what you have in mind when you suggest eco-terrorists would attack CCS facilities. Who and why?
I think your nuclear scenario is contrived and improbable, but then I think we are going to have to use nuclear power to combat climate change and you (I guess) don’t.
I’m an organic gardener and vegetable grower, but I accept that organic methods probably will not feed the world population in 2039. However, this does not mean GM is the answer either.
“Renewable energy has become the main method of using energy”. I think you mean “producing energy”. I think that is very unlikely in just 30 years and it is much more likely that in 2039 we will be using a combination of renewables, nuclear and coal with CCS.
The second sentence of the next paragraph makes no sense to me. If you think climate change will lead to an increase in anomie, then you should explain why.
I have a similar problem with your penultimate paragraph in that it is not obvious to me why you think these developments would occur. To me an increase in religiosity is a negative, and historically it is one which is not usually found in tandem with an increase in fairness and liberty.
Alex: disease is defined in my dictionary as “an unhealthy state of body or mind; a disorder, illness or ailment with distinctive symptoms…” which makes heat exhaustion a disease.
Can I write a “possible fictional scenario” for LDV, too?
How did the back to basics farming movement happen along side immigration into already over-full (for subsistence agriculture) countries like the UK?
Clearly there has been a vast genocide which you’re covering up here.
Apparently 445.15 sqr meters is required to feed a family of 4 (this is only for veg but its frankly too depressing using the figure for calories too).
445.15 / 4 = 111.2875
So 11 * 6 * 100,000 = 6,600,000 km sqr required to feed UK pop.
We have 241,590 Km Sqr according to CIA world factbook (thats not all going to be farmable but lets err on the side of people living).. so 6,600,000/100 = 66,000
241,590 / 66,000 = 3.66
So what happened to the other 96.4% of the population who we can’t feed due to isolationism and our failure to get GM and Nuclear to work.
GM and Nuclear are not technologies we will embrace because they’re so fantastic, we will embrace them because the alternative is too horrific to imagine.
If this is the bar for LDV articles, I may write some myself!
Oh, dear. Millenarian alarmist tosh. You do sensible environmentalism no favours with this sort of “Day after Tomorrow” scientifically and sociologically unbelievable fantasy.
@James S: I take it maths ain’t your strong point. If it takes 111.2875 sq. mtrs to feed a person, then every square kilometre (=1 MILLION squ. metres) will feed 8985 people. So 6.6million sq. km. would feed 54 billion people, i.e. about 9 times the current population of the whole world, or nearly a thousand times the current pop. of Britain. The 241,000 sq.km. you say we have would feed over 2 billion – still 30 times our current population. Which means that (assuming your basic figures are correct) only about 3% of the land area needs to be arable for us to feed ourselves.
I enjoy Sci-Fi as much as anyone, but let’s be worried for the right reasons, not carried away by paranoid fantasies.
I agree with most of the article. Until a few years ago however I was opposed to nuclear power, but James Lovelock makes a compelling case that maybe we shouldn’t be. Coal/oil/gas fired power is more dangerous than nuclear, and conservation/wave/wind/solar has not yet filled the vacumn that fossil fuels will leave behind.
As for GMOs we are faced with a dreadful choice. It does not seem credible to me that organic can feed the world. However there are risks with GMOs. We are considering here genetic variations that could not happen under the normal process of evolution and so are likely to be more vulnerable to disease and generally weakening our food chain. Added to that the commercial pressures to make a quick profit, which as we have seen in the financial sector need to be properly regulated at great expense and which the business lobby will campaign against.
Fundamentally the problems we face are caused by population growth and unsustainable consumption, and it is hard to see in a democracy that anyone has both the nerve and the popularity to tackle this.
*blush* Normally quite good at maths.
Thanks for pointing out the error. Should’ve been a bit suspect given we fed a pop bigger than that historically Doh.
Anyway, you’d expect a vastly generous estimate given the assumptions (all land in UK is arable & only requiring enough land to provide veg not calories).
Still 23% of UK land IS arable so assuming the other figure is remotely ball-park the UK is in a position to emulate Cuba for food production.
*grin* although I reckon it’d take a rather illiberal solution to get most of the UK pop wielding a shovel.
Thank you all for your contributions. It has achieved my objective that was simply to start people thinking about possible scenarios. Some thing will turn out okay and others might require a lot of fucused attention to remedy.