Okay, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray blinked last month when it came to taking a big step forward in building into Seattle and opening the way for an evolution from single-family housing to density (aka condo land).
Was he wrong to back down? What will urban and suburban life be like in, say, 40 years?
Well, if we do nothing to curb our green house gas emissions … they’ll look a lot like they do now but warmer, drier and probably very very expensive to live in or buy into. After all, climate change will drive people from the southwest north into Oregon and Washington.
But what would our cities and outlying areas look like if we flipped a switch and started today weaning ourselves from fossil fuels? We’d also have to develop the new technologies for running a modern world as well as the political will to get there.
The science website ResearchGate dug up a study from 2010 called “A sustainable energy scenario for the United States: Year 2050” and recently interviewed the lead researcher, Bruce Edward Tonn, a professor in the department for political science at the University of Tennessee.
ResearchGate was digging deeper into sustainability after President Obama announced his Clean Power Plan. Tonn summarized his “positive scenario” paper for ResearchGate:
This paper started with a question: is a fossil fuel free world imaginable and plausible. The answer is yes.
Our scenario has a mix of energy sources, including solar, wind, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, and biomass and includes a pathway for how these energy sources can replace fossil fuels over time. The scenario also includes substantial assumptions about the improvement of energy efficiency and major changes in land use and transportation. Gone would be the typical American suburb, replaced by sustainable low density developments and high density urban cores. The scenario envisions that meeting future energy needs demands these kinds of changes in addition to the changes in energy sources.
Life would be quite different for many Americans. The suburban lifestyle of living in single family homes with manicured (and unproductive) lawns, driving to work, to school, to everywhere would be gone. For these individuals, their world would become much more self-sufficient and sustainable (and place demands upon their time and habits) if they continued to live in their transformed subdivisions, or they would need to adapt to an urban lifestyle. Those already living in major cities would find life easier, quieter, less polluted, and healthier.
Now, here is a glimpse of some of the local ramifications of a hotter planet:
Jake Ellison can be reached at 206-448-8334 or jakeellison@seattlepi.com. Follow Jake on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Jake_News. Also, swing by and *LIKE* his page on Facebook.
If Google Plus is your thing, check out our science coverage here.
from The Big Science Blog http://ift.tt/1DO1LYq
Okay, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray blinked last month when it came to taking a big step forward in building into Seattle and opening the way for an evolution from single-family housing to density (aka condo land).
Was he wrong to back down? What will urban and suburban life be like in, say, 40 years?
Well, if we do nothing to curb our green house gas emissions … they’ll look a lot like they do now but warmer, drier and probably very very expensive to live in or buy into. After all, climate change will drive people from the southwest north into Oregon and Washington.
But what would our cities and outlying areas look like if we flipped a switch and started today weaning ourselves from fossil fuels? We’d also have to develop the new technologies for running a modern world as well as the political will to get there.
The science website ResearchGate dug up a study from 2010 called “A sustainable energy scenario for the United States: Year 2050” and recently interviewed the lead researcher, Bruce Edward Tonn, a professor in the department for political science at the University of Tennessee.
ResearchGate was digging deeper into sustainability after President Obama announced his Clean Power Plan. Tonn summarized his “positive scenario” paper for ResearchGate:
This paper started with a question: is a fossil fuel free world imaginable and plausible. The answer is yes.
Our scenario has a mix of energy sources, including solar, wind, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, and biomass and includes a pathway for how these energy sources can replace fossil fuels over time. The scenario also includes substantial assumptions about the improvement of energy efficiency and major changes in land use and transportation. Gone would be the typical American suburb, replaced by sustainable low density developments and high density urban cores. The scenario envisions that meeting future energy needs demands these kinds of changes in addition to the changes in energy sources.
Life would be quite different for many Americans. The suburban lifestyle of living in single family homes with manicured (and unproductive) lawns, driving to work, to school, to everywhere would be gone. For these individuals, their world would become much more self-sufficient and sustainable (and place demands upon their time and habits) if they continued to live in their transformed subdivisions, or they would need to adapt to an urban lifestyle. Those already living in major cities would find life easier, quieter, less polluted, and healthier.
Now, here is a glimpse of some of the local ramifications of a hotter planet:
Jake Ellison can be reached at 206-448-8334 or jakeellison@seattlepi.com. Follow Jake on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Jake_News. Also, swing by and *LIKE* his page on Facebook.
If Google Plus is your thing, check out our science coverage here.
from The Big Science Blog http://ift.tt/1DO1LYq
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire