Another Future Scenario

This is from the e-newsletter of the Institute for Alternative Futures:

The Unholy Trinity Scenario
By IAF Senior Futurist Bob Olson and IAF Futurist Craig Bettles

The world takes a turn for the worse over the decade ahead as an unholy trinity of peak oil, rapid climate change and global economic disarray roils governments worldwide. Few imagined the disruptions this unholy trinity would unleash. And no one imagined the positive developments that only such a disaster could trigger.

The Institute for Alternative Futures is currently developing a scenario on the triple threats mentioned above. The possibility that these three threats grow in tandem to destabilize the current global order is real. Yet, paradoxically, this seemingly disastrous scenario could contain the seeds of a better future for humanity.

The scenario forecasts that we have nearly reached the peak of global oil production and are now on an "undulating plateau" that may slightly increase production over the years ahead but is rapidly depleting existing fields. By 2015, it becomes clear that the global supply of conventional oil and natural gas cannot keep pace with fast growing demand. Oil prices skyrocket, and inflation spikes, creating disarray in a global economy still reeling from the bursting of the U.S. housing and credit bubbles.

The scenario also forecasts that the impacts of climate change come on faster and more strongly than anticipated in the conservative forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Thawing tundra releases large amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Rising water temperatures reduce the ability of the oceans to absorb more carbon. Melting ice creates lakes under the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland, allowing ice to slide into the ocean and cause a sudden rise in sea level.

With the possibility of catastrophic climate change looking all too real, climate concerns block the development of all but the richest deposits of oil shale and heavy tar sands in countries like Canada and Venezuela. Taking these large reserves out of production makes the energy situation all the more severe. And depressed economic conditions make it difficult to invest in new energy sources.

Circumstances like these could lead to scapegoating, ruthless pursuit of narrow self-interest, resource wars, and other pathological responses. But there is also a possibility that global disruptions this large could create the impetus for a better global system. These powerful, self-inflicted problems could force people everywhere to rethink their values and priorities and mobilize for change.

A positive outcome would be more likely to the extent that widespread positive images exist about "how the future could work out for the best" despite severe problems. The scenario IAF is developing will explore some of these positive images. Imagine, for example these problems motivating the global community to come together and take action on a scale unseen since the World Wars of the 20th century. Imagine:

• massive investments in environmentally advanced technologies that use energy more efficiently in buildings, transportation and industry -- because improving energy efficiency costs less than any kind of new energy supply;
• global scale X-Prize-type competitions jointly sponsored by the U.S., China and the EU with huge rewards for achieving breakthroughs in low-cost, non-fossil fuel energy sources;
• a rapid expansion of social entrepreneurship, and strong job creation in areas like energy efficiency and renewable energy; a strengthening of local community as high transportation costs favor compact development over urban sprawl and act to revitalize local and regional production;
• massive Internet-driven educational campaigns on conserving, cost-saving behaviors; efforts by all the major world religions to counter excessive materialism and emphasize that happiness comes primarily from loving relationships, friendships, meaningful work, continuous learning, and acts of altruism and service.

We welcome your suggestions for positive ideas and initiatives to include in this scenario.

Let them know what you think!

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog

Comments

[Gale Whitaker]

Here is a list of stuff we need to do:
1. Stop building and upgrading freeways.
2. Only hybrid autos should be leagal.
3. Long haul trucks should be outlawed (use trains instead).
4. All air travel should be stopped except for intercontenental.
5. Only green construction should be allowed.
6. All commuting to work except on public transportation should be outlawed.
7. No sales tax should be charged for bicycles, electric bicycles or any two wheeler that gets 60 MPG.
7. Solar hot water systems should be added to all structures.
8. The construction of nuclear power plants should be subsidized by the government.

[Tom Craver]

From statistics I've seen, rail isn't all that great compared to a car, *provided* the car is carrying 4 people.

A train - fully loaded - might get 150mpg per passenger. A car getting 35mpg, with 4 passengers, is 140mpg per passenger.

I haven't seen energy/CO2 figures for trucks vs cargo trains, but I'd extrapolate from the fact that a "loaded" car with decent mileage is about as efficient as a loaded train that trucks probably not a lot worse than a train on a mpg per ton basis.

Planes also aren't that much worse than rail or cars, on a per passenger mile basis - it's on a per hour basis that they fall down. So you are correct that prohibiting domestic flights (in favor of trains I expect?) would save energy/reduce CO2, by limiting how many miles people could travel in a set period of time, and reducing total travel by making it much less convenient.

I don't think we'd need to make that prohibition if we only consider energy efficiency - energy prices would drive the cost of travel up enough to take care of that aspect. However, it might be done for limiting CO2 if we get into an obvious climate crisis (i.e. something like sea levels rising 1 meter and flooding lots of coastal areas - barn door, horses, etc).

I'd rather we get fusion working, and use that to power production of carbon neutral fuels, and keep convenient travel.

[Tom Craver]

Correction - jets are significantly worse than cars or trains, especially if the latter are fully loaded, which they often are not, while planes are very often near capacity.

But a jet might get only 10-15mpg per passenger, vs maybe 50-70mpg per passenger for a car carring 2 people, so yeah, planes are worse on a per mile basis as well. But again, the big fall down is on a per time basis, by making long distance travel convenient.

[Brian]

fuel efficiency of trucks versus trains etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

Mpg per person typical
472.48-900 mpg per person on trains typical (British and Europe)
although relatively empty trains in the US is far less.

freight efficiency is by ton-miles per gallon
http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html

Intercity trucks require on average about 3,400 BTUs per ton-mile of cargo (41 ton-miles per gallon.

http://www.energycommission.org/files/finalReport/III.4.a%20-%20Heavy-Duty%20Trucks.pdf

Rail is about 3-10 times more efficient than trucks in terms of ton-miles per gallon.

[Tom Craver]

A lot of those super-high passenger-mpg numbers seem not entirely relevant to long haul passenger trains. E.g. they include standing passengers and high levels of occupancy, or they ignore electricity distribution losses.

Others are based on technical advances that may be applicable - light weight double decker coaches, regenerative braking, etc - but which will certainly take a lot of investment.

The number cited for Amtrak was 39 passenger mpg - not much better than one person in a moderately fuel efficient car. Obviously there's room for substantial improvement in that number. But for really long distance trains, you'll also need to add some overhead for dining, sleeping, increased luggage, etc.

Also, trains run on tracks that require a lot of maintenance, especially for high speed rail. That's fairly labor intensive, even with modern machines. Each worker is a consumer of energy, so that energy also needs to be counted against trains - i.e. that's energy not available to support other useful activities.