Speculative geography, in which the author posits that in 2050, due to climate change and technology demands, the most dominant countries will be around the Arctic circle, but because of demography, political instability and rising seas, the only one really able to capitalize on it will be Canada. If there isn't a Vancouver-filmed, cheap SyFy series about the world as ruled by futuristic Inuktitut-speaking hockey goons, there damn well should be.

A forgettable book, but an adequate introduction-level view of current issues in geography. From his website, I have gathered that Smith's background is more on the environmental science side of geography, specifically in the Arctic, and that shows in the book. While I lack the scientific background to really engage with his analysis of climate change, its coverage seemed authoritative and got me - a lay reader - up to speed. Similarly, his analysis of resource usage (especially of water) is worthwhile reading, and the discussion of "virtual water" was novel.

Much less impressive, however, was his very limited discussion of globalization, and the depth of analysis ranged between superficial and inept. Even his own historical research did not support his earlier assertion that globalization began after World War II as a deliberate result of Allied economic policy. Though the Breton Woods conference certainly accelerated the process and gave it a new, Americanized flavour, the reality is that globalization is a process that has been ongoing for centuries - see Peter Frankopan's recent book "Silk Roads" for a readable single-volume corrective.

"The World in 2050" provides a decent overview of contemporary issues in geography aimed at the general reader, but is otherwise an unremarkable book.

2.5/5

Smith argues that the combined trends in demography, natural resource use, globalisation and climate change, as well as urbanisation will crucially change the world by 2050. Without any wild cards such as a change in the global thermohaline circulation system, huge land-based melting of ice, carbon emissions from thawing of the permafrost, which will affect the whole world dearly, the likely new winners will be the Northern Rim countries (NORCs), with Russia being a bit of an outlier. Sure losers are those countries closer to the tropics. How the NORCs will be handling their newfound wealth is a bit of a mixed bag. Smith mentions the Canadian tar sands as an example of massive environmental destruction with a potential much larger than it is today, but also speaks positively about the NORCs' ability to secure agreements in a rather peaceful way. It is a book worth reading, but with so many books on environmental trends and geopolitics a focus on how human behaviour interacts with such new unfolding realities, is lacking. Human beings are not just passive recipients of such mega trends, in fact, many of those are shaped by our own decisions.

A lot of things I'd never heard of ( ' ice roads ' ) Never heard the term ' dumpage ' before.

Read this one for my university geography class. It was genuinely intriguing but overall scared me to death. I'm so worried about the future of our planet and it scares me more than anything knowing the money hungry people of the world who can actually make a change won't help make it happen.

Even-handed and insightful. A quick read, quite worth your time.

A good view of four major forces that will drive our future. Peak oil, population growth, lack of water, and climate change. Any one of these would not be a problem if we weren't past peak oil. Population grow more food and provide more stuff using cheap oil. Lack of water, desalination or drill to deeper aquifers using cheap oil. Warming build dikes around the vulnerable cites including the third world countries, Bangladesh, who are most vulnerable to sea level rise and the heavy down pours of the new normal, using cheap oil. Peak oil, there is no substitute for oil. Not at a price the consumer is willing to pay. Also oil just adds to the warming issue but, one could use cheap oil to build the infrastructure needed to protect low lying areas. Even if by doing so we condemn our future children to a world of purple, sulfur eating algae as the dominant species in 3000 years. The world, earth will survive.

Our planet has been around for 4.5 billion years. Our planets life expectancy is around 12 billion years. If we do fall back to a purple algae planet and Hominids have a massive die off, the planet will survive. It took around 500 million years for the planet to go from purple algae to us today. The planet can cycle through this rebuild of life from simple purple algae to Hominids 14 times. Maybe what we should be looking at, as a back up plan, is how to tell some future Hominid that this warming you are seeing from the release of Carbon into the atmosphere, we did this 500 million years ago and killed our selves off. Maybe you can do better. I would suggest, just spit balling, that we engrave binary code on human bones and if we do enough some will fossilize. If they fossilize then some scientist in the future might just get the massage and save the future from the fate we seem bound and determined to inflict on our selves.

The second part is mine not the author's. Smith is actually hopeful that we slow our use of Carbon, slow population growth, and by doing so peak oil, and lack of water impacts can be minimized on life. By doing so 2050 will be harder but livable. I'm not as confident in our ability to do what is best for the species.

Well-written, interesting, informative, insightful, and depressing.

Overcrowded supercities near the Equator? Water replacing oil as the new scarce resource? Climate change turning the Arctic Rim countries to the new great powers? Read Laurence Smith's book for a detailed account of this supposed future scenario less than two generations in the future.