World Economic Forum’s Post Climate Change Utopia Reads like a Homeless Tent City

Lots of wood and recycled materials used for construction, lots of shared facilities, less use of electricity, less private car ownership and private ownership of goods, in this city of the future.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Obligatory ride sharing, less living space, more facility sharing, less ownership of goods, no car, far less privacy.

This is what 2030 could look like if we win the war on climate change

31 Oct 2019
Ida Auken Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget)

By 2030, your CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced. Meat on your dinner table will be a rare sight. Water and the air you breathe will be cleaner and nature will be in recovery. The money in your wallet will be spent on being with family and friends, not on buying goods. Saving the climate involves huge change, but it could make us much happier at the same time. 

Right now, we are losing the fight against climate change – but what would winning look like? What is life like in a green world? 

Here’s one version of a “CO-topia”: 

You walk out of your front door in the morning into a green and liveable city, where concrete has dwindled and green facades and parks are spreading. If you choose to call a car, an algorithm will calculate the smartest route for the vehicle and pick up a few other people on the way.

Since the city council’s ban on private cars in the city, lots of new mobility services have arrived. It is cheaper for you not to own your own car, which, in turn, reduces congestion so you arrive at your destination more easily and quickly and don’t have to spend time looking for somewhere to park. You can also choose to travel by bike, scooter or public transit. 

The air you breathe in the city is cleaner because there are far fewer cars on the streets and the rest are electric – all electricity is green in fact. There is less noise and much more space for parks and pedestrian streets since all the parking space became available. For lunch you can choose from dozens of exciting meals – most of them are plant-based, so you eat more healthily and are more environmentally friendly than when lunch meant choosing between five types of burger.

Single-use plastics are a distant memory. You still grab a to-go coffee, but it comes in a reusable cup that you turn in at the next coffee shop to get your deposit back. The same system applies to plastic bottles and other take-away containers. At home, all of your household appliances have been turned into service contracts. If your dishwasher is about to break down, it is no longer your problem. The service provider already knows about the problem and has sent someone to fix it. When the machine no longer works, the provider picks up the old machine and installs a new one.

People are trying out new types of living arrangements with more shared functions and spaces. This means that more people can afford to live in cities. More houses are built with wood, which makes them nicer to live in and much better for the climate than concrete buildings.

When you buy something, you buy something that lasts; you buy it because you really need it and want to take care of it. But because you buy far fewer things, you can actually afford products of better quality and design. “Refuse, reuse, reduce, recycle” is the new way of looking at products: if you don’t need it, you refuse; if you buy it, you will use it again and again; and in the end, you recycle it. All packaging is made from three types of plastic or other new materials, so recycling is easier these days.

Agriculture has changed dramatically, as the new plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy products have made it harder for traditional animal-based products to compete. Much of the land formerly used to produce animal feedstock has become available. As people in cities have started to value going into nature, tourism, hunting and angling now offer new types of income for people living in rural areas. Forests and nature are again spreading across the globe. People travel more in their region and by train, so air traffic has started to decline. Most airlines have switched to electrofuels, biofuels or electricity.

Best of all, because citizens have stopped buying so much stuff, they have more money to spend on other things. This new disposable income is spent on services: cleaning, gardening, help with laundry, healthy and easy meals to cook, entertainment, experiences and fabulous new restaurants. All of these things give the average modern person more options and more free time to spend with their friends and families, working out, learning new skills, playing sports or making art – you name it and there’s more time to do it.

If we consider what the future could be, picking up the mantle against climate change may not seem so bad after all.

License and Republishing
World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with our 
Terms of Use.
Written by
Ida Auken, Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget)
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/what-happens-if-we-beat-climate-change/

Lots of wood and recycled materials used for construction, more shared facilities, lower cost of residency, less use of electricity, no private car ownership and less private ownership of goods.

What author Ida Auken is describing is a slum or tent city.

Here’s a hint for you Ida; most people don’t choose to live this way, of their own free will.

Advertisements

154 thoughts on “World Economic Forum’s Post Climate Change Utopia Reads like a Homeless Tent City

      • Yeah, the author left out some parts.
        ‘The police presence has increased such that uniforms are everywhere. A sign on each corner lists number to call to report anyone who fails to comply with the hundreds of rules also posted nearby. You must use a public phone since private phones have been banned. Average wait in the phone line is 20-30 minutes since not reporting something regularly is considered suspicious.
        Two or three people you know inexplicably disappear each week, but no one mentions it. Reminders to “Smile” are also everywhere, and since a frown is punishable everyone who walks by has the same rigid grin and glances furtively from face to face or to the numerous “Happiness Mirrors” on every door…’

    • Suggest they pilot this approach in two US states. California and New York.

      1. Ban all cars. Use Uber Rickshaw to get around.

      2. All electricity to come from windmills and solar panels erected within the state. No outside sourcing of electricity.

      3. Ban all meat.

      4. Close all airports in those two states.

      4. Five year minimum trial. At this time the population can tell us how happy they are.

    • Nope.

      Plenty of cars in the Big Meg. The first prep Dredd arrests gets locked up on ‘Devil’s Island’ which is a prison in the middle of a major freeway which using the constant stream of cars going past to stop people escaping.

      Mega-City One is a lot of things, but woke isn’t one of them

  1. Who makes this rubbish up? The mass mount of job losses is mind blowing…..

    More houses are built with wood 😐 Most airlines have switched to electrofuels, biofuels or electricity 😐 what fuel will create such a large amount of electricity?? Solar, wind? Unicorn tears?

    As people in cities have started to value going into nature, tourism, “hunting” and angling now offer new types of income for people living in rural areas. Forests and nature are again spreading across the globe.

    How will there be any tree’s if we are building everything from wood?? Hunting LOLOL Im sure the greens have something to say about that…

      • Steel will go away, plastics will go away, rubber will become far less resilient. All Wire insulation will vanish. Houses/Structures built of wood will deplete carbon sinks, be susceptible to fire destruction and wind damage, and window glass without polymer sheeting will be unsafe. Tornadoes, hurricanes, strong winds and Hail find doing damage to concrete practically impossible.

        Airlines powered by electricity would require batteries the size of the cargo hold, eliminating the space for baggage and claiming the vast majority of overall gross vehicle weight resulting in either a far more limited potential travel distance or a decrease in passenger capacity causing an increase in ticket prices.

        Hunting would likely increase out of necessity as it would become the only source for animal meat protein. Billions of hunters sourcing food WILL have an overall negative effect on the natural environment as species are hunted into extinction.

    • “hunting” with Pentax no doubt. No one will be allowed to kill anything. Picking mushrooms will probably be as near to hunting as you are allowed to do.

      “The money in your wallet will be spent on being with family and friends”

      Even spending time with your family will be taxed because they all have carbon footprints and it’s your fault for having a family, you selfish bastard.

      Why do all these “green ” utopias begin with the letters d-i-s ???

      • “Best of all, because citizens have stopped buying so much stuff, they have more money to spend on other things.”
        Did they resurrect Yogi Berra for this winner?
        Well, I for one will spend whatever money I save from not buying stuff…on other stuff.
        (cue the venerable philosopher George Carlin)

    • “CO-topia”
      Last time I looked CO is carbon monoxide, not so good for respiration .
      Are they subliminally advocating gas chambers?

    • It seems the advocates of this strategy have missed the fundamental lesson from the original “3 Little Pigs”. (and probably many other lessons as well)
      Since wooden housing is far less durable than stone, and only slightly better than grass or daub-and-wattle, why would you want one of these shanties when the “wolf” comes howling at your door?

    • “More houses are built with wood.” Somebody tell the author quick that trees are too precious to use for building houses. /sarc

    • THE GREEN REICH – October 31, 2019
      by Drieu Godefridi
      (Author)

      Ban everything we can, eco-tax the rest: this could be the motto of the environmentalists in politics. If human CO2 is the problem, then Man must be restrained, controlled, suppressed in every one of his CO2-emitting activities: that is to say, in the totality of his actions.

      Researching environmentalism from the root of its anti-humanist ethic to the staggering heights of its actual demands — banning cars, aircraft, meat, nuclear energy, rural life, the market economy, modern agriculture, in short, post-Industrial-Revolution modernity.

      Drieu Godefridi shows that environmentalism defines a more radical ideology in its liberticidal, anti-economic and ultimately humanicidal claims than any totalitarian ideology yet seen.

      “Dividing humanity by a factor of ten” is the environmentalist ideal. “It is the people who enslave themselves, who cut their own throats.”
      Etienne de La Boétie, “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” (1549). PhD (Sorbonne),

      Drieu Godefridi has authored many books, on gender, the IPCC and environmentalism.
      https://www.amazon.com/dp/2930650249

      • Allan,

        Thanks, global liberalism is not for me. This nonsense went out the door with Obama, let’s hope we can keep it that way.

        • RonS – a minor point of terminology – these people often masquerade as Liberals or Socialists or Progressives. In fact, they are typically Marxist totalitarians, and we know how that went down.

          Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and lesser tyrants like Pol Pot and other Tin Pots killed over 200 million souls in the 20th Century. It is inevitable that a murderous sociopath takes control when so much power is concentrated in one place.

          Current-day Marxists say “This time it will be different.” It won’t.

          • Allan,

            I appreciate your wisdom. I’m fairly new here and was looking over some of your work. Impressive. Some over this retired deplorables head, a work in progress.

            Thanks,

      • “dividing humanity by a factor of 10.” They actually want more than that. When I did research for a paper in `95 I discovered that they want to reduce humanity by a factor of over 35-to 200 million, less than existed on the whole planet pre-Roman Empire.

        • Re population reduction: I’ve always wondered what the minimum population necessary for a technically advanced civilization actually is. I’ll bet it’s significantly higher than the population control folks advocate!

          • I do know for a fact that at the population level they want, they would have no phones, TV, Internet, social media, and even if they were at the top of the heap, they would have no clean water, sewer, air conditioning, ice, no fruits or vegetables out of season or grown more than about ten miles away, etc. etc. etc. Even peons in the US live better than kings and queens two hundred years ago when the world population first hit the billion mark. So my guess for our current tech level, it would be about three billion, minimum.

  2. They never think that they themselves will be living that way, no, just the little people, not the elites like the author. They will be living the life of luxury, flying to exotic tropical vacations in private jets.

    • They never think that they themselves will be living that way, no, just the little people, not the elites like the author. They will be living the life of luxury, flying to exotic tropical vacations in private jets.

      Ex-effing-xactly!

      And they’ll have us under their thumbs, both with laws/regulations and 24/7/365 electronic monitoring of virtually everything we say/do/go/read. This way, the rich can enjoy their wealth because not only will they know who the ‘bad’ guys are (i’m sure private ownership of guns will be a thing of the past by then), we won’t be in their way at airports or on roads, and we’ll be tucked away like cattle in cities living in wooden skyscrapers while they enjoy their mansions in their rich enclaves out away from these COtopias where us maggots, who pay their monthly rent fees for the things we need, live

      • Digging out my yellow vest and sharpening my pitchfork!

        All this to “counter” ONE degree of natural variation since 1850. Have we gone barking MAD?

    • Patrick
      No matter how valid concerns about Agenda 21 may be…Do not ever link me to any website that has an Anti Vaccination and Pro Voodoo agenda…
      And also spare me the absolute BS within to links that claim to have evidence that Michelle Obama is a Man…
      Unless linking to The Onion or Babylon Bee.

    • Here’s another UN document I posted about yesterday in a cold thread, and should have posted here:
      ————-

      I hope WUWT will run a refutation of this UN document. (Or has it done so already?):
      Here’s a paragraph by a commenter, M. Clark, on the Seeking Alpha financial site, followed by quotes from the UN paper:

      UN Climate Change News, 6 September 2018 – A major report released by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate finds that many people are significantly under-estimating the benefits of cleaner, climate-smart growth. Bold climate action could deliver at least 26 trillion USD in economic benefits through to 2030, compared with business-as-usual.
      —————
      “Climate action and socio-economic progress are mutually supportive. Yet, despite some encouraging momentum, we are not making progress fast enough. Climate change is running faster than we are.”, said António Guterres during remarks at the launch of the report. https://unfccc.int/news/climate-smart-growth-could-deliver-26-trillion-usd-to-2030-finds-global-commission

      Key ref: The 2018 Report of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate
      https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/
      extracts from summary: https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/executive-summary/

      “We are entering a new era of economic growth. This approach can deliver growth that is strong, sustainable, balanced, and inclusive. It is driven by the interaction between rapid technological innovation, sustainable infrastructure investment, and **** increased resource productivity ****.”

      This is our ‘use it or lose it’ moment. Investing the US$90 trillion to build the right infrastructure now will deliver a new era of economic growth. […] Getting it wrong, on the other hand, will lock us into a high-polluting, low productivity, and deeply unequal future.

      Smarter urban development: Better urban planning and strategic infrastructure investment, *** particularly the expansion of public and non-motorised transport networks ***, can overcome bottlenecks to economic growth – such as congestion and air pollution – for more liveable cities.

      A circular industrial economy: From 1970 to 2010, annual global extraction of materials grew from almost 22 to 70 billion tonnes […] Today, 95% of plastic packaging material value—as much as US$120 billion annually—is lost after first use.13 Policies which encourage more circular, efficient use of materials (especially metals, petrochemicals and construction materials) could enhance global economic activity, as well as reduce waste and pollution.

      and lastly

      But, overall, we are still not making progress fast enough toward a new climate economy. The policy hand-brake is still on. Policy-makers are not taking sufficiently bold action to escape the legacy economic systems. [..] Fossil fuels as a share of final energy consumption remains stubbornly around 80% – roughly the same percentage as at the beginning of the 1990s. […] Mixed policy signals and hedging is slowing the momentum driving the new growth approach. It also triggers market uncertainty and increases stranded asset risk. […] The cost of hedging – taking action, but too slowly and with mixed signals to the market – is rising.

  3. Some people are rich, some are poor. How unfair! Everybody should be poor.
    Democratic Presidential Candidates, that includes you.

  4. Hey Ida,
    This may sound radical to you, but is any of this by free choice? You said the city council banned private ownership of cars, no freedom of food choices, no freedom of building materials for your home, etc. The coffee shop “owner” has to accept the cups from every other store, but who buys the new ones to replace worn out cups? What if some coffee shops are better at cleaning and sanitizing their reusable mugs?
    If this Utopia is so grand as you envision, why not set up neighborhoods with these restrictions and see if there are people lining up for that style of living. If it truly is as freeing and wonderful as you believe, then it will organically spread throughout society.

    I suspect you know the answer though. The description sounds very similar to the outward trappings of life in Orwell’s 1984, and that was created to his the horrors of the world as depicted.

      • 1984 not a guide – that is funny.

        Another Utopia book, much overlooked, is B. F. Skinner’s Walden II. Yes, that B. F. Skinner.
        In Walden II, a professor form the university comes to a commune of sorts that a friend has gotten established nearby. Everything is idyllic and everyone is happy and laboring away at a modest amount of planned work.

        The concept behind the happy village is this. Skinner builds upon his psychological insights about conditioning to realize that we are all a great sum of conditioning circumstances that have happened to us across our lives.
        Skinner ponders: if we are a sum of our conditioning experiences, and the experiences are random, then what if we had a bunch of Intellectual Overlords design and present these experiences intentionally, in a purposeful planned way? Like a training curriculum for some job or skill, but our psychology and our desires in our social world.

        So, the Walden II commune is developed according to this.

        Skinner actually seems to believe it would be fine to engineer people’s psychology this way to create a utopia type society. Walden II is fiction, but Skinner has a companion book in which he scholarly and seriously presents this technology. That book is “Beyond Freedom and Dignity.”

        The reason for the title is that he believes we need to look beyond concepts such as “freedom” and “dignity” in order to develop this utopia world. Hey, at least this pointy-headed intellectual was honest.

        These books may be out there in free pdf or some easy to access form. i encourage you all to look into these.

    • I’ve often said ‘utopiad’ like this should be set-up on university campuses first to see how it flies – and crashes and burns. “Whatta’ ya mean I can’t buy a new iPhone?”

      Or better still, “WHAT DO YOU MEAN NO INTERNET OR SOCIAL MEDIA?????” Well, if you can’t own an internet device, what do you expect?

  5. This woman describes a world in constant recession [aka depression] as a positive. Where do jobs come from in that world? This is almost the definition of dystopia; and is anyone really happy? Maybe in Denmark this is what the good life can look like, but don’t bring it here.

    • The last time they got a chance to impose communism, it failed because the people could see how much better off people were in non-communist countries.

      This time, they’re working hard to make people believe that having a decent standard of living a sin, so communism will look good in comparison. And to ensure that all countries are dragged down at the same time, so there’ll be nowhere better to compare your sh*thole commune to.

      • Darned if this does not explain a whole lot. Me out here in the suburbs totally unaware of how immoral I have been all my life, and in need of repentance.

  6. Hey, put me down for loads of hunting and my increase in hobby activity. My hobby is racing V8 cars flat out as often as possible. I could be persuaded to switch to a less harsh hobby by going over to V12s.
    Small question. What do we do with all the meat acquired from the hunting?

  7. What is stopping anyone living like this now if they wish? As for all the open space, won’t that be taken up by all the inefficient green energy generation and organic farming?

  8. In other words the peasants will be dirt poor. And the elite will be a new aristocracy. Golly golly gosh I always wanted to be a serf in the thirteenth century!! That’s always been my life’s ambition! Maybe if we are really lucky we can even bring back the black plague to prune back the excess population.

    By the way the thermometer in my back yard this morning was reading twenty degrees F. I live in Chicago. I don’t remember it ever being so cold so early.

    • Who here can imagine Elizabeth Warren, Bernie, Bill Gates, Bloomberg, Al Gore, Michael Mann, the Clintons….all living shoulder to shoulder w/ us lowly peasants?
      NEVER HAPPEN!
      ‘What is good for thee is not suitable for ME!’

      • Barbee
        BUT…BUT…BUT…

        We shall all be trying out… New Living Arrangements… so Al Tobacco and Bernie Socialista and Bloomers will throw open their 3 houses and mansions and it will all be groovy and hippy and we can spend many hours playing with the herd of Unicorn Ponies as we have heaps of time.
        ‘Cos no one has yet been approved by The World Future Job Council to be gifted one of the 15% of jobs left in this economy.

        This should be on every clear thinking exam everywhere in the world as an example of complete and utter Idiocy.

        Are we certain this is not From The Onion or Babylon Bee.

  9. They want us to live their dreams. I would rather live — or least strive to live — my own dreams. That’s what economic development is about — to obtain the resources to do just that.

    Greta’s dreams would become the world’s nightmare. Or, as I am sure has been said before, one person’s dream is another’s nightmare

  10. The World Economic Forum meets at Davos, Switzerland where a burger costs $48.
    President Trump gave Davos Man a little lesson in 2018 :

    President Trump arrives in Davos :

    • BonBon
      Is that Leo Di Caprio and Arnie on the way out to pick up a dozen burgers for their homies?
      Silly Me..No Way!
      They would use separate choppers of course.
      Though Take In…delivered by Leo’s private jet is always an option.

  11. If they can not stop fires in California now; how would they stop them when all the dwellings are made of wood. I remember reading about the great fires of Chicago, Baltimore, London and San Francisco (aftermath of an earthquake).

  12. I really tried to read all the way to the end, but my brain explosion warning alarms went off at the part where people will have more money because everyone buys fewer things.

    Do these numbnuts have any concept whatsoever about what money is? Hint – it represents a share in the total goods and services of the economy. Whether it’s gold, silver, fiat paper, or crypto, it is nothing more than a store of value. It’s a bit like having shares of a stock called The Economy. If the economy collapses, the share price collapses. In the Soviet bloc, lots of people had money, and not only that, but thanks to the wonders of a planned economy, everything had a low, “affordable” price. The only minor glitch was that the store shelves were empty.

    With no goods to buy, what are we going to be doing with the excess money, buying tickets to performance art?

    Without production of value, what is the source of income? Oh I forgot, under green socialism, everybody is distributed money from the source of money, the government, including those unwilling to work. We will pretend to work, and they will pretend to pay us.

    Because that worked out so well in the Soviet Union.

  13. Sounds like a cross between Hunger Games and Divergent.

    It is going to be difficult for people to keep voting for it.

    • What makes you think that you would still have the right to vote if these kind of people ever get the reins of power?

    • Editorial correction:

      “It is going to be difficult for people to keep voting”

      Fixed it for you. Opposition to socialism is treason. Since they speak in the name of the “People” elections are unnecessary.

  14. Crowding on roads is determined by the number of journeys made, not by the number cars owned (or not owned). Only if taxis are shared by people with different destinations the number of vehicles on the road is decreased. Having traveled about a bit I associate that concept with third-world countries.

    It has never been shown that a meat free diet is more healthy. Quite the contrary. Diabetes is a scourge affecting many people on the subcontinent, who are predominantly vegetarians. Conversely, innuit people used to live quite well on a vegitable-free diet of purely animal meats and fats. The fact that west Europeans are generally tall people is widely attributed to a diet rich in animal products.

    • The diabetes epidemic would end overnight with a healthy raw-vegan diet that cuts out all processed carbohydrates from pasta, potatoes, rice, bread, sweet pastries and the like. Eat carrot sticks, lettuce and apples for a locally sourced, eco-friendly diet. It will also limit your children’s growth so the next generation can live in smaller homes, need less calories overall and exhale less CO2.

      • locally sourced

        That means elk and deer where we live. Hay grows well and while
        we do not eat grass, cattle do.
        Carrots don’t do well in the rocks. For half the year,
        they are brought from Chile, a few thousand miles away.

      • “The diet of Benin is based on starchy roots (cassava, yams) and cereals. Large variations are observed between the north and the south of the country. In the south, the diet is mostly based on maize and fish, while in the north, traditional cereals (millet in particular) still have an important role and meat/milk products are more available. Rice is becoming increasingly important in urban areas, but also in rural areas.

        The per capita supply of starchy roots is very high; its share in the dietary energy supply has decreased slightly over the last four decades to the advantage of cereals.”

        Benin also has the lowest diabetis rate in the world (per 2017 data).

    • And the Eskimos in Greenland rarely put anything but seal in their moth. They have adapted to the environment to a degree where even their blood ores and wanes are close together to lower the average temperature in limbs, similar to the birds. However, they still feel nice and warm in bed 🙂
      There was an article here on WUWT I thing, where a psychologist ex plaint that mainly only meat supply the chemicals needed to grow brain.

    • Ed it isn’t about a healthy-diet…meat is a new boogeyman/bogeyman for the climate change crusaders. Uses more resources and generates cow farts.

    • Quote: “..For lunch you can choose from dozens of exciting meals – most of them are plant-based, so you eat more healthily…”

      That is B.S., according to the Healthline article linked below.
      https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/animal-vs-plant-protein#section2

      Allow me to quote from the linked article:

      “..For optimal health, your body needs all the essential amino acids in the right ratios.
      Animal protein sources, such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy, are similar to the protein found in your body.

      These are considered to be complete sources of protein because they contain all of the essential amino acids that your body needs to function effectively.

      On the contrary, plant protein sources, such as beans, lentils and nuts are considered to be incomplete, as they lack one or more of the essential amino acids that your body needs ..”
      …..
      …..
      …..

      “Bottom Line:
      All proteins are made up of amino acids, although the amount and type of each amino acid varies based on the protein source…”

      Ms. Auken does not appear to have any background in dietary science. She is likely merely parroting what she heard from others in the environmental/climate scare movement. Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

  15. The good news is we don’t have to give up meat.

    How will they keep all that extra green space trimmed? Certainly not with lawnmowers. We’ll keep all that public green space tidy by grazing sustainable sheep and cattle.

    Mmmmm… tasty! Nothing like a leg of lamb or a nice rib roast. Gotta keep the lawn maintenance crew level by eating the excess.

    I kind of like that part of the plan, though I’m not keen on dodging the cow plops when I go for a little bit of pickup ball in the park.
    .
    .
    .
    From the article: “People are trying out new types of living arrangements with more shared functions and spaces. This means that more people can afford to live in cities.”

    Only one problem. That’s a big unsupported assumption that people want to be herded into cities.

    Most people don’t want to live in cities. I know, because I moved out to a rural area just beyond the housing developments of the burbs. The population of our township has more than quadrupled in the 20 years we’ve been here and all of the farmland that surrounded us is now owned by developers. They are leasing it to farmers as they, one-by-one, run services to a plot and then fill it with single family housing.

    Most of the houses being built are 3,000 to 5,000 square feet and they are going up like mushrooms. Existing houses in the area sell in days of listing or even before they are listed. They don’t want 900-1,200 square feet apartments. Most of the houses are built on fractional acreage, a full acre, or more. People like a little elbow room. These people can well afford to live in cities. They choose not to.

    So for that quoted bit to come true, people will have to be rounded up at gunpoint and herded into those high density utopias. They are currently voting their preference with their wallet, and they are not voting for shoulder-to-shoulder-nose-to-butt-feet-over-head high density housing.

    That said, they are using a bit of recycled materials in this new construction, not by law but because it works out.

  16. Ida Auken’s visions are not in line with the communist Russia, no no, you have to go back to the Zar rule to find something as awful as the reality of her suggestions.
    However, politicians in Denmark can get away with anything. Sometimes there comes a brand new politician in the government with realistic and sensible philosophy, but after one or two months in parliament, he or she is conforming to the accepted norm. I remember one politician they could not brainwash, Mogens Glistrup. The parliament got so angry with him, not least because his party became the third largest, that they got the tax authorities to run a lawsuit against him. It was suggested that he owed $500,000 to the state and was jailed for a few years. The $500,000 was probably 1% of the value of his lawyer office, thus the jailing was purely political. It’s much the same as the democrats now trying to start impeachment President Trump for something pathetic, he most likely have not done.
    I told you the above because it is the same uniformity Politburo we see in most “civilized” western countries. Denmark is further down this road than most other. Denmark earns a lot of money on the industrial climate complex and has been able to home grow wind turbines to the extreme, because they can relay on nuclear and hydro from Sweden and Norway to sustain their wet dreams.

  17. Sounds to me like the ‘modern person’ in this scenario may be the survivors of the cull of 6.7 billion people who are no longer with us.

  18. By 2030, CO2 emissions will have increased greatly, especially in developing countries, but in developed ones as well, as the obvious foolishness of “green” energy will have been exposed some 7 or 8 years earlier. The IPCC will have long been disbanded, and only pockets of flat-earth types will still be haranguing us about “evil carbon fracking the planet”. There will have been a rebound economic effect of halting the foolish and entirely destructive war on climate, with economies mostly booming, especially in the US where the halt began much earlier, with Trump winning a 2nd term. Coal power will have increased, helping to spur economic growth, as well as an expansion in nuclear. Meanwhile, with CO2 increasing to perhaps 440 or even 450 ppm, plant growth will be spurred on even more. Climate-wise, there will have been a noticeable cooling, with some of the die-hard Climatards attempting to claim that this too being caused by CO2-driven “climate change”, but they will be mocked and ignored.

    • Bruce Cobb

      God I hope you are right, honesty I would love to never hear of the u.n. ipcc, greta 😩 or crackhead people like Ocasio, fake’Pocahontas and the most vile, xr….

      • Sunny
        Speaking of Buffy Ocasio Cortez.
        Did she not release some comic book or cartoon that has many, and eerie, similarities to this Danish fool and her ecological ‘masturbatory dream?
        The cartoon that told us of all the near religious and rapturous joy to be experienced by believers in The Green New Deal?
        Why Buffy Cortez?
        She who would Save The World from The Evil of Capital one trillion dollars of freebies at a time.

  19. It’s staggering to come here day after day and read these things where otherwise intelligent people pontificate on destroying civilization for a theory that has multitudes of glaring deficiencies.

    On a positive note a good friend I’ve been trying to slowly pull to sanity finally broke through and now at least thinks we need more info before doing anything rash. The truth may finally be getting it’s boots on!

  20. The author is one of the rulers. You are one of the ruled. Sort of medieval, isn’t it? Western Civilisation seems to be on a rapid de-evolution to a form of retro aristocracy.

    • I have observed that “environmentalism” or “progressivism” is about as reactionary an ideology as has ever come down the pipe. This idiot from Denmark is the classic example, all the while preening and boasting about the supposedly great utopia that will just magically when they”win” the (mythical) battle against “climate change.” What this person describes is exactly what it is: a tent city, absent sufficient electricity to sustain even basic existence. They want to take us back to the Dark Ages, that period of chaos after the fall of Rome in which people suffered economically and politically. Plagues, wars, etc. Not a good scenario at all.

    • I read a theory somewhere (here?) that Western Civilisation has made the world so safe, that those with no common sense or survival skills (regardless of IQ measurements), are able to survive and reproduce. The result is we are devolving into a less competent and functional society.

      Seems about right.

  21. My son and his girlfriend have just spent almost 3-weeks in Japan, and Taiwan. They have uploaded hundreds and hundreds of photos of all the delicious food they’ve been eating. And here’s a hint for all you Westerners who have been lectured about how ONLY Westerners eat meat … and especially RED meat … it’s all a LIE. The Eastern diet is JUST as meat-centric as the West’s. And beef abounds. Here’s another hint: the Eastern diet has NOT become “Westernized” … it’s ALWAYS been meat-centric. Because that’s the food which powers the human body and brain. You’ve all been LIED to about how the West are the only meat-eaters. Final hint: they don’t eat bugs either.

    • Thank you, Kenji, for that observation. The Japanese and Chinese eat a lot of pork, too, don’t they? Either way, it’s protein. And that is a good thing.

  22. By 2030 – – You walk out of your front door in the morning into a green and liveable city, where concrete has dwindled and green facades and parks are spreading.

    By 2130 perhaps. Only if it is a new city.
    In 10 years — 2030 — cities will look remarkable like they do today.

    • Sounds like “urban” nirvana of packed and stacked people isn’t quite the shangrila the urbanists envisioned. Hint: green facades wont help with the dehumanizing impacts of super high density living

  23. “Best of all, because citizens have stopped buying so much stuff, they have more money to spend on other things.”

    The only way citizens will buy less stuff is to limit cheap imports from coal-burning, CO2 spewing, low wage countries. W/o abundant and affordable energy, there will be no “money to spend on other things.” Doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure this out.

      • Don’t ask my wife that. She will say, clothes, handbags, wigs, shoes…I have nightmares about her shoes and handbags and wigs, there are so many! It’s no wonder we are skint!

      • So if I stop paying my bills, I will have more money to spend on other things. I’m not sure how that helps my personal situation, or the economy. It doesn’t look like a solution to anything.

      • Save it up and buy better and more durable stuff, save it for your future and 100s of other things that don’t end up as landfill a few seconds, minutes, weeks, months or years later.
        Buying crappy life limited products wastes energy at every step of the process between the quarry and the landfill site.

        Durable products on the other hand last a long time and can be repaired when parts do wear out, for example one well built washing machine that lasts 25 years will consume about one quarter the energy in manufacture of four life limited machines that only last about six rears before being replaced as they cannot be repaired.

  24. Poverty: Scrounge to live. Save your junk, you may need it later.
    Affluence: You can afford to waste things, you can always buy more.

    Green fantasy: Be affluent, but recycle. That sounds good in theory, but it’s unnatural. Why would somebody spend extra time, money and effort to recycle? Because they are forced to, either by economic penalties or psychological ones.

  25. “… they have more money to spend on other things.” Spot the logical error. If they’re not buying “stuff” nobody’s making it, so no jobs, including theirs!

  26. Reusable cups….

    It is the reusable straws I fear most. They are very difficult to clean, and I can see an entire nation struck down with a virulent disease spread by reusable straws.

    Ralph

    • Don’t worry, one-time-use plastic bags became banned per November 1st 2019 in Germany. There will be a short period for the shops to use up current stuck though.

      • Yes. They were banned here in Australia last year IIRC. At the time I said “We’ll see the multi-use bags appear on streets and in bins heading for landfill” and sure enough, I see multi-use bags on the streets and in bins going to landfill. Another side effect is more people take home their shopping in the shopping trolley, which are left out on the street to be collected by a pickup towing a special trailer designed to carry many shopping trolleys. This happened before but now there is more.

        • The shopping cards (which are worth about US$ 85 apiece) have “wandered off” so much here in the US that many grocers have a buried electronic ‘trip wire’ around their property that if the cart rolled past the wheels will lock up.

    • Sounds like “urban” nirvana of packed and stacked people isn’t quite the shangrila the urbanists envisioned. Hint: green facades wont help with the dehumanizing impacts of super high density living

  27. It is worth than we thought:
    Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is/

    First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes.

    My bold.

    When I was about five years old, I also had dreams like that.

  28. If and when the new self-appointed elites start living the way they all urge us to live, I would be willing to look at what they are peddling. Until then, I will not even look at it, let alone go along with it…

  29. HR (and several others) are correct in that the key point is that the gov will _make_ people do these things. Many of the items listed can and probably will happen…but voluntarily and without force being used. For example, increased auto-drive rides and/or ride sharing will probably happen. Also, the purchase of ‘stuff’ is decreasing as ‘having stuff’ becomes less of a status symbol – for example, clothes, china, furniture, silverware.
    I think that most people will want to live in the country and work remotely – but that houses will be more likely to be durable concrete instead of framed. They will probably have local produced power in areas where it is reasonable; solar in some climates local reactors in colder climes.
    But this future will be the result of individuals each making their own decisions for their own purposes and the cumulative effect of those decisions will be the ‘future culture’. This is strongly opposed to a central committee enforcing edicts of what it has decided is ‘good’.

    • Janet, it is pseudo voluntary. On the face of it, it will look like GND/IdaDream and similar is voluntary.
      However, and this gets a bit hard to digest for some. When prominent people like Ida Augen and AOC are serving their views with such rosy and dreamy words, it removes all rationality and skepticism in most of us, we all want to be supportive to the society. Many of us dream of a society that in principle resembles “Star Trek, The Next Generation”. During the 1930’s the German government build miles long five storage hotel rows along the coast and invited “the common people” to have holiday there. When families came there in the thousands, what they got was mainly adjustment to the society that the government preferred. As far as I remember a few hotels have been left in ruins for everyone to see. The people back then were in good faith, just like a lot of us have good faith today in the same sweet promises and threats by Ida, AOC and Greta.

      If people want to go the Ida/AOC way, that is how it shall be, but the officials must put all the cards on the table in a cost/benefit/objective manner and the press has to cover the aspects from left to right, giving people a serious understanding of what they vote for.
      It is first af I have become a pensioner, that I could write and speak to friend and the public with my skeptic view. The same goes for many, if not most here on WUWT. What that means is that people will almost only see, hear and read opinions in parallel with Agenda21.
      So no, in a real sense people do not voluntarily chose their destiny entirely – I think.

  30. They keep shoving articles about how great “Tiny Houses” are down our throats. About how people really really want to live in one.

    I get the feeling they are trying to talk us into them. If they can’t talk us into them we’ll end up there anyway.

  31. Ms. Auken apparently comes from Frederiksberg, an affluent part of Copenhagen. I wonder how much it resembles the fabled COtopia, and if she sees herself moving there.

  32. “less private ownership of goods.”

    That means to me more landlords except they won’t be renting housing, they’ll be renting household items.

    The math tells me that a dollar a month profit on a single stove rental times how ever many people in
    a given CO2opia could be some serious profit.
    – I see why this issue is so backed by rich people.

  33. Where would the money in our pockets come from ? No jobs, no deliveries because Lorries are banned, no food because tractors are banned, no heating because not enough energy on the grid, no roads because tarmac, concrete stone are banned

  34. It sounds like nothing more than someone starting with a socialist/medievalist fantasy and then trying to use climate to justify it, with a heaping gob of “damit people do what I want” slathered all over it.

    It also reminds me of Demolition Man, a bit.

    In addition, if more people are hunting and fishing, why is there less meat? I mean, I can understand why people are hunting and fishing since INGSOC has banned commercial ranching, apparently.

    The fantasy of central planners always looks so much better than the consequences, has anyone else noticed that? ALWAYS.

  35. It’s better to look at the root cause of the environmental issues we’re facing than to be looking at carbon taxation that simply allows corporations to win twice.

    The biggest cause of global pollution is excessive production for consumerism.
    Put simply this is because they produce far in excess of what is actually needed the global needs can be sustained with production levels of at least half of their current rates.

    Why?

    Because of the use of “planned obsolescence” a mechanism that artificially reduces the functional life of a product such that you are forced to replace it frequently , for example a washing machine can easily be designed to run for 25-30 years, but in fact fails in as tittle as sis years, just after the five year warranty runs out! This is deliberate design function to ensure future sales of replacement product.
    It is also exasperated by the fact that spares are often difficult to obtain and with many products are impossible to repair due to the design of the product that prevent basic repairs from being carried out.

    LED lamps are another example, after 40 years of electronics experience, I know that LEDs have an extremely long life if the electronics are properly designed 30,000 hours plus should be expected, but manufacturers are now bringing that down to less that 10,000 by designing the power supply to fail earlier with underrated components that will fail in about 10,000 hours.
    These are just two examples of domestic devices that are designed to fail before their time to increase the profit margins for businesses and their shareholders.
    In other areas, millions of plastic products are made with plastics that are designed to deteriorate far quicker than necessary to produce repeat purchases,
    Shoes have soles made of materials that wear much faster than they should.
    Cars used to be really bad before there was a consumer backlash in the 1970-80s after many deaths caused by cars that were designed to rust quickly getting involved in crashes and causing deaths by completely crushing as they were weakened by corrosion, or in some cases causing crashes by breaking up while being driven.
    Then there is “perceived obsolescence” where consumers are being pressurised into replacing stuff that is perfectly functional with the latest and greatest model, which is usually the same as the previous one except for some more go-faster stripes or similar. The fashion industry is the worst offender here.
    Then there is all the “single use” plastics to reduce costs in a fast food restaurant for example, to avoid paying for someone to wash dishes afterwards.
    Finally to add insult to injury, there is a whole “recycling & waste management” industry created to get rid of all this rubbish.

    People just need to know what is happening in the world, whinging about climate change is a cop out, they need to be looking at their own consumerism and the corporate greed that is feeding it.

    And, before anyone talks about unemployment, that’s what UBI (universal basic income) is for, with so much work being done by macgines whese dats, there is little need for actual employees, so provide a universal income for them to spend to keep the economic engine turning over. The difference being that money trickles UP instead of DOWN

    • You try and suggest to a Green idiot that sustainability means what it says, that things should “sustain”.

      Their eyes glaze over they do not understand. Nice idea Phil but you are dealing with those who think anything technical is basically capitalist evil, but still expect the lights to come on.

      • Unfortunately, I think that you’re correct. Most people are totally “sold” on the idea of consumerism that they simply cannot see that their purchasing habits are actually promoting the “throwaway society” that we live in.

        Also businesses, retailers and manufacturers will try to suppress the awareness of planned & perceived obsolescence as much as possible as consumer awareness would be bad for business.

        The message really needs to get out there:-
        Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence, and anyone who can read without moving his lips should know it by now: Brooks Stevens.
        Moving materials from the quarry to landfill as fast as possible while consuming vast quantities of energy is just about the worst thing mankind can do to the environment.

      • They even believe that Math is a tool of white supremacy. Seattle school district is going to mandate as part of their math curriculum propaganda how math has held ‘people of color’ down.

  36. Dear oh dear.
    I have been comparing my current lifestyle with the one outlined, and I think I would prefer to stay as I am. My house is already built of wood, over 100 years ago, and I wouldn’t say it’s more comfortable than a modern house, but it’s OK. I am greeted by nature as I walk out the door already. Much more might be too much. The trees spreading through the landscape are already there 20,000 acres of them wall to wall behind me and copious others in other directions.
    I’m about to mow the lawn today. This will use a pint of fossil fuel l’m afraid, but the 26 year old mower must have been of reasonable quality when I bought it second hand, as it’s still going. I had to make a repair to it this morning as the seat bracket had busted. I somehow doubt whether a service provider would have noticed that and got me a new mower in time to mow the lawn today, so probably better off doing it myself.
    I use the car once a week or so, sorry. As for your fabulous restaurants- no thanks, I prefer my homegrown meat an d vegetables.. this outline of yours does not seem to offer me any improvements.

  37. It’s pretty easy spending time with family when your entire extended family and grandparents are forced to live in a single small apartment with communal bunk beds and mattresses made from recycled enhanced karma wood chips on the floor. Quality time indeed. And it cuts down that pesky procreation stuff… a known threat to the peace of the beloved Gaia.

  38. “Buy less things” why not start by telling Apple, Google, etc to stop releasing new devices every year (make it 5 years instead) and demand they have minimum ten year full replacement warranties on products? Good luck.

  39. More houses are built with wood.

    In the US, most single-family residences are already built with wood. Works great but limited by current building code to 5 stories. Without private automobiles suburbia collapses and people have to live in higher-density housing, which is likely to require steel and concrete in place of wood.

  40. More houses are built with wood.

    Looking forward to share a tree house. Californians prefer those houses burned into the redwood tree trunk – right?

  41. It must be nice to be an empty-headed SJW. Problems are so simple to solve. No worries about physics, chemistry, biology or engineering. Someone will figure everything out and do all the work.

  42. A popular song recorded by a lot.
    I’m up in the world
    But I’d give the world to be where I used to be
    A heavenly nest, where I rest the best
    Means more than the world to me

    It’s only a shanty in old Shanty Town
    The roof is so slanty it touches the ground
    But my tumbled down shack by an old railroad track
    Like a millionaire’s mansion is calling me back

    I’d give up a palace if I were a king
    It’s more than a palace, it’s my everything
    There’s a queen waiting there with a silvery crown
    In a shanty in old Shanty Town

    In truth not many would want to return to poverty, lack of privacy and privation. And no one in their right mind would want what this con job suggests. Excellent posts fun to read.

  43. This article describes the world they want. People are squashed together in concentrated hovels and tenements. Every movement is controlled. You are only allowed to have enough to barely survive.

    Genesis did have it right in the following portion of “Get Em Out By Friday.”
    I always imagine a giant screen on the side of the building with Al Gore’s head spewing these words:

    This is an announcement from Genetic Control
    It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on
    Humanoid height
    I hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the
    Properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold
    It’s said now that people will be shorter in height
    They can fit twice as many in the same building site
    They say it’s alright
    Beginning with the tenants of the town of Harlow
    In the interest of humanity, they’ve been told they must go
    Told they must go-go-go-go

    Remember, only the government can have this kind of power.

  44. What an utterly uninformed and stupid article. Most feed used for animal agriculture is leftover stock and forage from food produced for humans. Only 10% of feedstock is suitable for human consumption and that’s pushing it. Ruminants graze on land not suitable for growing crops and replenish that land making it suitable for growing. The person who wrote this was most definitely a city dwelling bubble dweller.

  45. “If you choose to call a car, an algorithm will calculate the smartest route for the vehicle and pick up a few other people on the way.”

    This sentence alone is enough to show that this is all PC b*llsh*t. I’ve seen a number of versions of this claim over the years. There is just one problem. This “algorithm” is one of the classic unsolved problems of mathematics, the so-called “travelling salesman” problem.

    There is NO known solution except “exhaustion”, i e trying random solutions for X million times and choosing the best (or least bad) you happen to find. Which takes time. It is worthwhile for routeing ships where you have a few days to get a “solution”, but definitely not for cars.

  46. Meanwhile, out here in flyover country…..

    I live in the country. I commute about 25 miles to work each day, the first 5 miles of which are dirt and gravel road. No busses or trains. Many of us would not ride share even if we lived close to a coworker. I work in an R&D group with a lot of other salaried engineers whose hours don’t always conform neatly to “nine-to-five.”

    This past winter we had far more snow than the previous many winters with many parts of the gravel road piled high on both sides and only one vehicle’s width to get through. Then we had a rapid rapid warm up simultaneously with heavy rain. No place for the water from the melting snow to go as the ditches were still full and frozen. The roads were by far the worst in the 9 springs I have lived where we do now. If I had not had my 4-wheel drive truck and had to get by with my small commuter car, I may well have been unable to even get to town for groceries for nearly 3 consecutive weeks. (BTW, I do love living in the country, so I’m not complaining.)

    Here’s the thing, though. My 25 mile commute takes, on average, about 28 minutes. Besides 5 miles of gravel road, I have 17+ miles of lightly-traveled 4-lane highway and then a couple of miles (in a town of about 20,000) from the off ramp to the parking lot at work. So even in my diesel Super Duty, I’m using a lot less fuel and spewing a lot less evil CO2 into the atmosphere than millions of people who commute daily in the big cities. I’m pretty sure the 100 amp service to the farmhouse would be a little overtaxed trying to charge a worthless EV while trying to do anything else in the house too.

    My point… every solution these idiots put forward re: transportation are completely unworkable where I live and work and likely always will be. And I like my lifestyle just fine as is and I plan to keep it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *