“We've been fighting climate change for decades and it seems like we've made no progress,” says Dr Hannah Ritchie. “I want to counter that.” Ritchie, a senior fellow at the Oxford University Global Development Program and deputy editor of the online publication Our World in Data, is the author of the upcoming book Not the End of the World. In the book, she argues that we're inundated with pessimistic statistics and stories about climate change that are clouding our ability to think about solutions to the crisis and envision a sustainable, livable future. The upbeat story is one that the 30-year-old Ritchie builds by pointing to progress being made in areas like deforestation, cleaning our air, and the falling costs and increased adoption of clean energy technologies. “For a long time, I felt helpless about the enormity and insolvability of these problems,” Ritchie says. “We need to go faster, but there's still a lot of progress to be recognized and lessons to be learned.”
And do you believe that the data is valid for those people? I wouldn't say just data. I think it's a story built around data. The key is trying to build a positive narrative for people about what the future holds. This can incorporate data. It's, “Here's the world we can build. Climate change can be tackled in parallel with other issues. It doesn't cost a lot of money. We might save money. Our air will be cleaner. We'll have more energy security.” That's more appealing than, “Climate change is going to kill us all.”
I was thinking about Greta Thunberg's anger and Bill McKibben's moral urgency. Both of them are undoubtedly successful at motivating people. Do you think a book like yours has that kind of motivational potential? Yes, probably for different audiences. There is no one voice that speaks to all segments of the population. I also think that Greta Thunberg and Bill McKibben have done a great job of rallying people to a cause. But there is probably a saturation point for that audience and many people don't respond to that message. My point is not that my message should replace theirs. My message should stand side by side with theirs, so that we can create a larger group that wants change. One message can never do that.
Hannah Ritchie gave a TED Talk in Vancouver last April.
Ryan Rush/TED
Your book lists things like plastic straws and single-use plastic bags as things we don't need to “stress” about too much. But aren't people who say they “will care” about these things more likely to demonstrate the political will we need than people who say they “don't care”? In the book, I state explicitly that we should not all use so many plastic bottles or plastic straws. But people stress too much about it. If I go to the supermarket and I don't have a recycling bag, it's just devastating. I feel bad all day because I'm not doing my part for the environment. This is just trying to take some of the stress away and feel less overwhelmed. Another way of looking at it is based on this notion of moral license. We feel, Oh, right, now I can drive a gasoline car and eat a lot of meat because I avoid plastic straws and I have a bag. The risk is that people focus too much on the little things and miss the big things. One reason to reduce stress is because some of the things that people think have positive effects actually have negative effects, and we should try to counter them.
Can you give an example of something that is thought to be good for the environment but is actually harmful? Organic food to some extent. If the world went completely organic, we'd have some pretty bad outcomes. Organic farming tends to have lower yields, so farming requires more land. It comes at the expense of forests and habitats. Another is the idea that locally grown is the best thing you can eat. This is not what the data shows. For most foods, the transportation component is a small fraction of the emissions, and shipping avocados from South America has a smaller carbon footprint than local beef or lamb.
What are some influential actions that individuals can take or change? Reduce your meat intake, especially beef. For most people in the world, reducing meat consumption would have a big impact. Reduce food waste. Transportation: walking, cycling and public transport are always best. When it comes to home energy, heating and cooling are key. Insulation, installing heat pumps, installing solar panels if possible. These are important things.
You say in the book that these issues need more political will. But politics and political will are temporary and can't be modeled the same way as other things related to the climate crisis. Do you think that makes you and other scientists hesitant to lean more into that side? Do you feel like that's not your position? In general, I don't think the role of science is to dictate policy. Science identifies problems. Science can identify potential impacts. Science doesn't dictate solutions. The role of science is to say, “If you do this, these are the consequences,” not “This is what you should do.” should Even in the “Things to Do” book, I try to draw that line very carefully. I try not to be overly prescriptive. We live in a democracy. We have to make democratic choices. If we try to undermine democracy to address these issues, we're treading into dangerous territory.
Can you tell me what you mean when you say that science can undermine democracy? Climate change is a big problem, but it's only one of many big problems we face. We live in a democracy and we vote on the issues we think need to be addressed and balanced with other issues. We have strong opinions about what the priorities should be, but it needs to be a democratic decision. We need to repeatedly tell our people: “These are the problems we face.” But we run the risk of going overboard.
Do you think I'm wrong to focus on politics? Oh, no, I don't think you're wrong. I agree that the political perspective is important. There are a lot of people with strong political opinions, especially in the climate activism space. To be politically effective, I need to be nonpartisan. I can't vehemently say, “You guys are terrible. You're not trying hard enough.” So there's very little political content in the book, and that's entirely intentional. It's me trying to capture as effectively as I can areas that other people might not capture.
I’m skeptical that presenting examples of ongoing scientific progress will generate enough will to fight the climate crisis, or to do so quickly enough. I’m sure you’ve encountered such skepticism before. Does it tire you out? Do you think I’m stuck in an epistemological rut? No, I think your skepticism is justified. I would have been in a similar position about 10 years ago. We just didn't see the technological advances that are needed to address many of these issues. In that framework, you would rely on very strong political will to make these changes, often against the economic interest and short-term societal interest. But especially in the last decade, we've seen transformative technological change.
What would be the appropriate response from the scientific community? Is it to cede the political debate to non-scientists? The right response is to clearly state what the issue is and what the likely impacts are. For people to trust it, we need to move away from politicization. When it comes to climate change, science is the foundation. We need to keep that foundation as strong as possible. So the role of science is to discover, research and explain. What scientists are not very good at is explaining to the public what this actually means. The temperature target is 1.5 or 2 degrees. We need to explain what that means for the public in easy-to-understand terms.
What would happen to the world if temperatures rose by 2 degrees? That's a hard question to answer because the impacts depend not only on climate trends, but also on our ability to resilience and adapt. So the impacts are that a lot more people will be exposed to very extreme heat. Probably the biggest concern for me is agriculture. As warming increases, crop yields may start to decrease quite a bit. It's not a given that crop yields will decrease, but we'll have to adapt significantly. So the impacts are very serious, but how we respond is an open question.
Hannah, how optimistic are you about humanity rising to the challenge of climate change at its most honest and unguarded? We won't get to 1.5 degrees. We're past that. But I'm optimistic that we can get very close to 2 degrees. But the question is, can we adapt to limit it to 2 degrees and at the same time create resilience, lift people out of poverty, and limit the damage as much as possible? I'm pretty optimistic about that.
Opening illustration: from a photograph by Hannah Ritchie
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity between the two conversations.
David Marchese is a staff writer at The Talk and a columnist for The Talk, who recently interviewed Alok Vaid Menon about transgender ordinariness, Joyce Carol Oates about immortality, and Robert Downey Jr. about life after Marvel.
