Cracking the planetary code

What will our planet really look like in 26 years?

Would we just have vague memories of what birdsong and screeching seabirds sounded like in 2050? Would sea trout and wild salmon only exist in pictures? Would we encounter monster ticks as we walk dry-shod over what used to be wetlands and marshes? Or would we have managed to stop the bulldozers which were gobbling up the equivalent of a football pitch of natural habitat every hour, around the clock, for many decades?

What about microplastics and pollutants? What about the wildlife icon the wild reindeer, and the flora superheroes the peat mosses? What about our health? Our cities?

We have asked researchers from various fields about what things would look like in 25 years if we were to do the right things now. We have also asked what the right measures are.

1. We are in the year 2050. The planet is doing better. How are things going in your field of study?
2. What measures did we take to get back on track?

Let nature be

Ivar Herfindal, researcher, The Gjærevoll Centre for Biodiversity Foresight Analyses. Project manager of the SusLandUse project, NTNU.

1. The Norwegian ecosystem is doing well. In all types of habitats, from seabeds to high mountains, the number of endangered species on the Red List of Threatened Species is much lower than in 2024. We have healthy wild reindeer populations, viable Arctic fox populations, and a rich bird fauna in the mountains. Curlews, lapwings and yellowhammers are once again abundant in our cultural landscapes.

The most important reason for all this is that nature has been given enough space to be itself. It is no longer only found in small fragments surrounded by uninhabitable, man-made types of land. The resurgence of nature has given us strong and stable ecosystems, and this has benefited humans. Intact ecosystems bind and store carbon, and have a high production of renewable natural resources.

2. The Global Biodiversity Framework was used as a basis for all land management. We made a decision on, and followed up, a statutory zero vision for the loss of natural habitat. Bit-by-bit land degradation was stopped.

All decisions regarding land use were entrusted to a central national body. This body had knowledge about the types of natural habitat that exist, the condition they are in, and – importantly – it had decision-making authority over all ministries and directorates.

The main rule for development was the reuse and multipurpose use of land. No encroachments on nature could occur without compensating by restoring twice the amount of land. Climate change, which had particularly threatened alpine and Arctic ecosystems, was halted. We achieved this by transitioning to a zero-emission society: by halting all extraction of oil and gas, by drastically reducing consumption, and by preserving and restoring peatlands and forests.

• You might also like: Fewer cows, more trees and bioenergy

AI strengthens the community

May Thorseth, professor, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at NTNU. Director of NTNU’s Programme for Applied Ethics.

1. Most people have realised that vital resources are global common goods. It is about values that must be managed collectively. We have stopped believing that we have no choice and that future destruction does not follow any inevitable natural law. We have managed to stimulate the imagination of most people about a world that is dominated by common land rather than private property when it comes to the basic shared resources everyone needs: arable land, clean air and water, and food.
2. The most important code we cracked was that we were able to inspire most people to start dreaming again. We managed to use artificial intelligence to create visions of a credible future without overconsumption. Through the sensible use of available technology, we created visions of the future that made it possible to believe we are still on the right track.

We strengthened positive dreams and used generative artificial intelligence in interaction with the population to develop descriptions of what we desired. As a result, we enabled enough people to realise that the tragedy of common land – meaning that we overburdened our shared resource areas – also affected us personally. At the same time, we understood that we did not have to succumb to it.

• You might also like: Algorithms in the Arctic: removing bad weather from images to make Arctic shipping safer
  c

Wild salmon, sea trout and Arctic char are thriving

Jan Grimsrud Davidsen, associate professor, freshwater ecologist, Department of Natural History at NTNU. Head of the Freshwater Ecology research group.

1. In 2050, people can fish for sea trout without being subject to strict restrictions. The wild salmon has long been removed from the Red List of Threatened Species. Wild stocks across the country have become strong and sustainable. The Arctic char is also doing very well.

It was brave and tough politicians who saved this endangered fish. They took several measures, and some of these worked quickly. A sea trout has a generation time of 5-6 years, so during the course of 20 years, three or four generations have been produced. Wetlands and natural ecosystems along watercourses have been restored.

Many river estuaries have been restored and have regained the ecological functions they had before we began to degrade them around the beginning of the 20th century.

2. We implemented new, smart ways to manage land development in coastal areas and river estuaries. We stopped building new developments, began reusing already developed areas, renatured used areas, and made sure new roads did not encroach on natural habitats.

Politicians took a harder line. They prohibited fish farming in open facilities. They imposed requirements on the industry and followed up with financial incentives.

We fulfilled the commitments of the Global Biodiversity Framework and had protected 30 per cent of nature on land and at sea by the year 2030. That was the year when the Minister of Fisheries cut a hole in the last net pen, marking the end of open fish farming facilities.

Legislation was established that provided land managers with the backing and authority to issue directives to industry and developers – who then joined the effort and collaborated.

• You might also like: Shedding light – on the polar night

New taxes on food and air travel

Juudit Ottelin, associate professor, Department of Energy and Process Engineering. Researcher on sustainability analysis of urban systems.

1. We have seen several visible changes in our cities. Most importantly, we have continued to electrify local transport and have integrated solar panels in both buildings and vehicles. New bio-based building materials are replacing concrete.

We are getting more and more urban green spaces, and there are more and more vegetarian restaurants and alternatives. We are seeing more and better rail links. Unless something very radical and emissions-free has been invented in the aviation sector, the role of airports will have shrunk.

2. We took decisive action in the three most important sectors for consumption and production: energy, transport and food. Fossil fuels were phased out where alternatives existed, such as in vehicles and heating systems.

We took into account both biodiversity and social consequences when selecting sites for the production of wind power, solar power and biofuels.

Air travel was included in cap-and-trade systems or taxed separately to cover environmental costs. More expensive air travel encouraged more people to take trains.

Smart and courageous decision makers designed a new tax system for the food sector. No foods were prohibited, but unhealthy and environmentally harmful foods became more expensive, while healthy and environmentally friendly foods became cheaper.

The key changes that resulted in lower carbon footprints were renewable electricity and heating, electric vehicles, a vegetarian or vegan diet, and avoiding air travel.

• You might also like: Climate emissions from air travel 50 per cent higher than reported

Carbon remains in the peatlands

Hans Kristen Stenøien, professor, expert on mosses and peatlands. Director of NTNU University Museum.

1. We have achieved the right balance between human consumption and nature conservation. This has enabled us to maintain the unique biodiversity we have in Norway.

Carbon remains safely stored where it belongs: in the peatlands, not up in the air. This is how we prevented large greenhouse gas emissions and ensured that endangered, carbon-storing peat mosses remain viable. We have restored the original ecological functions to some of the ten thousand square kilometres of peatlands that we had previously damaged. Most of this was lime-rich, low-lying peatland.

By restoring these areas, we have recovered viable populations of previously endangered long-stalked thread moss and critically endangered large hook-moss.

We have safeguarded a type of habitat that prevents both flooding and the spread of forest fires. Protection and restoration have helped many species, not least human beings.

2. We realised that destroying peatlands is both detrimental and irrational. Therefore, a ban on the degradation and drainage of peatlands was introduced. Most importantly, we ended the demand for draining peatlands for more or less beneficial purposes.

The total area of peatland that was designated for development in Norwegian municipalities in 2024 could have resulted in greenhouse gas emissions comparable to or higher than Norway’s annual emissions. We realised that greenhouse gases had to remain in the ground.

We ensured a balance between the peatlands we consume and those that are restored. In other words, we achieved a major, systematic shift in our way of thinking: nature must be utilised on its own terms.

• You might also like: Tea bags – and more – on the tundra

Cleaning up the planet

Kam Sripada, researcher, neuroscientist. Manager of Centre for Digital Life Norway. 

1. In the run-up to 2050, many years of collaboration between researchers and other stakeholders have given us a solid platform of knowledge. We know what measures we can take to stop pollution and to clean up the planet for future generations.
   

   Kam Sripada. SHOW MORE

Air and plastic pollution have become so visible that no one – neither politicians, authorities, industry or individuals – can ignore them anymore. The political willingness to regulate chemicals has finally been put into practice.

2. Industry and authorities took the responsibility they have had to regulate the intake of environmental toxins in children. After decades of insufficient action, we reached a turning point where we invested in stricter regulation, enforcement and extensive cleanup efforts on a global scale. Both the Global Plastics Treaty and the Science Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution began working in 2025. Both made a positive difference because they were so ambitious, because they contributed to collaboration between all countries, and because they initiated a gradual but sure change of course.

Every child has the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We recognised children’s rights to demonstrate, protest and complain. One example of this was when young climate activists, led by Greta Thunberg, filed a complaint against several countries with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child for violating the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 2019.

• You might also like: Norway should lead the fight against plastic pollution

Still at a tipping point

Bernt-Erik Sæther, professor, population ecologist, Director of the Centre for Biodiversity Dynamics (CBD) at NTNU. Head of NTNU’s Gjærevoll Centre.

1. We are still at a tipping point, but it looks like we have reversed a negative trend for biodiversity.

We had already placed many species on death row before we decided to make space for nature again. The period leading up to 2050 became critical for far more species than anticipated, and many of them are still vulnerable.

For example, birds and insects living in and around cultural landscapes shaped by agriculture, forestry and marine development have declined significantly. There is still a lot of uncertainty.

The sound of nature has changed dramatically; things have become quieter around us. A warmer climate has brought the malaria mosquito to Norway. Wild boars have also become established in large populations and have changed many ecosystems, especially in Southern and Eastern Norway.

2. The Global Biodiversity Framework put nature on the agenda. We realised that we cannot reverse climate change without taking care of our natural surroundings. There was a dramatic shift in attitudes; politicians and authorities realised that waiting to take significant action was no longer an option.

We established a comprehensive plan for Norwegian biodiversity and adopted a nature-centric perspective on various encroachments and developments. Provisions on acceptable practices for both forestry and agriculture were introduced and enforced.

Our extreme climate has always prevented us from developing a destructive industrial agriculture. This became an advantage, and we built upon solid traditions of using nature in a sustainable way. We stopped the degradation of high mountain areas and enabled cold-loving species to move north and access larger areas in order to survive.

• You might also like: Darwin had Galapagos finches – Norway has… house sparrows?