2050: Things you can do now, and why you should do them now.

Note: This was also posted on my new Substack page (click here). Please bookmark that page as I may eventually stop posting here.

The last two or three posts have been heavy on the data, and being a nerd, I was intending to dive a little deeper into the numbers in this post. But I realised I have probably presented enough information in the last few posts to wrap this up with some advice and guidance for citizens (spoiler alert: VOTE!) and governments, backed by high-level facts and information.

So what does the literate but non-scientific citizen in a democracy need to take from all this as we all head to elections over the next few years?

The IEA report described in this series of posts promotes the idea that technology will save us, so we won’t have to change our habits, much.

But the problem is that several of the technologies required are unproven, expensive energy hogs. If any one of them doesn’t pan out, we may have to change our habits to a much more significant degree, in a much bigger hurry than anticipated now. This in turn requires convincing governments and politicians that citizens will support these painful changes. And the time available may be shorter than we thought, if recent floods across the US South, Europe and elsewhere are any indication of how quickly things are changing; people caught up in these disasters have indeed had to change their habits much more suddenly and drastically than anyone expected.

Figure 2.32 in the IEA report (click here) shows gigatonnes of CO₂ abated, sorted by technology, and further shows the state of readiness of these technologies. The objective is to eliminate 460 Gt CO₂ of cumulative emissions over the next 25 years. The good news is that 292 Gt CO₂ can be eliminated using technologies that are available and commercial today, with the only constraint being how fast we can implement them: these are solar and wind power, electric cars, and heat pumps.

The less good news is that most of the remaining technologies are at demonstration or prototype scale today. Technologies at the demonstration stage include electric trucks (arguably just about commercial as I have seen electric delivery vehicles from IKEA and others on my city’s streets); carbon capture (CCUS) for the production of cement, legacy fossil fuel energy, steel, and chemicals; and liquid biofuels via the Fischer-Tropsch pathway (a subject for another day). These technologies are expected to abate about 79 Gt CO₂.

Technologies at the prototype stage are expected to abate 60 Gt: biofuels or bioenergy with CCUS where there is a “double counting” allowed if the biomass is regrown; steel production including electrified primary steel, shipping, and direct air capture (DACCS). DACCS in particular is expected to take out 12.5 Gt, even though it is still at the prototype stage and is, furthermore, among the costliest approaches in terms of dollars per tonne removed. I am sure the costs will drop as it is scaled up, but again the issue is whether we can afford to wait that long.

Another pathway is hydrogen, made from water using green electricity. But the electrical energy needed for hydrogen by 2050 (Figure 2.16) is a staggering 12,314 TWh, more than building heat, cooking, light duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks combined (11,156 TWh). By way of comparison, energy use for my 100 m² apartment in a 1920’s vintage rowhouse, with heating and cooling entirely by electricity, was 12,724 kWh in the 12 months ended November 6, 2024. Hydrogen generation is thus predicted to be a billion times (1,000,000,000 times) larger than this. (I had to go back to the data to be sure I hadn’t accidentally added a few zeros here.) The justification for spending so much of our precious green power, close to 40% of total wind and solar power in 2050, on hydrogen generation needs to be made much more clearly.

So what will increased societal change look like?

First, it is all very well to say we will replace all cars with electric cars. But urban gridlock isn’t going to allow for all those cars, regardless of energy source. While citizens in smaller communities will still need individually-owned private vehicles, congested urban cores need massively improved all-electric public transit systems (rapid rail systems supported by local trams and busses) which make better use of the available electrical power. Between cities, high-speed rail, well integrated with urban transportation infrastructure, will be more effective than short-haul aviation. Meanwhile, if you can, drive less, take public transit or a car-sharing service, walk or cycle.

Second, the current housing shortage across the industrialised world is not going to get better without billions of square metres of new residential floor space. In turn this is going to mean smaller homes in the industrialised world. Approximately a third of the new urban population will be in Africa, where residential space per capita needs to grow; but in the industrialised world it is no longer sensible to pave over good agricultural land so families of three or four can live in suburban homes built on 60’ by 120’ lots (670 m²). While I am not advocating 36 m² per capita, I think there is room to increase space efficiencies which will lead to reduced heating and cooling loads per capita. And apartments or townhouses, with fewer outside walls exposed to the elements, require less energy per square metre than the classic standalone bungalow or split-level home which is exposed on all sides. So are you planning a move? Consider an urban space with easy access via non-carbon mobility approaches to essentials such as employment, parks, schools, churches and shopping.

And while on the topic of your current or future home, investments in heat pumps and better insulation, windows and doors will improve your carbon footprint and save you money in the long run. The problem is the savings will take a long time to pay back the costs, given today’s electricity prices. This is an easy fix that requires government subsidies and incentives to move forward more quickly, fixes that should be implemented because they are relatively cheap per tonne of CO₂ abated, but meanwhile when shopping for home improvements, it might make sense to upgrade to the more climate-friendly solution.

Finally, there is the issue of nuclear power. If your over-riding concern is carbon and climate change, then nuclear holds a lot of promise. But the issues remain, mainly that a small accident leaves a huge mess behind, witness Chernobyl and Fukushima. Building these huge plants is also very expensive and very time consuming, and the cost of power generated is much higher than with other options. Should we be spending so much time and money here, for a costly and dangerous solution? A vigorous debate is needed.

Essentially this all describes many large European and Asian cities today. So it is all possible, if governments take the steps needed. Voters are the ones who will convince the politicians.

So if you are worried about the world your children and grandchildren will inherit, push back when you hear about the latest and greatest technological saviour just over the horizon, and look to local solutions where you can make a change, even a small one, in the short term. Small improvements made early will add up over the years and may be better than a large improvement in 2048 or 2052; a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 

I recall thinking, when Katrina destroyed New Orleans, that surely that was the incentive needed for the industrialised world to start changing tack. Here was a climate disaster in the heart of the USA! I was obviously hopelessly naïve in this; the question is how many Hurricane Helenes or videos of torrents carrying houses and cars downriver will it take to change the public mood. I remain cautiously optimistic.

Reference: International Energy Agency (2021), Net Zero by 2050, IEA, Paris: Net Zero by 2050 Scenario - Data product - IEA. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.