Washington DC 2209

Assuming we don't wind up in some Fallout-esque post-apocalyptic wasteland within the next 200 years, I imagine DC will look much like it does right now. This may seem counter-intuitive to some readers. Shouldn't the United States be a dried up husk of its former self, ravaged by climate change, flooding, and environmental degradation? Well, the truth is much of the environmental havoc that we've been wreaking on the planet is being done in places outside the United States. It's true that we still have pollution here, and there are environmental issues here such as mountain-top removal, nuclear waste, and coal slurries. But the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the harm being done to the environment is happening outside the United States, in places where most of the production for our goods is done, like China and India.

It's been said that breathing the air in some parts of China is the equivalent of smoking a pack (possibly more) of cigarettes a day. India has very serious problems with its water and the impact its having on agriculture in the subcontinent. Countries throughout the developing world are becoming the recipients of our waste products, toxic or otherwise, and their air and water quality is going down as a result of this and the shift of production to these countries. Whereas the most pressing issue that the developing world has to come to terms with is global warming (and a very serious concern it is), developing nations have a whole host of issues that bedevil them, such as soil degradation, water pollution, species extinction, and even ecological collapse. The environment in many of these developing nations is being visibly altered for the worse.

By contrast, the US environment has more or less stabilized. Yes there are still problems with deforestation and the side-effects of coal mining and oil drilling. But these problems are more localized than before, and many steps have been taken by the US government and citizenry to better protect their environment, such as reforestation, wetlands protection, etc. That's why environmental degradation has been slowed or even stopped in many areas of the United States. These steps are sadly lacking from many developing nations and they are the ones who will suffer as a result. While climate change could have a major effect on our lives and surroundings in the United States, the inland areas of the United States (including Washington) will not be nearly as affected in 200 years as those developing nations who shoulder much of the burden of production.

What Will 2209 bring?

I think that if we continue on the same path that we are currently on, DC will be in for some major problems. If we keep polluting the atmosphere as much as we do now, DC probably will be nonexistent in 2209, because climate change would’ve grown exponentially and most, if not all, of the polar ice caps would have melted. AU might be able to survive, since we are at one of the highest elevations in the entire district, but I don’t have much hope for the National Mall and the rest of downtown. If somehow we avoid being covered in water, I think that DC would still be a disaster area. With all of the restrictions on downtown growth, more of the areas that are currently residential will begin being transformed into commercial areas in which the American consumer can shop. This means that people will have to move further outside of DC to find places to live, which will keep creating this suburban sprawl that is already quite large. As people move further away, not only will we have to create more roads for the cars that they will be driving into the actual city, but we may also need to convert the farmland that lies right outside of most of the current suburbs. The areas that we could be using to grow local, more sustainable food would be turned into more housing developments and “dirty energy” power plants to make sure that the people live as comfortably as they would like. All of these predictions, however, come from the idea that people would keep trying to live here; in reality, if we continue this way, many people might leave the area since it will be too polluted to live healthy lives.

If people today really stopped to consider what the future might look like, they would be more open to thinking of new ways of creating a better future. In the DC of 2209, I would hope that there would be much more sustainability in all aspects of life. By this time, production nationally would be done in such a way as to reduce waste in all parts of the cycle. We could still be building new buildings and prospering, but these materials would be completely sustainable (either recyclable or from previously recycled materials) and the process in which they were made would have cut wastes. In order to power these new, green buildings, we would use alternative types of energy, such as wind and solar energy. The areas outside of the city would be kept for farming; they would also be reverted to family farms which produce a wide variety of foods instead of large, commercial farms that only grow one crop and sell their products across the country. There would also be greenhouse buildings, multilevel structures where fresh produce can be cultivated year round instead of just in the summertime. Not only is it better for the environment, but it is also healthier for the population to eat fresh grown foods. All buildings that are built would also have their own water purification systems, so that excess rain water could be turned into useable water for the building, so we would not need to rely as heavily on underground water sources. Overall, with drastic changes in our policies now, we can ensure that life in DC and the rest of the world will continue comfortably and sustainably.

Red, White, and Green

If the inhabitants of Earth continue on their current path of environmental negligence, I envision the DC of 2209 to be completely different from the one in which we currently live. Firstly, the District would know longer be the capital of a democratic nation; the destruction of the biosphere and its respective ecosystems, as we have read, outlined, and discussed in class, will eventually cause complete ruin to our society. Well, complete ruin could be a hyperbole, but at least a solid amount of disruption. Assuming a Malthusian outcome, food supplies will dwindle as populations skyrocket; as population density increases, disease will spread more quickly. Also, climate change will invoke a number of devastating effects, among them being a swell in sea levels, causing a flooding of coastal towns. Although these predictions are a bit apocalyptic, it is not unreasonable to assume that fear, panic, and disorder will arise in the midst of these ecological disasters, prompting a police state response. After a national emergency is declared, the marshall law will fail to be lifted, and government of strict control and obedience will be instated. A bit dramatic, yes, but I envision DC with a heavy smog over it, government buildings grey and decrepit, not unlike the scene in The Matrix that shows the actual crumbling New York City. New environmental regulations may be passed, but it will be too late; the pollution and degradation of nature will force every one indoors, prey to the whims of an altered environment.

That is the cynical view of the future. Hopefully, DC will resemble something much more sustainable and greener, both figuratively and literally. DC may be the epicenter of world politics, but I would like to see focus on local efforts and resources, especially when it comes to food and energy. As a Virginia resident (begrudgingly), I'm aware of the delicious produce that the fertile Piedmont soil can grow; the Mid-Atlantic is extremely capable of sustaining itself nutritionally. Also, DC should take advantage of the nearby coast in harnessing tidal power for its energy needs, as well as use the Appalachians for wind turbines. The city itself is small, and perhaps too urban already to completely isolate itself, as suggested in Tom Butler's article; although not as ideal as farming in the District itself, gleaning resources from Virginia and Maryland is a major improvement. Amongst other practical solutions, DC should take a cue from New York City, and severely cut the number of cars allowed in the city through heavy fees, as well as taxi quotas. By promoting public transportation and bicycling (the addition of bicycle lanes would a welcome addition), DC can be a thriving city and urban role model.

Washington DC 2209

Not to be pessimistic, but I believe if the US continues on its current path it will not be able to sustain itself. I think if DC is not under water or tons of smog, it will be abandoned or at least not the vibrant city it use to be. I think if the United States does not change it will lose its dominant role in the world. Also I doubt other countries will look kindly on the US since in 1900's and the 2000's it was a major player in environmental destruction. It's really hard imagining what could be. Honestly, I in-vision the United States as no longer "the place to be." I could imagine Americans leaving the United States to join countries that are self sufficient. Another negative possibility is that the weather may be so bad that people may have to move underground. But who knows? 

I would hope in 200 years that the buildings in DC would look more like the new SIS building. Hopefully they'll be more advanced but with the same idea "sustainable." Their materials will not harm the planet. They would have their own water filtration system so water can be reused on the site. I would hope they could produce their own energy on the spot through water, solar, wind or some another natural energy. I would also think people would try and recycle old buildings as well. Hopefully the overall population will go down but I think cities will still be present. Instead of DC being so spread out, it may be denser and the buildings just taller. The surrounding area of the city will be farms, so food won't have to travel such long distances. It would be great if we could make a good percentage of what we needed within just a few miles from the city. If the city was denser transportation would be easier. I think the metro would still exist just faster and cleaner. I think DC would still have a lot of parks and "green space" because I've read that cities with more "green areas" are cleaner and have happier people. Hopefully by 2209 DC would have also solved its gentrification problem. In the future, being green won't only be for the rich. 

In 200 years, the path we are currently on will undoubtedly include a large scale growth of urban environments, both in size and population density. Cities across the world will grow both upwards, with the construction of newer, taller buildings, and outwards, with the continuing forces of suburbanization and urban migration. However, Washington DC is in a very unique position. As an urban center, it is constrained both by height and area. No buildings in the city will ever be built higher than the Washington Monument (barring a revision of this norm, which I find extremely doubtful). In addition, the city limits are constrained by the borders of the District itself, so any commercial buildings wishing to add to the commerce of the city will soon run out of a very limited space.

This being said, I think that DC would undergo a large scale zoning reform, allowing more and more areas of the district to convert to commercial rather than residential. Meanwhile, the suburbs in surrounding Virginia and Maryland will continue to spread further and further away from the city, likely to be accompanied by increases in traffic congestion and air pollution.

This is the city we should expect if we dont make the necessary changes to combat our attack on our natural environment. The DC I would like to see in 200 years would be entirely dependent on local agriculture for its sustenance. I dont see the physical layout of the city changing much, especially because so much of the city's form and function pay homage to the founders of the country, monuments which are unlikely to be altered. However, the suburbs of the city will slowly transition into sustainable communities, and the farmland in Virginia will be utilized for the support of the people of DC. Energy sources, factories, and most other essential goods and services will be provided by the local community and the local resources available. Obviously, this setup will require a transformation in the expectations of American consumers. We can no longer expect fresh fruit in the middle of December, but we can instead find technological solutions to the constraints of our agricultural climate. These changes are absolutely imperative if we want to continue living in relative happiness for the next 200, if not 500, years.

Easy is easy for a reason

I'm not going to say that we should shy away from hard solutions to our environmental problems, because in many cases that's the only thing that is going to work. But in all honesty the forces arrayed against any sort of meaningful change in the way we treat, or even view, our environment are so powerful, that any attempt at these great, sweeping changes, will almost inevitably be blunted or co-opted to the point of being ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst.

The process of reform is slow, and always has been slow. It took at least a hundred years for labor conditions in the US to improve, and that was because of constant struggle, bordering on rebellion in some areas. Considering that, it seems like trying to change the way we structure our economy to better recycle and consume goods would be an even more herculean task, if only because of the detachment most people feel from the issue. Easy solutions may not seem like they help, but if nothing else it improves the psychological environment for change. Social psychologists call it the "foot in the door" phenomenon. You take little steps toward a goal that would normally seem outlandish, and the more you do, the closer and less strange that goal seems. Maybe recycling won't cure all our ills, but a population that consciously recycles will not be so averse to things like reusing bottles, or cutting consumption.

Normally this would not be so much of an issue, but with global warming there seems to be an implicit deadline for when we can actually take steps to blunt it. We have to take such things in stride, because if we force our own hand on reform, nothing close to what we need will be done in response.

A Step in the Right Direction

Maniates brings up a great idea; let’s completely revamp the entire American way of life and make sure that everything is green and sustainable. It sounds wonderful, right? I’d be all for it. I think that we need a complete makeover, otherwise our future isn’t looking too good. I don’t personally have a financial stake in a turnaround. I plan on working in an NGO or doing translation in the future; my parents are in the medical and shipping fields. None of us have a huge stake in agriculture, production, or transportation. This is not to say that we are not affected by it. I am just simply saying that we don’t have a reason to be opposed. Other Americans, however, who receive their main financial security from these systems that pose the most threat to the environment also would be risking the most in order to create this big overhaul.
He compares the “lazy environmentalist” movement to other revolutionary ideas in the past, such as the American revolution and the civil rights movement. While none of these people went around talking about how to do nothing but still create change, these monumental changes did not happen overnight. Decades passed between the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, women did not get the right to vote until nearly 150 years after we became an independent nation. The environmental movement arguably needs to occur faster, but at least we are starting it now. If we can get people today to start “tweaking the edges,” we will be better equipped to create the more monumental changes in the future.