A More Optimistic Approach to Climate Change

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Turning now to the climate crisis, data scientist Hannah Ritchie says we need to shift our focus from doom and gloom to solutions. As she argues in her new book, “Not the End of the World.” She joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Hannah Ritchie, thanks so much for joining us. Your book is titled, “Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet.” Tell me a little bit about what motivated this optimism in your book.

HANNAH RITCHIE, AUTHOR, “NOT THE END OF THE WORLD” AND DEPUTY EDITOR AND SCIENCE OUTREACH LEAD, OUR WORLD IN DATA: Yes. So, it’s framed as not the end of the world, not to be pronounced as, you know, oh, it’s not the end of the world, but a definitive, no, it’s not the end of the world because we can tackle these problems. And in the book, I cover seven big environmental problems. And the way I try to frame it is that on many of these problems, we are in a bad place and we’re on a bad trajectory. But I can see from looking at the data that there is a possibility that we get on a much better trajectory. I think there are solutions there. Some problems we have solved. And some of the motivation for writing the book is that I think on many environmental issues, we’ve kind of got to the stage where we feel like there’s nothing we can do. We kind of feel helpless to do anything, and I’m trying to kind of shake action and get us going.

SREENIVASAN: You know, your day job is at a place called Our World and Data. And for people who aren’t familiar with that, it has for years now had some of the best visualizations of fact, right? And for members of our audience that don’t know what Our World and Data does, explain.

RITCHIE: Yes. So, Our Word and Data, we’re a website online and we frame it as data and research to understand the world’s largest problems. So, we kind of sit between academia and research and the general public, policymakers, journalists, and we try to make this data understandable to a general audience. And we do that across environmental and climate topics, but also poverty, health, war, what we frame as the world’s largest problems, and we try to zoom out and look at the long-term trends rather than just single headlines.

SREENIVASAN: What is it about your work with kind of the raw data that helps you be more optimistic? Because especially say, in the context of climate, what most people here are numbers that are alarming and at times make them feel hopeless.

RITCHIE: Yes. I mean, specifically on climate. I mean, the trajectory that we’re on right now is a very scary one. We’re headed for between 2.5 to 3 degrees, which the impacts there would be really severe and catastrophic. I think what makes me a bit more optimistic, especially when we look at energy trends, I think what’s — we’re in a very different position now than we were even a decade ago on these issues. And the big reason for that has been a rapid decline in the cost of low carbon technologies. So, if we’re looking at climate action a decade ago, our alternatives to fossil fuels were way, way more expensive than fossil fuels. So, it was really hard to see how the world would adopt them. What we’ve seen over the last decade is plunging cost of these technologies that are now competitive, or in many cases cheaper than fossil fuels, but it gives me a lot more optimism that rich countries can adopt these, but also middle-income and low-income countries can raise standards of living while also doing it in a low carbon way.

SREENIVASAN: So, there is the technology aspect of it. And as you point out that we have engineered some solutions. Then there seems to be sort of a political dimension to it as well. Do you think that even if humanity is presented with these low carbon alternatives that we are not just capable, but willing to make the sacrifices necessary to have this energy transition occur?

RITCHIE: I don’t think it’s going to be easy. I think it’s going to be very difficult. And I think the political will issue is a big one. I think I’d contest framing it as a sacrifice. I think, in the past, we framed this as a sacrifice, which is why I think climate action has been quite slow. The way I see it is with these energy technologies, there’s an opportunity. And you actually see that in uptake rates, even if people are not deploying these technologies for climate, which I wish they were, they’re also doing it for economic opportunities or lower bills or employment opportunities or energy security. So, I think we need to move away from this framing as a model of we need to sacrifice to tackle climate change. Because I think even if the political well is not there, there are other reasons why we might switch to these technologies.

SREENIVASAN: When we think of climate, a lot of the conversation, at least in the press, you know, crescendos at these annual meetings of the COP folks, and all of a sudden, oh, it’s the Paris Agreement. We’re slipping past this degree Celsius, and the phrase tipping point always comes up. And you kind of take issue with that notion of tipping point. Explain.

RITCHIE: Yes. So, I don’t take notion, but the fact that there are tipping points. There are tipping points in the climate system where — and these are very different ones. There’s no one single tipping point. We don’t know exactly where they are, which is the big risk and why we need to act. But there are a range of different tipping points where you would see irreversible impacts that we can’t retract back from. What I take issue with is the 1.5-degree target being mentioned as a tipping point. That’s not necessarily a tipping point. And I think it’s really important in communication because I think when people think about climate change and we are, you know, getting very close to 1.5 degrees and that — personally, I’m quite pessimistic that we reach 1.5 degrees. I think if you frame it as a tipping point then people will lose any sense of urgency. Because if we reach 1.5 and we’re tipped into a kind of unlivable planet then what’s the point in taking action? I think the way we need to frame it is 1.5 degrees should be our ambitious target, but we need to fight for 1.6 and 1.7 and 1.8. And by doing that, we will be able to try to prevent many of these tipping points where we actually just don’t know where they are in the system.

SREENIVASAN: You end up framing sustainability with two different components. Explain what those are.

RITCHIE: Yes. So, as an environmentalist, I think, when I normally think of sustainability, I think of it as having a low environmental impact to protect future generations and other species. But I think what’s also really important that we need to keep in mind is providing a good life for everyone that’s alive today. So, there’s this human development angle and an environmental sustainability angle. And the way I frame it is that we never really achieve sustainability unless we achieve both halves at the same time. I think often in the past, these two things were strongly in conflict. If you look over the last few centuries, we’ve made amazing progress on the human dimension, but it’s came at the cost of the environment. We’ve burned fossil fuels and we’re now driving climate change. Where I see the opportunity that we have is, I think, that these two goals are no longer incompatible. I think we can provide a good life for 8, 9, 10 billion people while reducing our environmental impact at the same time. So, I think that’s the opportunity that we have.

SREENIVASAN: So, how do you balance, I guess, the optimism that you are laying out in parts of this book with a sense of urgency that’s also necessary? Because right now we’ve got, you know, NASA confirming that 2023 was the hottest year on record. You know, there are scientists who are saying, listen, a decade from now, we’re going to look back at this as a relatively cool year. So, how do you kind of help people keep both of those ideas in their brain that we do have potential and all hope is not lost, but that we do need to act quickly?

RITCHIE: Yes, I think it’s very difficult and I think there is always the risk that people become complacent. So, yes, we do need to convey the current trajectory that we’re on is unacceptable and a really serious and dangerous one. But we also need to give people the sense of agency that we can tackle this and we don’t need to be on this particular trajectory. I think often when people are just hit with headline after headline after headline, they can fall into the state where, you know, you’re telling them about the problem, but you’re not giving them any notion of solutions or a way that we can get out of this. So, they often feel kind of helpless and inactive, and that’s not going to help us drive us forward. So, I think, yes, we need to convey the seriousness and the urgency by which we need to act, but we also need to convey a sense of, yes, there is actually solutions out there and they are being implemented, how can we drive that faster.

SREENIVASAN: You write a little bit about your brother as an example of what a single human being can do. What are the steps that he took?

RITCHIE: Yes, so my brother — I frame my brother in the book as he’s not an environmentalist and he’s never, you know, really been that interested in climate change. But he — for example, he got a Tesla. He got an electric car. Again, not for the environment. He just got an electric car because it made sense. Like, it was a nice car to drive. It works really well for charging. His bills are lower. And I think, again, this comes back to the opportunity angle, where I think we need to also convey the other benefits of these solutions. Because if we’re going to wait and rely on just everyone being motivated to tackle climate change, I don’t think that we’ll get there. So, what I stress is we need — yes, we need to make people aware of climate change, but we also need to highlight the other core benefits of these solutions so that everyone can get on board.

SREENIVASAN: You know, you write in the book that this could be the first generation that actually creates energy without burning stuff. And at the same time, the space that we’re in today, according to a 2023 report by the Energy Institute, says that, I think, we’re at 82 percent of our fuel supply still is reliant on fossil fuels. So, how do we get from the 80 percent that we’re at to hopefully zero in a generation?

RITCHIE: Yes. So, we need a, we need a massive build out of the alternatives to fossil fuels. And as I said earlier, I think the economics of these technologies are now really advantageous. So, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, like we need the whole lot and we need them to work together to create a portfolio that can replace fossil fuels. I think what is important to highlight about the current energy system that we have is that because we’re burning fossil fuels, it’s actually very, very inefficient energy system. So, when you burn fossil fuels, most of that energy actually goes to waste and only a small fraction of it actually goes to what we call energy services, which is moving you from A to B or powering your laptop or your TV. Now, that’s an opportunity because if we move to a decarbonized energy system, we’ll actually need less energy. So, that big stack of fossil fuels that we see can seem really, really daunting. But once we start to decarbonize and electrify many of our transport and heating systems, a lot of those losses will disappear. I mean, we shouldn’t underestimate how big of a challenge this is. It’s a really, really big challenge, but I think there’s various parts of that puzzle that should make us a bit more optimistic that we can actually get there.

SREENIVASAN: What do you do to tackle kind of the structural inefficiencies in infrastructure? You’re really looking at upending the existing systems of how utility systems work, how you know, gas infrastructure works. How do we tackle those things kind of simultaneously?

RITCHIE: Yes, the infrastructure problem is a big one. And I think in some sense, it’s a big one in the U.S. or the U.K., for example, where I think we’ve actually moved away and became very complacent about just building infrastructure. I think in many countries they’re actually doing much better on this. So, if you look at China, for example, it’s building its energy systems. It’s building out its grids. It’s building massive amounts of solar and wind and electric vehicle infrastructure very, very quickly. And I think in some sense, the U.S. and the U.K. really needs to get on board with getting back into this feeling of actually building stuff. I think what’s important to know is, I think, we probably will have what we call a kind of messy middle transition where it’s actually much easier if you’re either going fully petrol, because you just need the petrol stations, or fully electric, because you just need electric stations. I think there’s going to be this messy mid transition where you’re going to actually need both at the same time because some people will have gasoline cars and some people will have electric cars. So, I think, yes. I think it is going to be just a big challenge.

SREENIVASAN: You also write about food and the choices that we make with what we eat having a fairly consequential impact on global climate. Break that down for us.

RITCHIE: Yes. So, I think when people think about climate change, they automatically think about energy and that’s around three quarters of our emissions. But the final quarter comes from our food systems. And actually, food and agriculture is not just relevant for climate, it’s kind of the leading driver of many of our other environmental problems. So, land use, water use, deforestation, biodiversity loss, like food is really central to many of these problems. But yes, around a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions come from food systems. And actually, if you look out towards the end of the century, even if we were to fully decarbonize our energy systems, the amount of emissions from food, if we just keep it as today, would probably take us past what we call the carbon budget, which is the amount of carbon we can emit to stay within 1.5 or 2 degrees. Food systems would actually probably take us past most of those targets. So, yes, we really need to address food.

SREENIVASAN: In your section about food, you say that it’s not just about eating local. Explain that.

RITCHIE: Yes. So, I think when you ask people what’s the best way to reduce the carbon footprint of your food, they will often say eat local, and that’s often the advice that’s given. I think when you actually step back to look at the data on the carbon footprints of different foods, actually the transport component, so what we’d call food miles, globally is around 5 percent of food system emissions. Most emissions come from land use change or land use or emissions on the farm, which is things like fertilizers or manure or cows burping, the methane when they when they burp. And most of the emissions come from those components, not from transport. Now, what that means is that when you’re comparing the carbon footprints of foods, what you eat matters much, much more than how far it’s traveled to reach you. So, it’s not necessarily the case that your local food is automatically better for the climate than food that’s shipped in from another country.

SREENIVASAN: You write quite a bit about plastics as well. You don’t take issue with kind of, in a way, the miracle that plastic is. It’s really just about what do we do with it after we use it.

RITCHIE: Yes. So, I think with plastics, I guess there’s two dimensions to this. One is, I mean, people are now particularly concerned about microplastics and the potential health impacts on humans. I think the actual health impacts are very inconclusive at the moment. And if we want to end plastics, I don’t know how to do that. But what I think is a very tractable problem is tackling the waste at the end of the stream. We have plastic flowing into rivers and flowing into the ocean, and that’s actually a very tractable problem. It’s not necessarily about the amount of plastic we’re using, it’s how we dispose of it at the end of the chain. So, even if you’re putting it in a sealed landfill, or recycling, or incinerating, there’s very low risk of going into the rivers and going into the ocean. Where most plastic is flowing and they are now tends to be in middle- and low-income countries where plastic use has increased a lot, but there’s not the waste management infrastructure to manage it at the end of the chain. So, that means that the basic solution to this, which is not — you know, it’s not flashy or exciting, but it’s just investing in proper waste management.

SREENIVASAN: You’re careful not to prescribe specific things for readers of the book. I mean, you kind of worry that maybe that it turns them off or it comes off preachy. Why not?

RITCHIE: Yes, I think, in the book, what I want to give is good information. So, if someone wants to reduce their carbon footprint, I lay out all the data and examples of what someone can do. I’m very specific not to prescribe to people, you have to do this or you shouldn’t do this, because I just don’t think they respond very well to that. Like I think if I take the example of my brother, I think if I told him you have to get an electric car because you need to do this for the climate and you’re a really bad person if you don’t, I don’t think he would get the electric car. So, I think, in general, as a communication strategy, telling people what they have to do often backfires.

SREENIVASAN: There was a head of a nonprofit, Brian Kateman, who wrote an op-ed in the L.A Times, and he sort of took issue with the optimism. He said, you know, I get the appeal of embracing optimism. It makes everything so much easier. Pessimism is exhausting and so is action, but we have no choice. What do you say to that?

RITCHIE: I think we just agree or disagree on what motivates people. I — as I — I’m very clear in the book, I frame optimism, not as this blind optimism that things are going to be fine and we can just sit back, because if we don’t take action, they won’t be fine. But the way I frame it is urgent optimism or cautious optimism, which states that we can make positive change if we drive it, like it’s a very active form of optimism, not a sitting back and doing nothing. And I think for me, that just seems to be a more effective way of motivating people to take action rather than telling them this is a really bad problem, and then leaving them with no solutions.

SREENIVASAN: The book is called “Not the End of the World.” Deputy editor and science outreach lead, Our World in Data, Hannah Ritchie, thanks so much for joining us.

RITCHIE: Thank you.