What do you think?
Rate this book
Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet
'Truly essential' MARGARET ATWOOD
Feeling anxious, powerless or confused about the future of our planet? This book will transform how you see our biggest environmental problems - and how we can solve them
We are bombarded by doomsday headlines that tell us the soil won't be able to support crops, fish will vanish from our oceans, that we should reconsider having children.
But in this bold, radically hopeful book, data scientist Hannah Ritchie argues that if we zoom out, a very different picture emerges. The data shows we've made so much progress on these problems, and so fast, that we could be on track to achieve true sustainability for the first time in history.
Packed with the latest research, practical guidance and enlightening graphics, this book will make you rethink almost everything you've been told about the environment, from the virtues of eating locally and living in the countryside, to the evils of overpopulation, plastic straws and palm oil. It will give you the tools to understand what works, what doesn't and what we urgently need to focus on so we can leave a sustainable planet for future generations.
These problems are big. But they are solvable. We are not doomed. We can build a better future for everyone. Let's turn that opportunity into reality.
' Not the End of the World is an inspiring data-mine which gives us not only real guidance, but the most necessary ingredient of hope . . . practical and truly essential' Margaret Atwood, TED2023
Feeling anxious, powerless or confused about the future of our planet? This book will transform how you see our biggest environmental problems - and how we can solve them
We are bombarded by doomsday headlines that tell us the soil won't be able to support crops, fish will vanish from our oceans, that we should reconsider having children.
But in this bold, radically hopeful book, data scientist Hannah Ritchie argues that if we zoom out, a very different picture emerges. The data shows we've made so much progress on these problems, and so fast, that we could be on track to achieve true sustainability for the first time in history.
Packed with the latest research, practical guidance and enlightening graphics, this book will make you rethink almost everything you've been told about the environment, from the virtues of eating locally and living in the countryside, to the evils of overpopulation, plastic straws and palm oil. It will give you the tools to understand what works, what doesn't and what we urgently need to focus on so we can leave a sustainable planet for future generations.
These problems are big. But they are solvable. We are not doomed. We can build a better future for everyone. Let's turn that opportunity into reality.
' Not the End of the World is an inspiring data-mine which gives us not only real guidance, but the most necessary ingredient of hope . . . practical and truly essential' Margaret Atwood, TED2023
341 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 9, 2024
About the author
Hannah Ritchie
3 books82 followersHannah Ritchie is deputy editor and research leader at Our World in Data, an online publication making data and research on the world's largest problems accessible and understandable for non-experts. She is a senior researcher at the University of Oxford, where she studies how environmental issues intersect with others like poverty, global health and education. She has also done extensive research into the question of how to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet without wrecking the planet. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Economist and New Scientist.
In 2022, Ritchie was named Scotland's Youth Climate Champion. Her forthcoming book, The First Generation, makes an evidence-based case for why we have a meaningful chance to solve global environmental problems for the first time in human history.
In 2022, Ritchie was named Scotland's Youth Climate Champion. Her forthcoming book, The First Generation, makes an evidence-based case for why we have a meaningful chance to solve global environmental problems for the first time in human history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 316 reviews
March 28, 2024
What is the role of optimism? I’ve been wondering this a lot lately, not least since I find pessimism is my natural disposition. It’s that saying by Gramsci – we should have pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will. At least I can manage one half of this. I’ve been wondering lately if hope is the same as optimism. I can see people might think it is, but I’m not quite convinced. I feel I can hope people will start behaving in ways that show that they take climate change seriously without being optimistic that will be the case. Hope expresses quite well my lack of faith, where optimism feels like it needs a leap of faith that I just cannot justify. So, when the author here speaks of her optimism and how it transformed her so that she could actually go back to working towards changing the world – well, as John Lennon said, we all want to change the world.
She starts this by saying that the thing that changed her life was watching a TedTalk by Hans Rosling. I don’t particularly think very much of Rosling’s work – and am concerned he presents only positive data, while ignoring anything negative. I’ve criticised his work in my review of The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions. Sometimes this amounts to disinformation – literally what he says he is seeking to correct. Rather than being optimistic, his work becomes virtually the equivalent of positive psychology. This book is also highly praised by Bill Gates.
I’ve become very concerned with the problem of knowing what is true and what isn’t. I read quite a lot, but I also know that there are so many things that one needs to know, that it’s impossible to become an expert (or even very well informed) on very many topics. I’ve read quite a few books on climate change. There is this one, which says that things are a bit bad, but all of the problems facing us are very much manageable and are probably likely to be fixed soon enough. No room for complacency, but things are getting better and better and, in all likelihood, rumours of the end of the world have been somewhat exaggerated.
Then there is The Uninhabitable Earth – an interesting little book that essentially argues that things are actually really quite bad, but that sooner or later people are going to realise time is running out and will force governments to do something to fix things. The longer this takes, the worse things will be – but sooner or later denial will no longer be an option and action will become inevitable.
Then there is Breaking Together: A freedom-loving response to collapse. Which basically argues that it is too damn late to fix anything and we had better get ready for the total collapse of the social structures we are used to, because they will no longer be fit for purpose very, very soon.
So, who is right? They can’t really all be right. They all seem to have lots of data to support the case they mount. So, which is it? Or do we just get to choose the outcome that best suits our prejudices?
This book is probably worth reading for all of the positive stats she give about things we probably should know more about. Like the fact that some of the things we do to save the world don’t really matter nearly as much as we think they do. Her example is paper straws – which are, let’s face it, next to useless. Since most plastic straws go to landfill, using paper straws probably isn’t really saving the world. And, since most plastic waste in the oceans, the reason we use paper straws that don’t work in the first place, isn’t really from the plastics people use, but rather from fishing nets that are dumped at sea, we are addressing a problem in a way that makes literally no sense – my drinking from a paper straw will do nothing to stop fishing companies dumping fishing nets into the ocean. We need to find other ways to do that.
She also makes the case for not banning palm oil – since it requires less land to produce than alternatives, and since we will continue to need to use something for oil, all other alternatives will be environmentally worse options. Is this true? No idea. Seemed to make sense when she said it. She also says we need to electrify everything and other books I’ve read say much the same thing. She also advises we should eat less beef and drink any type of milk other than that from cows. So, she certainly isn’t saying that we can just go on as we are and all will be well with the world. But she does say that things have gotten infinitely better, and continue to do so – so, despair isn’t warranted.
I’ve looked at a few criticisms of her book. Nothing extensive by another expert, but criticisms all the same. One point made is that most of the things she says will get better due to cost incentives misses the point that so much of this is based on political decisions in a system where oil companies dominate our politicians, so, to just say there will be a shift once things are cheaper seems crazy to me. I live in Australia, the only nation on earth to have had a price on carbon, that was reducing emissions, that was then defined as a ‘carbon tax’ and then repealed. Carbon emissions have grown ever since. To say, as she does in an interview, that she didn’t want to write a political book… well, maybe she should have written on another topic, because it isn’t at all clear to me how climate change can be non-political.
There are odd silences in this book too. I was very curious to hear how she might say fresh water was getting better all the time, but she says nothing about this. As far as I can see, we are in deep trouble with fresh water and that the Arab Spring was in part at least a consequence of a lack of access to fresh water. She says that we are likely to pass 1.5 degrees centigrade, and probably also 2 degrees. She isn’t particularly concerned with this – says it would be nice if we didn’t, but not the end of the world if we do. The problem is that she mentions tipping points (only once in the introduction) as potentially making climate change much, much worse. Every other time she uses the term it is the tipping points that make something bad – killing off animals, using coal, etc – wonderfully good. I believe many scientists are currently saying that we may have already surpassed many tipping points likely to push us into chaos. But again, who am I to believe?
Hans Rosling would point to improvements in poverty reduction and infant mortality and so on and say, everything you think you know about the world is wrong. The Divide shows why this is an overstatement of the facts. The last I read we are not on track to meet any of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Like I said at the start, optimism is all well and good, but while she started her book by saying pessimism kills action, after I finished reading this I felt there was little point me taking action at all. Again, pessimism and optimism might simply be the wrong paradigm to view this problem from. Anger and hope might actually be more productive emotions. Anger at the bastards who are making a fortune out of killing our planet, and hope that eventually people will shift from outrage to rage and demand change. Hoping price mechanisms will fix the planet while hiding the total absolute increases in problems (like during coal) by shifting to per capita figures is not sustainable.
Things would be much better if she was right – I just wish I could believe her.
She starts this by saying that the thing that changed her life was watching a TedTalk by Hans Rosling. I don’t particularly think very much of Rosling’s work – and am concerned he presents only positive data, while ignoring anything negative. I’ve criticised his work in my review of The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions. Sometimes this amounts to disinformation – literally what he says he is seeking to correct. Rather than being optimistic, his work becomes virtually the equivalent of positive psychology. This book is also highly praised by Bill Gates.
I’ve become very concerned with the problem of knowing what is true and what isn’t. I read quite a lot, but I also know that there are so many things that one needs to know, that it’s impossible to become an expert (or even very well informed) on very many topics. I’ve read quite a few books on climate change. There is this one, which says that things are a bit bad, but all of the problems facing us are very much manageable and are probably likely to be fixed soon enough. No room for complacency, but things are getting better and better and, in all likelihood, rumours of the end of the world have been somewhat exaggerated.
Then there is The Uninhabitable Earth – an interesting little book that essentially argues that things are actually really quite bad, but that sooner or later people are going to realise time is running out and will force governments to do something to fix things. The longer this takes, the worse things will be – but sooner or later denial will no longer be an option and action will become inevitable.
Then there is Breaking Together: A freedom-loving response to collapse. Which basically argues that it is too damn late to fix anything and we had better get ready for the total collapse of the social structures we are used to, because they will no longer be fit for purpose very, very soon.
So, who is right? They can’t really all be right. They all seem to have lots of data to support the case they mount. So, which is it? Or do we just get to choose the outcome that best suits our prejudices?
This book is probably worth reading for all of the positive stats she give about things we probably should know more about. Like the fact that some of the things we do to save the world don’t really matter nearly as much as we think they do. Her example is paper straws – which are, let’s face it, next to useless. Since most plastic straws go to landfill, using paper straws probably isn’t really saving the world. And, since most plastic waste in the oceans, the reason we use paper straws that don’t work in the first place, isn’t really from the plastics people use, but rather from fishing nets that are dumped at sea, we are addressing a problem in a way that makes literally no sense – my drinking from a paper straw will do nothing to stop fishing companies dumping fishing nets into the ocean. We need to find other ways to do that.
She also makes the case for not banning palm oil – since it requires less land to produce than alternatives, and since we will continue to need to use something for oil, all other alternatives will be environmentally worse options. Is this true? No idea. Seemed to make sense when she said it. She also says we need to electrify everything and other books I’ve read say much the same thing. She also advises we should eat less beef and drink any type of milk other than that from cows. So, she certainly isn’t saying that we can just go on as we are and all will be well with the world. But she does say that things have gotten infinitely better, and continue to do so – so, despair isn’t warranted.
I’ve looked at a few criticisms of her book. Nothing extensive by another expert, but criticisms all the same. One point made is that most of the things she says will get better due to cost incentives misses the point that so much of this is based on political decisions in a system where oil companies dominate our politicians, so, to just say there will be a shift once things are cheaper seems crazy to me. I live in Australia, the only nation on earth to have had a price on carbon, that was reducing emissions, that was then defined as a ‘carbon tax’ and then repealed. Carbon emissions have grown ever since. To say, as she does in an interview, that she didn’t want to write a political book… well, maybe she should have written on another topic, because it isn’t at all clear to me how climate change can be non-political.
There are odd silences in this book too. I was very curious to hear how she might say fresh water was getting better all the time, but she says nothing about this. As far as I can see, we are in deep trouble with fresh water and that the Arab Spring was in part at least a consequence of a lack of access to fresh water. She says that we are likely to pass 1.5 degrees centigrade, and probably also 2 degrees. She isn’t particularly concerned with this – says it would be nice if we didn’t, but not the end of the world if we do. The problem is that she mentions tipping points (only once in the introduction) as potentially making climate change much, much worse. Every other time she uses the term it is the tipping points that make something bad – killing off animals, using coal, etc – wonderfully good. I believe many scientists are currently saying that we may have already surpassed many tipping points likely to push us into chaos. But again, who am I to believe?
Hans Rosling would point to improvements in poverty reduction and infant mortality and so on and say, everything you think you know about the world is wrong. The Divide shows why this is an overstatement of the facts. The last I read we are not on track to meet any of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Like I said at the start, optimism is all well and good, but while she started her book by saying pessimism kills action, after I finished reading this I felt there was little point me taking action at all. Again, pessimism and optimism might simply be the wrong paradigm to view this problem from. Anger and hope might actually be more productive emotions. Anger at the bastards who are making a fortune out of killing our planet, and hope that eventually people will shift from outrage to rage and demand change. Hoping price mechanisms will fix the planet while hiding the total absolute increases in problems (like during coal) by shifting to per capita figures is not sustainable.
Things would be much better if she was right – I just wish I could believe her.
January 20, 2024
I found Hannah's case for optimism from our dire predicament quite strenuous and unconvincing, and she constructed a lot of straw men in the book in order to make her points. Her use of data in her book was selective to say the least. I also noted a number of inaccuracies (or at least significant divergencies from my own understanding of our predicament).
She has also struggled to justify a lot of the positions she adopted in her own book. The section on de-growth was particularly ill informed, and the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels, simply fanciful. I also struggled with her 'war' metaphor in the book, which I found bizarre. Her claim to absolute apolitical objectivity also, clearly indefensible.
I don't concur with Hannah's definition of a 'doomer'. I regard myself as a doomer in that I think I have a realistic understanding of our predicament and tend not to seek solace in cognitive dissonance or denial. I try to be a grown up and face the grim reality of our predicament. That doesn't mean that I will ever give up hope in our ability to address some of the worst impacts of climate change - far from it - but I do push back against baseless optimism, which I regard as dangerous. Panic is an important human emotion as it can help us to conjure up the motivation and will to act on our worst fears. Buffering people from panic is unhelpful. In respect of the climate crisis, too much panic is not our problem, not enough panic is our problem.
It's a shame, because I so want to encounter a positive narrative on the climate crisis in which I can believe. Hope is so difficult to come by, that I really willed Hannah to provide a convincing space for hope, but alas, I struggled to find it in her book. In order to make her somewhat plaintive case for optimism, Hannah found herself contorting and making use of accounting tricks and statistical sleight of hand. These strategies needed to be exposed. They are the same strategies used by climate deniers to such great effect.
I think Bill Gates, and perhaps Elon Musk, had much more influence on this book than Hannah would ever admit. The book is a techno-optimist, neoliberal manifesto and highly ideological and, despite Hannah's assertions to the contrary, very political. She seems to be suggesting that there is a 'business as usual' route to addressing climate change and the book repeats the myth that 'we have the technology in place to solve this' - an assertion that, for me, has never stood up to scrutiny. I found it a troubling book.
She has also struggled to justify a lot of the positions she adopted in her own book. The section on de-growth was particularly ill informed, and the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels, simply fanciful. I also struggled with her 'war' metaphor in the book, which I found bizarre. Her claim to absolute apolitical objectivity also, clearly indefensible.
I don't concur with Hannah's definition of a 'doomer'. I regard myself as a doomer in that I think I have a realistic understanding of our predicament and tend not to seek solace in cognitive dissonance or denial. I try to be a grown up and face the grim reality of our predicament. That doesn't mean that I will ever give up hope in our ability to address some of the worst impacts of climate change - far from it - but I do push back against baseless optimism, which I regard as dangerous. Panic is an important human emotion as it can help us to conjure up the motivation and will to act on our worst fears. Buffering people from panic is unhelpful. In respect of the climate crisis, too much panic is not our problem, not enough panic is our problem.
It's a shame, because I so want to encounter a positive narrative on the climate crisis in which I can believe. Hope is so difficult to come by, that I really willed Hannah to provide a convincing space for hope, but alas, I struggled to find it in her book. In order to make her somewhat plaintive case for optimism, Hannah found herself contorting and making use of accounting tricks and statistical sleight of hand. These strategies needed to be exposed. They are the same strategies used by climate deniers to such great effect.
I think Bill Gates, and perhaps Elon Musk, had much more influence on this book than Hannah would ever admit. The book is a techno-optimist, neoliberal manifesto and highly ideological and, despite Hannah's assertions to the contrary, very political. She seems to be suggesting that there is a 'business as usual' route to addressing climate change and the book repeats the myth that 'we have the technology in place to solve this' - an assertion that, for me, has never stood up to scrutiny. I found it a troubling book.
January 18, 2024
I am sorry because I wanted to like this book. I am not a climate doomer, I am hopeful for the future and a fan of books like Rebecca Solnit's Hope In The Dark, but this book is truly terrible. It gets a wide range of basic facts very wrong - it doesn't realise that climate change will affect the ozone layer; it regards air pollution as a problem of at least as much severity as climate change; it thinks whales are out of the woods now we've stopped hunting them (no mention of sea temperatures or acidification); it doesn't really care if all pollinators die; it accepts we are on a trajectory for Permian level extinction in thousands of years but "have time to turn this around"; it doesn't mention that plastics are made from fossil fuels; it doesn't even mention major problems like water shortages; it proposes veggie burgers as a solution to hunger over resource redistribution. I could go on; there are other serious problems with it I won't detail here, and an awful lot of misdirection and fallacious arguments. The 4.4+ rating it currently has on here shows just how much damage this book is likely to do. I don't wholly blame the author - surely the editorial team and Penguin must bear some responsibility here. Irresponsible and hugely disappointing.
January 28, 2024
This book needs a lot more attention from the younger generations! It's an honest, fact based discussion about what's important, what's exaggerated, what's a big problem and what's just a distraction. Facts, numbers and science aimed at the people who will HAVE TO change the current system into a sustainable one.
Hannah is picking up Hans Rosling's legacy and carrying it into the future. Hell of an undertaking and she's off to a smashing start.Thank you, Hannah! Please don't give up on this fight.
Hannah is picking up Hans Rosling's legacy and carrying it into the future. Hell of an undertaking and she's off to a smashing start.Thank you, Hannah! Please don't give up on this fight.
January 31, 2024
There are some interesting insights here, and data driven journalism can be used to highlight how many environmental metrics have turned a corner in recent years,
BUT
this book is oversimplified at best and dangerous at worst.
It starts by paraphrasing Factfulness, a book which rested entirely on the premise that because demographic metrics have improved, they will therefore continue improving (and let's ignore their cost to the planet). This is a logical fallacy, and Not the End of the World takes this fallacy and applies it wherever possible. Renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient, therefore we'll be able to replace fossil fuels by mid-century. CO2 emissions per capita are falling, therefore CO2 emissions will soon start falling. These statements are *potentially* right, but that doesn't mean one logically follows the other. The word "can" does a lot of heavy lifting in this book.
A lot of this ties into techno-optimism. "New technologies are allowing us to decouple a good and comfortable life from an environmentally destructive one." New tech is marvellous when it works, and it's understandable, looking at the 20th century, to assume we can tech our way out of our problems. I want to believe that. But carbon capture and storage isn't working. Renewable energy isn't effective enough, and we lack the production, infrastructure and behavioural change necessary to provide it worldwide. Tech is unlikely to deliver enough in time. And to an extent, supporting techno-optimism is trying to fix the problem with more of what caused it.
Sometimes this book is a bit insidious. Ritchie implies that climate scientists have consistently been wrong and that she'll prove this over the course of the book, but the people she quotes are population scientists, newspaper articles, and Seaspiracy. She says "every doomsday activist that makes a big bold claim inevitably turns out to be wrong", which is true if you're talking about The End Is Nigh-ers, but in the context of climate science it seems to indicate that scary predications are generally inaccurate. But they're not! In fact, most scary predictions have turned out to be understatements! And all this ignores the fact that the intensity of climate change will cause catastrophic breakdowns before most of Ritchie's optimistic assumption could possibly come to pass. The context of where we are right now with the climate crisis, how much change we need and how urgently we need it, is almost entirely missing.
Aside from anything else, the overall message of this book encourages complacency, even if Ritchie does admittedly call for continued action. You can't title your book "Not the End of the World" and expect anything else. It plays right into the hands of big business and the dominant politics (Bill Gates gives a glowing review on the back cover). It's interesting in many parts, but it's the opposite of what we need right now.
BUT
this book is oversimplified at best and dangerous at worst.
It starts by paraphrasing Factfulness, a book which rested entirely on the premise that because demographic metrics have improved, they will therefore continue improving (and let's ignore their cost to the planet). This is a logical fallacy, and Not the End of the World takes this fallacy and applies it wherever possible. Renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient, therefore we'll be able to replace fossil fuels by mid-century. CO2 emissions per capita are falling, therefore CO2 emissions will soon start falling. These statements are *potentially* right, but that doesn't mean one logically follows the other. The word "can" does a lot of heavy lifting in this book.
A lot of this ties into techno-optimism. "New technologies are allowing us to decouple a good and comfortable life from an environmentally destructive one." New tech is marvellous when it works, and it's understandable, looking at the 20th century, to assume we can tech our way out of our problems. I want to believe that. But carbon capture and storage isn't working. Renewable energy isn't effective enough, and we lack the production, infrastructure and behavioural change necessary to provide it worldwide. Tech is unlikely to deliver enough in time. And to an extent, supporting techno-optimism is trying to fix the problem with more of what caused it.
Sometimes this book is a bit insidious. Ritchie implies that climate scientists have consistently been wrong and that she'll prove this over the course of the book, but the people she quotes are population scientists, newspaper articles, and Seaspiracy. She says "every doomsday activist that makes a big bold claim inevitably turns out to be wrong", which is true if you're talking about The End Is Nigh-ers, but in the context of climate science it seems to indicate that scary predications are generally inaccurate. But they're not! In fact, most scary predictions have turned out to be understatements! And all this ignores the fact that the intensity of climate change will cause catastrophic breakdowns before most of Ritchie's optimistic assumption could possibly come to pass. The context of where we are right now with the climate crisis, how much change we need and how urgently we need it, is almost entirely missing.
Aside from anything else, the overall message of this book encourages complacency, even if Ritchie does admittedly call for continued action. You can't title your book "Not the End of the World" and expect anything else. It plays right into the hands of big business and the dominant politics (Bill Gates gives a glowing review on the back cover). It's interesting in many parts, but it's the opposite of what we need right now.
December 3, 2023
We are bombarded by doomsday headlines that tell us the soil won't be able to support crops, fish will vanish from our oceans, that we should reconsider having children. But in this bold, radically hopeful book, data scientist Hannah Ritchie argues that if we zoom out, a very different picture emerges. The data shows we've made so much progress on these problems, and so fast, that we could be on track to achieve true sustainability for the first time in history.
There are lots of references to studies, but basically, it's still easy to understand. I can't say I really read anything that I had not heard before, but it was told in more understandable detail. It's obvious that the author does know what she's talking about, and does it in a way that makes you want to know more. Unfortunately, the diagrams and graphs did not show clearly on the kindle edition.
I would like to thank #NetGalley #RandomHouseUK #Vintage and the author #HannahRitchie for my ARC of #NotTheEndOfTheWorld in exchange for an honest review.
There are lots of references to studies, but basically, it's still easy to understand. I can't say I really read anything that I had not heard before, but it was told in more understandable detail. It's obvious that the author does know what she's talking about, and does it in a way that makes you want to know more. Unfortunately, the diagrams and graphs did not show clearly on the kindle edition.
I would like to thank #NetGalley #RandomHouseUK #Vintage and the author #HannahRitchie for my ARC of #NotTheEndOfTheWorld in exchange for an honest review.
March 10, 2024
Not the End of the World promotes a hopeful message for the climate anxious, but ultimately offers a weak take on why and how climate warriors should take advantage of the present opportunity. It does, however, (mostly) avoid pandering to typical development talking points on climate-relevant issues, so I commend Ritchie for including some discourse that is not often talked about, such as the degrowth debate and aquaculture. I don't take issue with the content – in fact, I agree with most of the arguments and 'solutions' that Ritchie presents and found some parts quite insightful – but the execution fell short. The mention of the interconnectedness of these issues is useful as well as it highlights the systemic nature of climate-relevant impacts. I did like the upfront framing of sustainability as something that has never been achieved before. I do think, however, that this notion contradicts how she starts her conclusion ("Sustainability is humanity's North Star" [p.288]) because how can something that has never been achieved serve as guidance?
Overall, however, I was not impressed with the sweeping generalizations of many of the 'solutions' presented, though I don't think this makes the book 'irresponsible' or 'dangerous' as other reviewers have noted, just poorly written (this does, however, signal that poor writing gets published, which is not great). I did not intend for this review to be a wall of text, but decided to flesh out my thoughts given that some of the other critical reviews of this book on Goodreads received valid comments that they did not point to specific issues.
Ritchie's main argument is that we (as living humans on Earth) are faring a lot better than we have historically – in terms of sustainability and well-being indicators at least – and also have the means and opportunity to enable the vision of a sustainable global economy that is projected at every annual COP. Her strongest support for this is that cleaner alternatives (beyond just renewables) are costing less to implement and becoming more desirable – though later she concludes that "Sustainable solutions are becoming the cheapest option" (p. 292), which is not necessarily true. In the other sustainability indicators she lists (namely, air pollution, global temperatures, deforestation, food, biodiversity loss, plastics, overfishing), Ritchie spends more time showing us how things have been worse in the past than how things have improved (and how they could keep improving).
As a side note, I get what Ritchie is trying to do with the subtitle but I would have avoided using the word "generation". With the identity politics associated with the term, it can be a bit confusing for readers who are expecting Ritchie to refer to a specific generation (i.e., Gen Z, Gen X, millenial), though it is clear (by the end) that she is referring to the larger cohort of people currently alive and able to do something. This language also puts pressure on younger groups than the older, arguably more responsible people to take action. This also begs the question of who the intended audience is. She does mention at one point that the reader may either be a consumer (and therefore shouldn't stress about our consumption of wild vs. farmed fish - p.286) or an "innovated, policymaker or funder". But this seems written for the average consumer who does not understand what a maximum sustainable yield is and needs it patronizingly explained to them.
She frames the implementation of these solutions as a matter of choice. Ritchie does explain that these actions take time, effort, and financing, but ultimately it feels more like "we can achieve all these targets, if only we'd decide to" rather than acknowledging the myriad constraints and decisions policymakers face. "Many of the solutions are at our fingertips - we know what to do, and many countries have done it already. It's possible to achieve this everywhere over the next few decades if we commit to it" (p. 288). This kind of language is reminiscent of the kind of toxic positivity that people suffering from clinical depression often endure (i.e., the "cheer up" approach). It also assumes that all countries are equally capable of adopting these sustainable shifts, which is critically not the case. Feels like Ritchie's perspective is rooted from a narrow, WEIRD* perspective, evident by the fact that emerging economies like Indonesia, India, Malaysia, etc. are only mentioned as a) groupings of non-rich countries (there are actual sentences in which she lists the countries in opposition to "rich" countries) or b) specific sectoral trends such as deforestation.
So in this case, I do share the criticism of many other reviewers who decry this book as techno-optimistic, though being a techno-optimist is not in itself a bad thing. When it becomes problematic is putting innovation on a pedestal, relying completely on recent technological advancements to demonstrate that we are simply in the middle of the climate equivalent of Moore's Law. Looking solely at the outcomes of specific metrics (e.g., emissions reductions for countries that adopted certain technologies), such advancements would certainly suggest positive trends for technological process. Ritchie doesn't address the issue of the global use of a limited set of indicators and metrics to determine country progress (i.e., GDP). But at the very least, she is not perpetuating the complacent optimism she lambasts; her argument here for technology is empirical, just captures only one part of the progress story without the disclaimer that it is not the whole picture.
For someone who works with data and statistics for a living and presents herself as someone who looks at all the angles, Ritchie fails to acknowledge many of the confounding variables in her anecdotes and examples (e.g., shifts in global attitudes, policy priorities, impact of subsidies and taxes, etc.). Perhaps it is avoided because the narratives around these additional variables are difficult to reveal through global data trends, which I would excuse if such a disclaimer were present.
Many of the 'solutions' are oversimplified and tend to be used to support broad statements. One significant example is how Ritchie talks about the effectiveness of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on eliminating ozone-depleting gases like CFCs. Following how experts of the time dismissed the initial studies showcased the impact of CFCs on the upper atmosphere, Ritchie writes that "the visual imagery of a growing ozone hole was hard to ignore: it finally put pressure on governmental and industrial actors to take action" as what drove the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances (p. 46). The glaring omission, of course, are the various mechanisms that allowed Montreal to succeed in garnering cooperation (some studies have argued that incentives played a key role, specifically the binding nature of trade sanctions for non-compliant members), which were not present in the less successful agreements and international negotiations since (e.g., Kyoto Protocol). This gap is particularly important because COPs and global summits are now the most dominant events in fostering collective action against the effects of the climate crisis, and a failure to examine how these play out detracts from the current opportunity that Ritchie is arguing for. She even makes reference to this historic agreement as an example of increasing ambition in the following chapters, and in one case states that "we got our act together on ozone because we were worried about skin cancer" (p. 220), which further discounts the aforementioned mechanisms. It's baffling to me that Ritchie – a self-proclaimed data scientist – writes so blindly in this manner and speaks in such finality without assuming estimation or projection.
Another example is her discourse on aquaculture: "Fish farming is an innovation that has saved many fish populations across the world. But it’s not the only thing we’ve got right." (p. 270) This statement presents fish farming as an infallible solution. Although Ritchie does make some qualifications on fish farming, including feed efficiency improvements, there are still a number of drawbacks in today's aquaculture that are preventing it from scaling up as well as be presented as a true sustainable solution. This includes how aquaculture practices – especially oceanic farms – can increase eutrophication through the buildup of excess nutrients in an enclosed space, and how farmed escapees can alter the gene-pools of wild populations.
It's one thing to say these have been the trends and this is what we've seen recently in order to say we are not so doomed, but these broad conclusions and narratives from more specific indicator trends are not what you want to take away from a book that is meant to make you feel hopeful. That said, I would like to avoid being counterproductive by berating Ritchie and her work – after all, we are on the same "team". There are definitely outstanding pieces in the book; I'm just disappointed that they weren't as carefully constructed.
*Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic
Overall, however, I was not impressed with the sweeping generalizations of many of the 'solutions' presented, though I don't think this makes the book 'irresponsible' or 'dangerous' as other reviewers have noted, just poorly written (this does, however, signal that poor writing gets published, which is not great). I did not intend for this review to be a wall of text, but decided to flesh out my thoughts given that some of the other critical reviews of this book on Goodreads received valid comments that they did not point to specific issues.
Ritchie's main argument is that we (as living humans on Earth) are faring a lot better than we have historically – in terms of sustainability and well-being indicators at least – and also have the means and opportunity to enable the vision of a sustainable global economy that is projected at every annual COP. Her strongest support for this is that cleaner alternatives (beyond just renewables) are costing less to implement and becoming more desirable – though later she concludes that "Sustainable solutions are becoming the cheapest option" (p. 292), which is not necessarily true. In the other sustainability indicators she lists (namely, air pollution, global temperatures, deforestation, food, biodiversity loss, plastics, overfishing), Ritchie spends more time showing us how things have been worse in the past than how things have improved (and how they could keep improving).
As a side note, I get what Ritchie is trying to do with the subtitle but I would have avoided using the word "generation". With the identity politics associated with the term, it can be a bit confusing for readers who are expecting Ritchie to refer to a specific generation (i.e., Gen Z, Gen X, millenial), though it is clear (by the end) that she is referring to the larger cohort of people currently alive and able to do something. This language also puts pressure on younger groups than the older, arguably more responsible people to take action. This also begs the question of who the intended audience is. She does mention at one point that the reader may either be a consumer (and therefore shouldn't stress about our consumption of wild vs. farmed fish - p.286) or an "innovated, policymaker or funder". But this seems written for the average consumer who does not understand what a maximum sustainable yield is and needs it patronizingly explained to them.
She frames the implementation of these solutions as a matter of choice. Ritchie does explain that these actions take time, effort, and financing, but ultimately it feels more like "we can achieve all these targets, if only we'd decide to" rather than acknowledging the myriad constraints and decisions policymakers face. "Many of the solutions are at our fingertips - we know what to do, and many countries have done it already. It's possible to achieve this everywhere over the next few decades if we commit to it" (p. 288). This kind of language is reminiscent of the kind of toxic positivity that people suffering from clinical depression often endure (i.e., the "cheer up" approach). It also assumes that all countries are equally capable of adopting these sustainable shifts, which is critically not the case. Feels like Ritchie's perspective is rooted from a narrow, WEIRD* perspective, evident by the fact that emerging economies like Indonesia, India, Malaysia, etc. are only mentioned as a) groupings of non-rich countries (there are actual sentences in which she lists the countries in opposition to "rich" countries) or b) specific sectoral trends such as deforestation.
So in this case, I do share the criticism of many other reviewers who decry this book as techno-optimistic, though being a techno-optimist is not in itself a bad thing. When it becomes problematic is putting innovation on a pedestal, relying completely on recent technological advancements to demonstrate that we are simply in the middle of the climate equivalent of Moore's Law. Looking solely at the outcomes of specific metrics (e.g., emissions reductions for countries that adopted certain technologies), such advancements would certainly suggest positive trends for technological process. Ritchie doesn't address the issue of the global use of a limited set of indicators and metrics to determine country progress (i.e., GDP). But at the very least, she is not perpetuating the complacent optimism she lambasts; her argument here for technology is empirical, just captures only one part of the progress story without the disclaimer that it is not the whole picture.
For someone who works with data and statistics for a living and presents herself as someone who looks at all the angles, Ritchie fails to acknowledge many of the confounding variables in her anecdotes and examples (e.g., shifts in global attitudes, policy priorities, impact of subsidies and taxes, etc.). Perhaps it is avoided because the narratives around these additional variables are difficult to reveal through global data trends, which I would excuse if such a disclaimer were present.
Many of the 'solutions' are oversimplified and tend to be used to support broad statements. One significant example is how Ritchie talks about the effectiveness of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on eliminating ozone-depleting gases like CFCs. Following how experts of the time dismissed the initial studies showcased the impact of CFCs on the upper atmosphere, Ritchie writes that "the visual imagery of a growing ozone hole was hard to ignore: it finally put pressure on governmental and industrial actors to take action" as what drove the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances (p. 46). The glaring omission, of course, are the various mechanisms that allowed Montreal to succeed in garnering cooperation (some studies have argued that incentives played a key role, specifically the binding nature of trade sanctions for non-compliant members), which were not present in the less successful agreements and international negotiations since (e.g., Kyoto Protocol). This gap is particularly important because COPs and global summits are now the most dominant events in fostering collective action against the effects of the climate crisis, and a failure to examine how these play out detracts from the current opportunity that Ritchie is arguing for. She even makes reference to this historic agreement as an example of increasing ambition in the following chapters, and in one case states that "we got our act together on ozone because we were worried about skin cancer" (p. 220), which further discounts the aforementioned mechanisms. It's baffling to me that Ritchie – a self-proclaimed data scientist – writes so blindly in this manner and speaks in such finality without assuming estimation or projection.
Another example is her discourse on aquaculture: "Fish farming is an innovation that has saved many fish populations across the world. But it’s not the only thing we’ve got right." (p. 270) This statement presents fish farming as an infallible solution. Although Ritchie does make some qualifications on fish farming, including feed efficiency improvements, there are still a number of drawbacks in today's aquaculture that are preventing it from scaling up as well as be presented as a true sustainable solution. This includes how aquaculture practices – especially oceanic farms – can increase eutrophication through the buildup of excess nutrients in an enclosed space, and how farmed escapees can alter the gene-pools of wild populations.
It's one thing to say these have been the trends and this is what we've seen recently in order to say we are not so doomed, but these broad conclusions and narratives from more specific indicator trends are not what you want to take away from a book that is meant to make you feel hopeful. That said, I would like to avoid being counterproductive by berating Ritchie and her work – after all, we are on the same "team". There are definitely outstanding pieces in the book; I'm just disappointed that they weren't as carefully constructed.
*Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic
January 18, 2024
How do you alert people to the seriousness of the environmental challenges we face, while not making them feel despairing or helpless? When you want people to take action, is it better to inspire them or scare them?
This is the dilemma that Not the End of the World addresses. It does not shy away from the problems but shows the progress we have already made and highlights where we can go next. Quoting Max Roser, Ritchie points out that it can be simultaneously true that “The world is much better; the world is still awful; the world can do much better”.
She motivates the reader by highlighting that we can be the first generation in history to create a sustainable world. She is using sustainable not in the sense of corporate greenwashers, but in the sense used by the UN: “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Each chapter takes on a topic – including climate change, deforestation and food – and gives a comprehensive account of where we are and where we should be going, fully backed up with data. This could have made it a chore to read, but I was completely swept along. This is partly Ritchie’s breezy, engaging voice but also because she frames her case around popular arguments and misconceptions, along with graphs that even I can follow.
At the end of each chapter is a useful list of the best things we can do as individuals to make a difference (drive less), and a few things that either make no difference (banning plastic straws) or are even actively harmful (pasture-fed “local” beef, anyone?).
This is great, as far as it goes. I’m something of a miserabilist and anyone who closely follows green/left politics, as I do, cannot help being steeped in pessimism about the state of the world. It’s good to know that positive things are happening and that we have the answers to many of the problems we face.
But the thing is, we know that. We know that the answers are there, what is lacking is the will to implement them. And this is where the book falls down for me. While Ritchie does distinguish between rich and poor countries, she has no analysis of where wealth and power lies within and across nations. There is very little mention of the actions of governments or corporations.
She seems to envisage a world made up solely of well-meaning citizens who, if they only knew the right thing to do, would all pull together and do it. There is, in the conclusion, a call to engage with politicians or activist groups in order to let the powerful know that we care about these issues, as if that will be sufficient to make them change tack.
If there’s one thing we’ve learnt since 2016, it’s that well-meaning, articulate people armed with facts do not by themselves win arguments. We need to confront who has economic and political power and whose interests are being served.
I was also unsure about some of the specific arguments Ritchie presents (without having her expertise, clearly she could wipe the floor with me in a fact-fight). For example, her arguments about food production advocate for more high-yielding crops and artificial fertiliser (citing the Green Revolution). She points out that we already have more than enough food to feed the world, but then says we need high-tech solutions to produce even more, rather than considering issues like land ownership and control of distribution and inputs.
Ritchie suggests that as countries get richer, they naturally move to address issues like hunger and pollution because they now have the resources, which ignores the fact that both are increasing in the UK, that the government of today is blithely indifferent, and that in countries across the world extreme wealth and squalor exist side by side. (The politics of food production and climate change are brilliantly dissected by George Monbiot in Regenesis: Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet, who also backs up his statements with robust data.)
However, I do appreciate that it is useful to be able to take the most meaningful action as an individual. Individual actions add up, and they inspire and motivate people to act collectively, putting pressure on politicians and corporations.
One area in the book which gave me pause for thought is Ritchie’s arguments about nuclear power. My feeling has always been that, while accidents are rare, when they happen they are so disastrous that it’s too big a risk to take. But she argues that, even when you take account of disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, deaths from pollution from fossil fuels are much higher. They’re just less visible because they are taking place every day, dispersed among the population.
Not the End of the World is an upbeat, accessible and thought-provoking read, which will challenge and surprise you in some of its conclusions.
*
I received a copy of Not the End of the World from the publisher via NetGalley.
This is the dilemma that Not the End of the World addresses. It does not shy away from the problems but shows the progress we have already made and highlights where we can go next. Quoting Max Roser, Ritchie points out that it can be simultaneously true that “The world is much better; the world is still awful; the world can do much better”.
She motivates the reader by highlighting that we can be the first generation in history to create a sustainable world. She is using sustainable not in the sense of corporate greenwashers, but in the sense used by the UN: “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Each chapter takes on a topic – including climate change, deforestation and food – and gives a comprehensive account of where we are and where we should be going, fully backed up with data. This could have made it a chore to read, but I was completely swept along. This is partly Ritchie’s breezy, engaging voice but also because she frames her case around popular arguments and misconceptions, along with graphs that even I can follow.
At the end of each chapter is a useful list of the best things we can do as individuals to make a difference (drive less), and a few things that either make no difference (banning plastic straws) or are even actively harmful (pasture-fed “local” beef, anyone?).
This is great, as far as it goes. I’m something of a miserabilist and anyone who closely follows green/left politics, as I do, cannot help being steeped in pessimism about the state of the world. It’s good to know that positive things are happening and that we have the answers to many of the problems we face.
But the thing is, we know that. We know that the answers are there, what is lacking is the will to implement them. And this is where the book falls down for me. While Ritchie does distinguish between rich and poor countries, she has no analysis of where wealth and power lies within and across nations. There is very little mention of the actions of governments or corporations.
She seems to envisage a world made up solely of well-meaning citizens who, if they only knew the right thing to do, would all pull together and do it. There is, in the conclusion, a call to engage with politicians or activist groups in order to let the powerful know that we care about these issues, as if that will be sufficient to make them change tack.
If there’s one thing we’ve learnt since 2016, it’s that well-meaning, articulate people armed with facts do not by themselves win arguments. We need to confront who has economic and political power and whose interests are being served.
I was also unsure about some of the specific arguments Ritchie presents (without having her expertise, clearly she could wipe the floor with me in a fact-fight). For example, her arguments about food production advocate for more high-yielding crops and artificial fertiliser (citing the Green Revolution). She points out that we already have more than enough food to feed the world, but then says we need high-tech solutions to produce even more, rather than considering issues like land ownership and control of distribution and inputs.
Ritchie suggests that as countries get richer, they naturally move to address issues like hunger and pollution because they now have the resources, which ignores the fact that both are increasing in the UK, that the government of today is blithely indifferent, and that in countries across the world extreme wealth and squalor exist side by side. (The politics of food production and climate change are brilliantly dissected by George Monbiot in Regenesis: Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet, who also backs up his statements with robust data.)
However, I do appreciate that it is useful to be able to take the most meaningful action as an individual. Individual actions add up, and they inspire and motivate people to act collectively, putting pressure on politicians and corporations.
One area in the book which gave me pause for thought is Ritchie’s arguments about nuclear power. My feeling has always been that, while accidents are rare, when they happen they are so disastrous that it’s too big a risk to take. But she argues that, even when you take account of disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, deaths from pollution from fossil fuels are much higher. They’re just less visible because they are taking place every day, dispersed among the population.
Not the End of the World is an upbeat, accessible and thought-provoking read, which will challenge and surprise you in some of its conclusions.
*
I received a copy of Not the End of the World from the publisher via NetGalley.
February 16, 2024
Fake news, “alternative facts”, a contempt for experts and the substitution of strange conspiracy theories for argument and debate are all part of a worrying trend.
In the USA where this seems to have originated it has become genuinely difficult to establish facts about many things. For those of us who were inspired by the Enlightenment this is depressing, it as if superstition has returned and science no longer matters to many.
Nowhere is this more important than in the field of climate change. Sadly this is another of those contested spaces where the lunatics, from both sides of the divide have taken over the asylum.
For lay people it is really hard to know what best to do to slow the warming of the planet, which policies are most effective and whether we are all doomed anyway.
Thank God then for the very sane, very rational data scientist Hannah Ritchie whose latest book Not the End of the World is a must-read for those wishing answers.
This is a surprising, very simply written and ultimately hopeful book. We are not necessarily doomed at all. In fact we may be on the cusp of a world where we can simultaneously be more prosperous and sustainable.
Both Daily Mail and Guardian journalists will hate Not the End of the World, which is probably the best reason to read it of all.
In the USA where this seems to have originated it has become genuinely difficult to establish facts about many things. For those of us who were inspired by the Enlightenment this is depressing, it as if superstition has returned and science no longer matters to many.
Nowhere is this more important than in the field of climate change. Sadly this is another of those contested spaces where the lunatics, from both sides of the divide have taken over the asylum.
For lay people it is really hard to know what best to do to slow the warming of the planet, which policies are most effective and whether we are all doomed anyway.
Thank God then for the very sane, very rational data scientist Hannah Ritchie whose latest book Not the End of the World is a must-read for those wishing answers.
This is a surprising, very simply written and ultimately hopeful book. We are not necessarily doomed at all. In fact we may be on the cusp of a world where we can simultaneously be more prosperous and sustainable.
Both Daily Mail and Guardian journalists will hate Not the End of the World, which is probably the best reason to read it of all.
March 15, 2024
Full disclosure, I read 3 chapters and it was so misleading that I couldn't bring myself to read anymore. I provide examples below on some of the things I found misleading or incorrect through the first three chapters. If you do proceed to read the entire book, look for the patterns I demonstrate below so you can detect when she's bullshitting.
The data is often conflicting, cherrypicked, or outright wrong. She perverts the truth to make most climate writers and scientists seem like they're alarmists. She employs the same doublespeak that politicians employ to say one thing while doing another. This often takes place with her priming the reader first to then distract from her heavily cherrypicked stats.
Before I get to examples from what I read, I want to provide a few things about myself to make it clear that I'm qualified to be making these claims. I have a graduate degree in environmental science focusing on sustainable development and policy. I also have a degree in environmental geography, in which climate change was the main theme of my coursework. I have then spent my career as a data analyst helping communities use data to make better decisions, particularly decisions involving the environment.
Examples:
Chapter 1
Right off the bat we get into trouble. She claims degrowth is not an option. This is not to say that degrowth is the best solution, but to have the opinion that we need significantly more growth contradicts both physics and natural resource limitations. She ignores the fundamental fact that we cannot sustain a planet in which increasing numbers of people consume at higher levels while already wealthy people consume at a consistent or slightly lower rate.
Chapter 2 - Air Pollution
In the same paragraph she praises China for reducing pollution, she ignores that China has drastically increased fossil fuel consumption - particularly coal - over the same period. Even if that coal is being burned via cleaner methods, we need to stop burning fossil fuels all together. She doesn't seem to understand that emissions are cumulative. The planet will not stop warming unless we stop polluting.
She then goes on to say we should be optimistic because per capita emissions have already peaked and are decreasing. Using per capita here is a fundamental error. She seems to believe that it means we're making progress because we have less emissions per person. It's utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the extent of the emissions. As long as we're still pumping out massive amounts of greenhouse gases, it doesn't matter how many people on earth their are to divide that pollution by.
Her facts are inconsistent and are clearly cherrypicked. In chapter 1, she says 9 million people die a year from air pollution. By chapter 2, only 7 million people die a year. Which is it?
While she gets it right that the air for most of us in wealthy countries is overall cleaner than it was before environmental laws a half century ago, she completely neglects the new paradigm of constant wildfire smoke. This is either because she's cherrypicking or because she's blissfully unaware of it living on an island with relatively few trees and fires. There were weeks on end last year when I couldn't step outside without a respirator mask as an asthmatic because of wildfire smoke. The number of days this has been happening each year have been increasing. That smoke is deadly and it's only getting worse.
She then talks about indoor pollution, in which she displays a chart showing how clean different cooking fuel sources are. The chart shows gas cooking sources are as clean as electric ones. This is an outright lie. We know that gas stoves release highly carcinogenic benzene into houses and are a major factor in increasing rates of childhood asthma.
I also want to give an example of her use of priming to deceive the reader. She talks about the ozone layer and how "fixing the ozone layer rarely gets mentioned today". That's an outright lie. Literally the last book I read talked about. I've read three books this month alone that mentioned it.
Chapter 3 - Climate Change
She's completely naïve about how implementing renewables work. Yes, they're cheaper now than fossil fuels. No, that does not mean they're just magically going to be implemented. It doesn't mean anything if they're cheaper when government and industry stand in the way. I'll give an example of each from my home state of Ohio. It's almost impossible to get wind turbines installed anywhere in Ohio because the criteria in which you must meet to install them - largely zoning - is nearly impossible because of NIMBY attitudes. For solar, it's not feasible for most people to install it because our grids are operated by monopolies, which won't pay back for the power generated by solar. This means that consumers are priced out of solar because they aren't getting paid for the electricity they're generating (and if they are, it's at a terrible rate).
Then she raves about EVs and how much better they are for the environment. EVs are only better than conventional cars when powered with renewables. The majority of EVs in the US are powered by fossil fuels still. The key caveat with cars is an EV is not innately better. Driving less, owning less cars, or not driving at all should be the goals. An EV still relies on extracted materials and some of the materials, like their tires, are even more polluting. We need less cars, not more EVs.
She also dismisses the upper-range of warming scenarios completely. She seems certain that warming won't exceed 3 degrees. She criticizes scientists for being alarmists for having such a wide range in their scenarios. Meanwhile, she doesn't mention tipping points. She doesn't mention feedback loops. She just declares that it's going to be under 3 degrees and those other scientists are exaggerating. If James Hansen thinks we're going to be in the upper ballpark, why are we trusting Hannah Ritchie's blissfully ignorant optimism
Other Observations
Typically in a non-fiction book of this length and on this topic, you would expect a fairly long references section accounting for 1/4 - 1/3 of the pages. Her references are 1/15 of the total pages. This is likely a result of her cherry-picking.
Whenever I read a climate book, I look for authors I know I can trust: people like Naomi Klein, Elizabeth Kolbert, etc. None of the names I look for are included on the reviews on the book. But there is one name on the front and the back: Bill Gates. This makes it clear right away this book is in the techno-optimist camp. She says at the beginning that she's not a blind optimist, yet she's putting her faith in that camp. So it's not surprising that she barely mentions corporations at all in the book, yet alone the power they have over the continued derailment of climate progress. Here's the bottom line: all the optimism she has doesn't mean shit if corporations can continue to thwart progress through agency capture and doubt-sowing. We have a very limited window before we hit dire tipping points. If we learned any lessons from how long industry managed to thwart action on other societal ills like smoking, it's certainly going to be too late.
I'm not an optimist. I am a realistic. I know exactly how much control corporations have over governments. And that's just over the supposed democracies like the US. The biggest polluting democracies like the US and India are both experiencing democratic backslides that will make attaining any climate goals much less probable. Then we factor in the authoritarian governments who we as people have no control over. Putin's war in Ukraine alone is going to end up contributing immensely to climate change. You want a cause for optimism? Fight for democracy. Stand up against corporations. Stop being consumer-pawns. Stop eating so much meat. We can only do so much and a book like this makes it seem like we're going to be okay no matter what. That's a fucking lie and you know it.
The data is often conflicting, cherrypicked, or outright wrong. She perverts the truth to make most climate writers and scientists seem like they're alarmists. She employs the same doublespeak that politicians employ to say one thing while doing another. This often takes place with her priming the reader first to then distract from her heavily cherrypicked stats.
Before I get to examples from what I read, I want to provide a few things about myself to make it clear that I'm qualified to be making these claims. I have a graduate degree in environmental science focusing on sustainable development and policy. I also have a degree in environmental geography, in which climate change was the main theme of my coursework. I have then spent my career as a data analyst helping communities use data to make better decisions, particularly decisions involving the environment.
Examples:
Chapter 1
Right off the bat we get into trouble. She claims degrowth is not an option. This is not to say that degrowth is the best solution, but to have the opinion that we need significantly more growth contradicts both physics and natural resource limitations. She ignores the fundamental fact that we cannot sustain a planet in which increasing numbers of people consume at higher levels while already wealthy people consume at a consistent or slightly lower rate.
Chapter 2 - Air Pollution
In the same paragraph she praises China for reducing pollution, she ignores that China has drastically increased fossil fuel consumption - particularly coal - over the same period. Even if that coal is being burned via cleaner methods, we need to stop burning fossil fuels all together. She doesn't seem to understand that emissions are cumulative. The planet will not stop warming unless we stop polluting.
She then goes on to say we should be optimistic because per capita emissions have already peaked and are decreasing. Using per capita here is a fundamental error. She seems to believe that it means we're making progress because we have less emissions per person. It's utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the extent of the emissions. As long as we're still pumping out massive amounts of greenhouse gases, it doesn't matter how many people on earth their are to divide that pollution by.
Her facts are inconsistent and are clearly cherrypicked. In chapter 1, she says 9 million people die a year from air pollution. By chapter 2, only 7 million people die a year. Which is it?
While she gets it right that the air for most of us in wealthy countries is overall cleaner than it was before environmental laws a half century ago, she completely neglects the new paradigm of constant wildfire smoke. This is either because she's cherrypicking or because she's blissfully unaware of it living on an island with relatively few trees and fires. There were weeks on end last year when I couldn't step outside without a respirator mask as an asthmatic because of wildfire smoke. The number of days this has been happening each year have been increasing. That smoke is deadly and it's only getting worse.
She then talks about indoor pollution, in which she displays a chart showing how clean different cooking fuel sources are. The chart shows gas cooking sources are as clean as electric ones. This is an outright lie. We know that gas stoves release highly carcinogenic benzene into houses and are a major factor in increasing rates of childhood asthma.
I also want to give an example of her use of priming to deceive the reader. She talks about the ozone layer and how "fixing the ozone layer rarely gets mentioned today". That's an outright lie. Literally the last book I read talked about. I've read three books this month alone that mentioned it.
Chapter 3 - Climate Change
She's completely naïve about how implementing renewables work. Yes, they're cheaper now than fossil fuels. No, that does not mean they're just magically going to be implemented. It doesn't mean anything if they're cheaper when government and industry stand in the way. I'll give an example of each from my home state of Ohio. It's almost impossible to get wind turbines installed anywhere in Ohio because the criteria in which you must meet to install them - largely zoning - is nearly impossible because of NIMBY attitudes. For solar, it's not feasible for most people to install it because our grids are operated by monopolies, which won't pay back for the power generated by solar. This means that consumers are priced out of solar because they aren't getting paid for the electricity they're generating (and if they are, it's at a terrible rate).
Then she raves about EVs and how much better they are for the environment. EVs are only better than conventional cars when powered with renewables. The majority of EVs in the US are powered by fossil fuels still. The key caveat with cars is an EV is not innately better. Driving less, owning less cars, or not driving at all should be the goals. An EV still relies on extracted materials and some of the materials, like their tires, are even more polluting. We need less cars, not more EVs.
She also dismisses the upper-range of warming scenarios completely. She seems certain that warming won't exceed 3 degrees. She criticizes scientists for being alarmists for having such a wide range in their scenarios. Meanwhile, she doesn't mention tipping points. She doesn't mention feedback loops. She just declares that it's going to be under 3 degrees and those other scientists are exaggerating. If James Hansen thinks we're going to be in the upper ballpark, why are we trusting Hannah Ritchie's blissfully ignorant optimism
Other Observations
Typically in a non-fiction book of this length and on this topic, you would expect a fairly long references section accounting for 1/4 - 1/3 of the pages. Her references are 1/15 of the total pages. This is likely a result of her cherry-picking.
Whenever I read a climate book, I look for authors I know I can trust: people like Naomi Klein, Elizabeth Kolbert, etc. None of the names I look for are included on the reviews on the book. But there is one name on the front and the back: Bill Gates. This makes it clear right away this book is in the techno-optimist camp. She says at the beginning that she's not a blind optimist, yet she's putting her faith in that camp. So it's not surprising that she barely mentions corporations at all in the book, yet alone the power they have over the continued derailment of climate progress. Here's the bottom line: all the optimism she has doesn't mean shit if corporations can continue to thwart progress through agency capture and doubt-sowing. We have a very limited window before we hit dire tipping points. If we learned any lessons from how long industry managed to thwart action on other societal ills like smoking, it's certainly going to be too late.
I'm not an optimist. I am a realistic. I know exactly how much control corporations have over governments. And that's just over the supposed democracies like the US. The biggest polluting democracies like the US and India are both experiencing democratic backslides that will make attaining any climate goals much less probable. Then we factor in the authoritarian governments who we as people have no control over. Putin's war in Ukraine alone is going to end up contributing immensely to climate change. You want a cause for optimism? Fight for democracy. Stand up against corporations. Stop being consumer-pawns. Stop eating so much meat. We can only do so much and a book like this makes it seem like we're going to be okay no matter what. That's a fucking lie and you know it.
January 12, 2024
kohustuslik kirjandus
March 25, 2024
Mixed feelings, particularly in the beginning, but overall I find Ritchie to be well-intentioned and well-informed. While often painfully middle ground and stoic, her rational and pragmatic approach to climate is a much needed voice against the milieu of screaming deniers and doomers. I find the chapters on ocean plastic, biodiversity and food systems to be the strongest.
I agree with the techo-optimist criticism leveraged against this book. Many of her solutions rely on governments acting responsibly, people acting rationally, and the invention and widespread distribution of recent and imagined tech. There is no definite reason to believe that the positive trends in human society she spends so much time on will continue, especially when you consider climate tipping points, growing social unrest, climate refugees, exacerbation of inequalities, and other unpredictable factors. What doomers get right is so much is already lost - as an example, yes deforestation may be slowing down, but we’ve already lost so much of old growth forests, the type of forest that is truly biodiverse and resilient and the type that takes centuries to grow back, as these forests are preferential to extract timber from. Even then, are we accounting for burgeoning wildfires? Temperature related dieback? No model was able to predict how hot 2023 was, likely due to reduced aerosol emissions and volcanic related stratospheric injections of water vapor, because these variables are not included or not included well in climate modeling. We are most likely in for a rude awakening. This book suggests we will carry on as normal into the coming decades, slowly adjusting our systems to the shifting climate, rather than frantically trying to glue the pieces back on as our social and environmental systems deteriorate. It is overly optimistic about how people act when their personal circumstances are at stake. What few people seem to understand is that there is going to be tangible personal loss: loss of the expectations you may have had for your life, loss of the places and wildlife that inhabit your schematics of the world, perhaps loss of resources, loss of your home, loss of people you love, loss of community. The degree of suffering, both human and non-human, that could be unleashed by an imbalanced earth is nearly unfathomable. In an easily imaginable worst-case scenario, it hurts to think of all the people who will lose their homes, lose access to food, starve, die, especially those from poor countries who contributed little to this issue as the rich flee to their bunkers to play out their days. It hurts to think of all the animals who will be affected just the same, unsure why their earthly residence has turned against them. I agree with Richie that this kind of message can return apathy, avoidance, and despair when we desperately need action, however, I argue that we should mentally prepare for what life in a warmed and deteriorated world could look like, and take accountability for the destruction of our home that we have all participated in. It is imperative we quickly grow up and realize we have doomed portions of the earth, it is our responsibility to save what we can of the rest. Go vegan, pick up trash, recycle when possible, be kind to each other and to animals, reduce your consumption, become active in local politics and help address local inequities and sources of environmental degradation, plant native flora, find alternative low- carbon modes of transportation, adjust your life’s outlook from “how can I make the best for myself?” to “ how can I make the best for us?”. I disagree with the idea passed around online that this is a problem for the top 10 most polluting companies or whatever, we all participate, especially those of us in rich countries, and we all have a duty to act. An alien observer would not absolve you personally because you aren’t the CEO of Exxon, it would simply note you are a human, a member of the species that has so quickly destabilized its own global climate, a climate inhabited by innumerable other life forms, and would pity you just the same. Would a poor person in Dhaka find you separate? Would an adrift polar bear? An emaciated hummingbird? A reef gone dark? I hope this message finds you well.
I agree with the techo-optimist criticism leveraged against this book. Many of her solutions rely on governments acting responsibly, people acting rationally, and the invention and widespread distribution of recent and imagined tech. There is no definite reason to believe that the positive trends in human society she spends so much time on will continue, especially when you consider climate tipping points, growing social unrest, climate refugees, exacerbation of inequalities, and other unpredictable factors. What doomers get right is so much is already lost - as an example, yes deforestation may be slowing down, but we’ve already lost so much of old growth forests, the type of forest that is truly biodiverse and resilient and the type that takes centuries to grow back, as these forests are preferential to extract timber from. Even then, are we accounting for burgeoning wildfires? Temperature related dieback? No model was able to predict how hot 2023 was, likely due to reduced aerosol emissions and volcanic related stratospheric injections of water vapor, because these variables are not included or not included well in climate modeling. We are most likely in for a rude awakening. This book suggests we will carry on as normal into the coming decades, slowly adjusting our systems to the shifting climate, rather than frantically trying to glue the pieces back on as our social and environmental systems deteriorate. It is overly optimistic about how people act when their personal circumstances are at stake. What few people seem to understand is that there is going to be tangible personal loss: loss of the expectations you may have had for your life, loss of the places and wildlife that inhabit your schematics of the world, perhaps loss of resources, loss of your home, loss of people you love, loss of community. The degree of suffering, both human and non-human, that could be unleashed by an imbalanced earth is nearly unfathomable. In an easily imaginable worst-case scenario, it hurts to think of all the people who will lose their homes, lose access to food, starve, die, especially those from poor countries who contributed little to this issue as the rich flee to their bunkers to play out their days. It hurts to think of all the animals who will be affected just the same, unsure why their earthly residence has turned against them. I agree with Richie that this kind of message can return apathy, avoidance, and despair when we desperately need action, however, I argue that we should mentally prepare for what life in a warmed and deteriorated world could look like, and take accountability for the destruction of our home that we have all participated in. It is imperative we quickly grow up and realize we have doomed portions of the earth, it is our responsibility to save what we can of the rest. Go vegan, pick up trash, recycle when possible, be kind to each other and to animals, reduce your consumption, become active in local politics and help address local inequities and sources of environmental degradation, plant native flora, find alternative low- carbon modes of transportation, adjust your life’s outlook from “how can I make the best for myself?” to “ how can I make the best for us?”. I disagree with the idea passed around online that this is a problem for the top 10 most polluting companies or whatever, we all participate, especially those of us in rich countries, and we all have a duty to act. An alien observer would not absolve you personally because you aren’t the CEO of Exxon, it would simply note you are a human, a member of the species that has so quickly destabilized its own global climate, a climate inhabited by innumerable other life forms, and would pity you just the same. Would a poor person in Dhaka find you separate? Would an adrift polar bear? An emaciated hummingbird? A reef gone dark? I hope this message finds you well.
March 30, 2024
For those looking to get a round up of the most defining development trends of our time and an understanding of the (very fast) progress we have made on these, “Not the end of the world” is a great read. For those working in the field of sustainability and climate change, and feeling discouraged by all the alarming headlines we read in the news daily, this book is a must-read.
In this succinct and easy to read book, Hannah Ritchie sheds light on the strides we have made on reducing air pollution, per capita emissions, deforestation, poverty and many other issues. Through well-curated data insights and examples, she opens our eyes to the many ways individual human action and large-scale systemic and technological change have helped us fix environmental problems.
Reading this book helped me debunk many of the myths and wobbly claims I have often heard on sustainability, while providing a clear step by step list of actions I can take as an individual to reduce my climate impact. More importantly, it gave me hope and inspiration to continue pushing for change, in a time where sensationalism and doomsday-ism is becoming the norm.
In this succinct and easy to read book, Hannah Ritchie sheds light on the strides we have made on reducing air pollution, per capita emissions, deforestation, poverty and many other issues. Through well-curated data insights and examples, she opens our eyes to the many ways individual human action and large-scale systemic and technological change have helped us fix environmental problems.
Reading this book helped me debunk many of the myths and wobbly claims I have often heard on sustainability, while providing a clear step by step list of actions I can take as an individual to reduce my climate impact. More importantly, it gave me hope and inspiration to continue pushing for change, in a time where sensationalism and doomsday-ism is becoming the norm.
March 16, 2024
(Audiobook)Cannot recommend this book highly enough for anxious environmentalists. Did exactly what I needed it to - want to listen again already but make notes this time. Accessible, data rich and considered in the way it approached environmental issues from diverse perspectives (political, economic etc.)
October 3, 2023
If, like me, you are interested in the environment and climate change, then this book sits really well alongside other similar books. It has a much more positive outlook than, for example, the Climate Book by Greta Thunberg. But the Climate Book contains much more detail on the wide range of associated issues. I would advise reading them both and others.
My take away points were burn less and eat less beef and dairy. There is nothing extraordinarily different about these points. The more books you read about climate change, the more these points are reinforced. Some of the arguments are a bit different. I thought the section on palm oil and sustainable palm oil was very clearly explained. And the point about 'if' beef burgers were to be made from only 50% beef, what sort of difference that could make - I don't think I have read this anywhere else.
This book in particular is very readable. There are many references to published studies and data but it is all presented in an accessible way. My only criticism is that the tables, graphs and diagrams were difficult to read in the kindle format. Sometimes the legend for the diagram appeared in the middle of a paragraph of text and interrupted the flow of what I was reading. If I was buying the book, I would definitely buy the hardback version.
Many thanks to NetGalley for an early copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
My take away points were burn less and eat less beef and dairy. There is nothing extraordinarily different about these points. The more books you read about climate change, the more these points are reinforced. Some of the arguments are a bit different. I thought the section on palm oil and sustainable palm oil was very clearly explained. And the point about 'if' beef burgers were to be made from only 50% beef, what sort of difference that could make - I don't think I have read this anywhere else.
This book in particular is very readable. There are many references to published studies and data but it is all presented in an accessible way. My only criticism is that the tables, graphs and diagrams were difficult to read in the kindle format. Sometimes the legend for the diagram appeared in the middle of a paragraph of text and interrupted the flow of what I was reading. If I was buying the book, I would definitely buy the hardback version.
Many thanks to NetGalley for an early copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
January 17, 2024
Not the End of the World (2024) by Dr Hannah Ritchie is a very good book that provides a data driven view of the world’s big environmental problems, how we’re dealing with them and how they can be solved. Ritchie is the research leader at the superb site Our World in Data.
The book starts off with a description of how Ritchie got to where she is. She did a degree in Environmental Geoscience and initially thought that the world was doomed. She then encountered the work of Hans Rosling and it made her reconsider her views. His data on how the most important statistics for humans such as life expectancy, average wealth, child mortality and others were all improving and had improved incredibly over the past century. This doesn’t mean, of course, that everything is fine. There is an excellent summary from another senior employee at Our World in Data, Max Roser, namely that ‘The world is much better; the world is still awful; the world can do much better.’
Ritchie also carefully writes about why doomsday thinking is so damaging. As well as being factually incorrect it leads to people taking foolish actions.
The book then has a chapter on sustainability which that starts from the 1987 UN description of sustainability as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. This is a very good definition that Ritchie uses to point out that being well off is a very important part of sustainability.
What follows are chapters on Air Pollution, Climate Change, Deforestation, Food, Biodiversity Loss, Ocean Plastics and Over fishing. All the chapters are well written and interesting. There is lots to learn, for instance the remarkable progress by China on air pollution :
“Between 2013 and 2020, Beijing’s pollution levels fell by 55%.6 Across China as a whole, they fell by 40%. The health benefits of these changes are huge: it’s estimated that the life expectancy of the average person in Beijing has increased by 4.6 years.”
Who knows that?
On Climate Change Ritchie points out that global C02 emissions per capita topped out in 2012 and have since been declining. Who knew that someone in the UK today emits the same per capita emissions as a UK resident did in 1850 ?
The chapters on Air Pollution, Deforestation, Food, Biodiversity loss, ocean plastics and over fishing are ones on problems that Ritchie well describes as being fairly tractable. The chapter on Climate Change and Global C02 emissions is the one where the problem is harder. Ritchie points out that she thinks people who advocate different solutions to the problem such as nuclear or renewables should work more together.
Not the End of the World is an excellent book that is very much worth reading. Hopefully many people who are very concerned with environmental issues will read it and it will reshape their views the way Hans Rosling’s presentations reshaped Ritchie’s.
The book starts off with a description of how Ritchie got to where she is. She did a degree in Environmental Geoscience and initially thought that the world was doomed. She then encountered the work of Hans Rosling and it made her reconsider her views. His data on how the most important statistics for humans such as life expectancy, average wealth, child mortality and others were all improving and had improved incredibly over the past century. This doesn’t mean, of course, that everything is fine. There is an excellent summary from another senior employee at Our World in Data, Max Roser, namely that ‘The world is much better; the world is still awful; the world can do much better.’
Ritchie also carefully writes about why doomsday thinking is so damaging. As well as being factually incorrect it leads to people taking foolish actions.
The book then has a chapter on sustainability which that starts from the 1987 UN description of sustainability as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. This is a very good definition that Ritchie uses to point out that being well off is a very important part of sustainability.
What follows are chapters on Air Pollution, Climate Change, Deforestation, Food, Biodiversity Loss, Ocean Plastics and Over fishing. All the chapters are well written and interesting. There is lots to learn, for instance the remarkable progress by China on air pollution :
“Between 2013 and 2020, Beijing’s pollution levels fell by 55%.6 Across China as a whole, they fell by 40%. The health benefits of these changes are huge: it’s estimated that the life expectancy of the average person in Beijing has increased by 4.6 years.”
Who knows that?
On Climate Change Ritchie points out that global C02 emissions per capita topped out in 2012 and have since been declining. Who knew that someone in the UK today emits the same per capita emissions as a UK resident did in 1850 ?
The chapters on Air Pollution, Deforestation, Food, Biodiversity loss, ocean plastics and over fishing are ones on problems that Ritchie well describes as being fairly tractable. The chapter on Climate Change and Global C02 emissions is the one where the problem is harder. Ritchie points out that she thinks people who advocate different solutions to the problem such as nuclear or renewables should work more together.
Not the End of the World is an excellent book that is very much worth reading. Hopefully many people who are very concerned with environmental issues will read it and it will reshape their views the way Hans Rosling’s presentations reshaped Ritchie’s.
March 3, 2024
A great optimistic yet realistic look at the current issues with the environment and paths going forward to the future. The message is very similar to what was given in Apocalypse Never but I think that book might tend to turn people off while this way may be more geared towards an environmentally minded progressive reader. I recommend this to people who are feeling like things are terrible and it's a lost cause. There is reason to be optimistic. We can't work to improve things if we already think they're too far gone!
The diet recommendation is don't eat beef which is sort of the opposite of what I try to do. It's not a book about proper nutrition. It's a book about the environment. There are tradeoffs for all decisions.
Good book! Read it!
The diet recommendation is don't eat beef which is sort of the opposite of what I try to do. It's not a book about proper nutrition. It's a book about the environment. There are tradeoffs for all decisions.
Good book! Read it!
February 13, 2024
I absolutely adored this book! I wish I could gift it to all my peers.
Hannah Ritchie opens by laying out a conceptual framework for the book that resonates deeply with me: 1) the world is awful 2) the world is much better and 3) the world can be much better. One of the most frustrating aspects of modern society is that we are drowning in negative information that only focuses on #1, never engaging at all with #2 and #3. This is understandable - for the first time in human history, we can see everything happening everywhere all at once, much of it bad. In some sense, it would be a bit scary if we felt nothing. But, if you truly care about making things better, it’s imperative we foster a culture that starts to incorporate #2 and #3.
Take climate change, for example. Your average Millennial/Gen-Zer likely hoovers up terrifying stories about missed climate targets, roaring wildfires, and melting ice caps. They likely feel strongly about stopping climate change. But how many know of the relatively recent mix of technological progress and massive cost drops in renewables (solar and wind) and batteries, leading to a paradigmatic shift in our fight against it? How many can sketch where we need to go, how we’re going to get there, and what roadblocks are in our way? Doomerism is easy; paying attention takes more effort.
Ritchie takes us on a winding tour of problems ranging from climate change to ocean plastics to overfishing, setting the context for the broad contours of each problem, demonstrating where we’ve made progress and where we know how to make more. In the process, she makes an energizing case for how we can be the first generation to build a sustainable planet. While I’m sure this book isn’t perfect, this is what I wish the broader culture would latch onto. Shout it from the rooftops.
Hannah Ritchie opens by laying out a conceptual framework for the book that resonates deeply with me: 1) the world is awful 2) the world is much better and 3) the world can be much better. One of the most frustrating aspects of modern society is that we are drowning in negative information that only focuses on #1, never engaging at all with #2 and #3. This is understandable - for the first time in human history, we can see everything happening everywhere all at once, much of it bad. In some sense, it would be a bit scary if we felt nothing. But, if you truly care about making things better, it’s imperative we foster a culture that starts to incorporate #2 and #3.
Take climate change, for example. Your average Millennial/Gen-Zer likely hoovers up terrifying stories about missed climate targets, roaring wildfires, and melting ice caps. They likely feel strongly about stopping climate change. But how many know of the relatively recent mix of technological progress and massive cost drops in renewables (solar and wind) and batteries, leading to a paradigmatic shift in our fight against it? How many can sketch where we need to go, how we’re going to get there, and what roadblocks are in our way? Doomerism is easy; paying attention takes more effort.
Ritchie takes us on a winding tour of problems ranging from climate change to ocean plastics to overfishing, setting the context for the broad contours of each problem, demonstrating where we’ve made progress and where we know how to make more. In the process, she makes an energizing case for how we can be the first generation to build a sustainable planet. While I’m sure this book isn’t perfect, this is what I wish the broader culture would latch onto. Shout it from the rooftops.
February 18, 2024
I think everyone should read this book that has any amount of climate anxiety and thinks the climate crisis is as bleak as the headlines say
February 29, 2024
Alternative title: How to Mislead with Data
Read
April 30, 2024DNF. Ik voelde zo veel weerstand bij het lezen van dit boek, dacht dat het aan mij lag maar ging even wat reviews bekijken en NOPE ik ben niet de enige.
Oke dit voelt een beetje kut en zuur. Ik had dit boek gekregen van vrienden die weten dat ik soms wat te klimaatpessimistisch ben en die me wat optimisme gunden en dat is lief. Ik waardeer dat gebaar oprecht, en zij konden ook niet weten hoe dit boek uit zou pakken en ondertussen ben ik vaak genoeg met hen in gesprek over optimisme en pessimisme en die gesprekken waardeer ik enorm <3
Dat gezegd hebbende: dit boek.
Oke ik kan wel alle fouten op gaan noemen, maar ik denk eigenlijk dat ik het samen kan vatten tot een communicatiefout. Hannah Ritchie is vast heel goed in d'r werk, maar misschien minder goed in luisteren naar wat iemands probleem nou precies is. Al bij het openende hoofdstuk dacht ik: wacht, bedoel je 'klimaatverandering is niet het einde van de wereld' of bedoel je 'het is communicatief niet handig om klimaatverandering het einde van de wereld te noemen'. Want dat is me nogal een verschil! Ritchie lijkt te denken dat alle doomers oprecht geloven dat we allemaal over 20 jaar dood neervallen, ongeacht ons handelen. Misschien is ze niet zo top met figuurlijk taalgebruik? Of heeft ze gewoon een paar weirdo's in haar omgeving? Want ze gaat dan roepen "maar we kunnen al deze dingen doen!" Ehh ja, dat weten wij ook wel? Ons ding over allemaal doodgaan is "we gaan allemaal dood TENZIJ WE DEZE DINGEN DOEN." We weten heus wel dat er technische oplossingen zijn. Ik ken echt niemand die daaraan twijfelt. De vraag is: gaan de mensen met macht die macht inzetten om die nodige dingen te doen? En daar lijkt Ritchie dan weer naïef: zo denkt ze dat we rond de 2 graden blijven omdat men dat op Parijs heeft beloofd... Ach Hannah, hebben ze het beloofd!? Dat wist ik nog niet! Nou, dan komt het vast allemaal goed.
Ik ben afgehaakt toen ze bij het stukje over het verdwijnen van de Amazone, de 'longen van de aarde,' dacht dat mensen bang zouden zijn dat er dan niet meer voldoende zuurstof in de lucht zou komen. In plaats van dat het gaat om het tipping point van CO2 uit de lucht halen. Daar repte ze geen woord over. Sorry maar dan heb je voor je boek, waarin je klimaatpessimisten gerust probeert te stellen, je dus niet echt verdiept in de zorgen van klimaatpessimisten. En dan voel ik me dus ook niet meer verplicht je boek uit te lezen.
Oke dit voelt een beetje kut en zuur. Ik had dit boek gekregen van vrienden die weten dat ik soms wat te klimaatpessimistisch ben en die me wat optimisme gunden en dat is lief. Ik waardeer dat gebaar oprecht, en zij konden ook niet weten hoe dit boek uit zou pakken en ondertussen ben ik vaak genoeg met hen in gesprek over optimisme en pessimisme en die gesprekken waardeer ik enorm <3
Dat gezegd hebbende: dit boek.
Oke ik kan wel alle fouten op gaan noemen, maar ik denk eigenlijk dat ik het samen kan vatten tot een communicatiefout. Hannah Ritchie is vast heel goed in d'r werk, maar misschien minder goed in luisteren naar wat iemands probleem nou precies is. Al bij het openende hoofdstuk dacht ik: wacht, bedoel je 'klimaatverandering is niet het einde van de wereld' of bedoel je 'het is communicatief niet handig om klimaatverandering het einde van de wereld te noemen'. Want dat is me nogal een verschil! Ritchie lijkt te denken dat alle doomers oprecht geloven dat we allemaal over 20 jaar dood neervallen, ongeacht ons handelen. Misschien is ze niet zo top met figuurlijk taalgebruik? Of heeft ze gewoon een paar weirdo's in haar omgeving? Want ze gaat dan roepen "maar we kunnen al deze dingen doen!" Ehh ja, dat weten wij ook wel? Ons ding over allemaal doodgaan is "we gaan allemaal dood TENZIJ WE DEZE DINGEN DOEN." We weten heus wel dat er technische oplossingen zijn. Ik ken echt niemand die daaraan twijfelt. De vraag is: gaan de mensen met macht die macht inzetten om die nodige dingen te doen? En daar lijkt Ritchie dan weer naïef: zo denkt ze dat we rond de 2 graden blijven omdat men dat op Parijs heeft beloofd... Ach Hannah, hebben ze het beloofd!? Dat wist ik nog niet! Nou, dan komt het vast allemaal goed.
Ik ben afgehaakt toen ze bij het stukje over het verdwijnen van de Amazone, de 'longen van de aarde,' dacht dat mensen bang zouden zijn dat er dan niet meer voldoende zuurstof in de lucht zou komen. In plaats van dat het gaat om het tipping point van CO2 uit de lucht halen. Daar repte ze geen woord over. Sorry maar dan heb je voor je boek, waarin je klimaatpessimisten gerust probeert te stellen, je dus niet echt verdiept in de zorgen van klimaatpessimisten. En dan voel ik me dus ook niet meer verplicht je boek uit te lezen.
November 21, 2023
This book addressed so many of my concerns around Climate Change and was so helpful at having a better understanding of the current state of things. Hannah Ritchie's openness about her thoughts throughout the book were much appreciated and added a lot of context. I highly recommend this book!
October 17, 2023
Really great read. Really should be recommended for Gen Z and Millennials who suffer from paralysis due to fears about climate change. Hannah Ritchie knows her stuff--listen and read.
February 5, 2024
Nice cover, nice title, nice lead but… so thin on arguments. This is a collection of obvious thinking available all around, which could make a nice series of Linkedin posts.
April 18, 2024
'Vote With Your Dollars And They'll Listen', or The Political Wrench in the Technocratic Machine
There are some fun factoids and helpful course corrections dispersed throughout this book. Unfortunately, there is also:
1. Naive techno-optimism with overoptimism on the political front, that reminds me of the centrality of the resistance dynamic in Brad Werner's model, as discussed in Naomi Klein's article How science is telling us all to revolt.
This one gem sums up the leap of faith in many of Ritchie's solutions:
"If politicians don't match their priorities with the public, they won't get elected".
2. Rostowian model of development, albeit with a (let's call it technically adjusted consumption) stage projected forward from the old 'end of history'.
There's some passing, or tacit, acknowledgement of the injustice in "rich countries" (imperial core) scolding "poorer countries" (periphery) for reliance on or use of fossil fuels in their growth models, framed as moral hypocrisy because the "rich countries" used fossil fuels to grow economically, but with no discussion and barely a hint of the role of overexploitation of the periphery that has played a huge part in why peripheral states rely on raw resource-driven income and fossil fuel revenue. 'Sure we kicked away the ladder before and it's profitable, but we *can* now help them skip a bunch of the rungs'.
Maybe a big reason for dodging the political third rail is the wrench that sanctions, or other neocolonial curbs on development and large-scale public investment, throws into the idea that all we have to do is so generously help countries "skip" the "stage" of fossil fuel, or carbon-intensive, or otherwise inefficient technology.
This framing of development also surfaces in the chapter on deforestation, which I've done the 'deep dive' on for a reading group. Toward the end of that chapter, Ritchie surfaced the idea of unspecified compensation payments to global south countries in exchange for the "opportunity cost" of not chopping down their forests. It's a glaring case-in-point of how political tone-deafness undermines a technocratic model. How would such a payment be framed? How would it be agreed upon? I just about flipped out when Ritchie had the nerve to suggest it could be better sold to, say, U.S. voters by being monitored for matching the recipient countries' verified estimations of foregone revenue so that they "don't try to pull a fast one."(!)
3. Points (sometimes major ones) raised and then left hanging
Ritchie posits nuclear power as among the clean alternatives to oil or natural gas. She makes a solid case for its safety vs. sensationalist concerns (advances since Chernobyl, the actual impact of Fukushima)...but fails to account for nuclear waste--I've heard some reasonable proposals and debates around that concern, but if you're going to tackle popular assumptions and your favourite phrase is "That's not true," you may want to address that radioactive elephant in the room. That and, um, the hostile reaction of the west to some cases of nuclear energy development.
Again in the chapter on deforestation, she actually writes: "Companies and the private sector can get involved too. Many already pay in some way to offset their emissions through tree planting." I laughed out loud incredulously. I could go on deconstructing this if John Oliver hadn't already done so hilariously. It also brings to mind Trudeau's "2 billion trees by 2030" promise after buying a pipeline. Point being, either don't raise this at all or note the serious caveats.
That's one other thing. The solutions offered are often economistic. But it's hard to avoid seeing the myriad problems with this. Whether it's the tar sands or the beef industry, input cost (especially if subsidized) is less the concern than profitability. Cheaper green alternatives existing doesn't in itself mean oil will stay in the ground. For consumer goods, reliance on price signals doesn't account for the "brown sludge", or drag on green consumer choices due to factors of accessibility/visibility, misinformation, monopoly and economies of scale, etc. Weirdly, in the chapter on food she seems to understand the primacy of profitability, but in the context of fossil fuel monopolies, she doesn't run with this consistently to its logical consequences (especially as the rate of profit falls). When you also don't consider policy capture, or the ability of carbon-intensive industry to corner markets by influencing state policy, your optimism is even less convincing.
These are just some raw thoughts I'm sure will be refined in future discussions of the book. Plenty more to unpack. Some of it informative, much of it dangerously misguided.
There are some fun factoids and helpful course corrections dispersed throughout this book. Unfortunately, there is also:
1. Naive techno-optimism with overoptimism on the political front, that reminds me of the centrality of the resistance dynamic in Brad Werner's model, as discussed in Naomi Klein's article How science is telling us all to revolt.
This one gem sums up the leap of faith in many of Ritchie's solutions:
"If politicians don't match their priorities with the public, they won't get elected".
2. Rostowian model of development, albeit with a (let's call it technically adjusted consumption) stage projected forward from the old 'end of history'.
There's some passing, or tacit, acknowledgement of the injustice in "rich countries" (imperial core) scolding "poorer countries" (periphery) for reliance on or use of fossil fuels in their growth models, framed as moral hypocrisy because the "rich countries" used fossil fuels to grow economically, but with no discussion and barely a hint of the role of overexploitation of the periphery that has played a huge part in why peripheral states rely on raw resource-driven income and fossil fuel revenue. 'Sure we kicked away the ladder before and it's profitable, but we *can* now help them skip a bunch of the rungs'.
Maybe a big reason for dodging the political third rail is the wrench that sanctions, or other neocolonial curbs on development and large-scale public investment, throws into the idea that all we have to do is so generously help countries "skip" the "stage" of fossil fuel, or carbon-intensive, or otherwise inefficient technology.
This framing of development also surfaces in the chapter on deforestation, which I've done the 'deep dive' on for a reading group. Toward the end of that chapter, Ritchie surfaced the idea of unspecified compensation payments to global south countries in exchange for the "opportunity cost" of not chopping down their forests. It's a glaring case-in-point of how political tone-deafness undermines a technocratic model. How would such a payment be framed? How would it be agreed upon? I just about flipped out when Ritchie had the nerve to suggest it could be better sold to, say, U.S. voters by being monitored for matching the recipient countries' verified estimations of foregone revenue so that they "don't try to pull a fast one."(!)
3. Points (sometimes major ones) raised and then left hanging
Ritchie posits nuclear power as among the clean alternatives to oil or natural gas. She makes a solid case for its safety vs. sensationalist concerns (advances since Chernobyl, the actual impact of Fukushima)...but fails to account for nuclear waste--I've heard some reasonable proposals and debates around that concern, but if you're going to tackle popular assumptions and your favourite phrase is "That's not true," you may want to address that radioactive elephant in the room. That and, um, the hostile reaction of the west to some cases of nuclear energy development.
Again in the chapter on deforestation, she actually writes: "Companies and the private sector can get involved too. Many already pay in some way to offset their emissions through tree planting." I laughed out loud incredulously. I could go on deconstructing this if John Oliver hadn't already done so hilariously. It also brings to mind Trudeau's "2 billion trees by 2030" promise after buying a pipeline. Point being, either don't raise this at all or note the serious caveats.
That's one other thing. The solutions offered are often economistic. But it's hard to avoid seeing the myriad problems with this. Whether it's the tar sands or the beef industry, input cost (especially if subsidized) is less the concern than profitability. Cheaper green alternatives existing doesn't in itself mean oil will stay in the ground. For consumer goods, reliance on price signals doesn't account for the "brown sludge", or drag on green consumer choices due to factors of accessibility/visibility, misinformation, monopoly and economies of scale, etc. Weirdly, in the chapter on food she seems to understand the primacy of profitability, but in the context of fossil fuel monopolies, she doesn't run with this consistently to its logical consequences (especially as the rate of profit falls). When you also don't consider policy capture, or the ability of carbon-intensive industry to corner markets by influencing state policy, your optimism is even less convincing.
These are just some raw thoughts I'm sure will be refined in future discussions of the book. Plenty more to unpack. Some of it informative, much of it dangerously misguided.
February 24, 2024
I have just read this book, as it was chosen as this month's read for the EA online reading club. Initially, I wasn't really enthusiastic about the choice (I was hoping for an excuse to read Gleick's The Information), but I was really, positively surprised by this book. It is a real gem that everyone should be reading.
If one is to briefly summarize what it's about, I'd say that it is both a call for working towards a sustainable planet and a criticism of the wrong strategies that have (and are) been employed in that respect. The book adopts a strongly optimistic outlook: for the first time in history, humankind has the economical and technological tools to solve the problems of making the world sustainable, both in the sense of 'giving every human a decent life' and of 'keeping natural environments alive and flourishing'. The book goes through 7 main problems (air pollution, global warming, deforestation, food production, biodiversity loss, plastics and overfishing), briefly explains the history of how we got here, what we can do to solve the issue and the (many, many) misconceptions and fake information that usually circulates about these topics not only in deniers, but also in the media and among environmental activists.
The author has a clean pedigree as a researcher with studies in environmental sciences and as a worker in Our World in Data, and really goes out of her way to explain both her own past misconceptions and how much damage ineffective doomerism and exaggerations are working against the objective of a sustainable world. She castigates these attitudes as both intellectually dishonest and ultimately counterproductive, as apocalyptic narratives are more prone to lead to inaction than towards anything else.
The author does not dispute the existence of the seriousness of the challenges we face, or the terrible consequences of not doing anything, but she takes a very pragmatic view of what we can do and on the real capacities we already have to solve these issues.
A lot of what she tells in the book will surprise you. You read story after story, backed by data, of how we've been able to overcome series issues in relatively short time when the will has been exercised. She also shows how our world, for all its limitations, is much, much, much better than anything we've ever had before, and how we've been making progress to the point that only now can we aspire to create a truly sustainable world. She explains how in the past, improving human lives came at the cost of the environment, but that this is no longer so (and only happening in poor countries in their fast growth stage).
Most of the problems she mentions are interrelated, and so are their solutions. At the core of almost all of them are:
-eat less meat, especially beef and dairy
-move towards cleaner sources of energy (nuclear and/or alternative)
-invest in more efficient crops and economic help to poor countries
Things we generally overestimate as effective and good are many, as well as things we think are worse than they really are. The author really subverts a lot of myths in this book:
-recycling (sp. plastics): doesn't have much impact
-'natural' practices like organic food, locally grown food, etc: most are actually bad and worse
-veganism (not bad, but extremely marginal increase in benefits from just eating less little meat, and really from just eliminating beef and dairy)
-landfills (pretty good if well done for securing against plastic going into oceans)
-microplastics (no strong evidence of their negative effects)
-transportation carbon footprint (quite low for almost all goods. Infinitely less than eating a local, 'organically grown' steak)
-fertilizers and genetically modified plants (really good stuff, and indispensable for feeding the planet and protecting forests)
-palm oil (not only wasn't it destroying tropical forests; its alternatives are many times worse in this respect!)
Overall, this was a fascinating discovery. I can see from other reviews that the book gets some hate, which makes sense. I loved its optimism and its pragmatic appraisal of the 'world as is', with the good and the bad. Very tribal environmentalists, anticapitalists and people who think it's okay to lie or exaggerate to get your point through will hate this book. A more serious criticism could come in the form of the author being very pragmatic and not engaging, perhaps, with ethical issues (some choices which are environmentally better are worse from the pov of animal welfare and suffering), but I feel the author could (rightly) say that that is another issue, and perhaps one for another book. In fact, the non-preachiness (along with its rigor) is among the best of this book. It tells you 'Do you want to improve x? Well, you can do this, or this, or this (all effective, in different degrees). On the other hand, y and z are irrelevant from the point of view of effectiveness'. This is not only a more palatable strategy: it is also one that is more likely to work and to get everybody to do something, and to choose *effective* things to do at that.
If one is to briefly summarize what it's about, I'd say that it is both a call for working towards a sustainable planet and a criticism of the wrong strategies that have (and are) been employed in that respect. The book adopts a strongly optimistic outlook: for the first time in history, humankind has the economical and technological tools to solve the problems of making the world sustainable, both in the sense of 'giving every human a decent life' and of 'keeping natural environments alive and flourishing'. The book goes through 7 main problems (air pollution, global warming, deforestation, food production, biodiversity loss, plastics and overfishing), briefly explains the history of how we got here, what we can do to solve the issue and the (many, many) misconceptions and fake information that usually circulates about these topics not only in deniers, but also in the media and among environmental activists.
The author has a clean pedigree as a researcher with studies in environmental sciences and as a worker in Our World in Data, and really goes out of her way to explain both her own past misconceptions and how much damage ineffective doomerism and exaggerations are working against the objective of a sustainable world. She castigates these attitudes as both intellectually dishonest and ultimately counterproductive, as apocalyptic narratives are more prone to lead to inaction than towards anything else.
The author does not dispute the existence of the seriousness of the challenges we face, or the terrible consequences of not doing anything, but she takes a very pragmatic view of what we can do and on the real capacities we already have to solve these issues.
A lot of what she tells in the book will surprise you. You read story after story, backed by data, of how we've been able to overcome series issues in relatively short time when the will has been exercised. She also shows how our world, for all its limitations, is much, much, much better than anything we've ever had before, and how we've been making progress to the point that only now can we aspire to create a truly sustainable world. She explains how in the past, improving human lives came at the cost of the environment, but that this is no longer so (and only happening in poor countries in their fast growth stage).
Most of the problems she mentions are interrelated, and so are their solutions. At the core of almost all of them are:
-eat less meat, especially beef and dairy
-move towards cleaner sources of energy (nuclear and/or alternative)
-invest in more efficient crops and economic help to poor countries
Things we generally overestimate as effective and good are many, as well as things we think are worse than they really are. The author really subverts a lot of myths in this book:
-recycling (sp. plastics): doesn't have much impact
-'natural' practices like organic food, locally grown food, etc: most are actually bad and worse
-veganism (not bad, but extremely marginal increase in benefits from just eating less little meat, and really from just eliminating beef and dairy)
-landfills (pretty good if well done for securing against plastic going into oceans)
-microplastics (no strong evidence of their negative effects)
-transportation carbon footprint (quite low for almost all goods. Infinitely less than eating a local, 'organically grown' steak)
-fertilizers and genetically modified plants (really good stuff, and indispensable for feeding the planet and protecting forests)
-palm oil (not only wasn't it destroying tropical forests; its alternatives are many times worse in this respect!)
Overall, this was a fascinating discovery. I can see from other reviews that the book gets some hate, which makes sense. I loved its optimism and its pragmatic appraisal of the 'world as is', with the good and the bad. Very tribal environmentalists, anticapitalists and people who think it's okay to lie or exaggerate to get your point through will hate this book. A more serious criticism could come in the form of the author being very pragmatic and not engaging, perhaps, with ethical issues (some choices which are environmentally better are worse from the pov of animal welfare and suffering), but I feel the author could (rightly) say that that is another issue, and perhaps one for another book. In fact, the non-preachiness (along with its rigor) is among the best of this book. It tells you 'Do you want to improve x? Well, you can do this, or this, or this (all effective, in different degrees). On the other hand, y and z are irrelevant from the point of view of effectiveness'. This is not only a more palatable strategy: it is also one that is more likely to work and to get everybody to do something, and to choose *effective* things to do at that.
April 25, 2024
"A sustainable future is not guaranteed - if we want it, we need to create it. Being the first generation is an opportunity, but it's not inevitable."
What a fantastic and necessary book. Filled with realism about the environmental challenges we face, but also with a *realistic, data-backed* hope that we can, and in many cases already have, overcome them. Ritchie does an amazing job of clearly stating the challenges without resorting to doomerism and shows how we can achieve a better world both materially and environmentally.
I think many of the solutions laid out in this book will surprise people. Turns out, a lot of pastoral, naturalistic ideas we have of what environmentalism looks like are not that effective and in some cases are actually counterproductive. For example, I was definitely surprised to learn that eating locally or organically was not necessarily better for the environment, both in terms of CO2 emissions and land use. In fact, often times that is the worse choice than having your entire meal shipped from another country. But Ritchie does a great job of discussing trade-offs of issues like this one and keeping perspective. It's not all zero sum. See below for some fave fun facts (FFF) from this book:
Some favorite facts from this book:
-If we switched back local, small pastoral farming from current conventional farming, we'd need 10 earths to feed the planet with our current population.
-Electric vehicle battery prices fell 98% in the last 30 years. In the 90s, the battery in an EV would have cost between $500K-$1M. Now, a Tesla battery is ~$12K, Nissan Leaf batteries are $6K.
-The Amazon consumes as much Oxygen as it produces.
-The number of deaths per year from natural disasters over the last hundred years decreased. By a lot.
-Per capita Economic growth has been decoupled from CO2 emissions, pollution, deforestation and other environmental impacts in rich countries. More needs to be done, but it is a good trend!
-Since 2009, the price of solar energy declined 89%!! Wind declined 70%! Both cheaper than coal. :)
What a fantastic and necessary book. Filled with realism about the environmental challenges we face, but also with a *realistic, data-backed* hope that we can, and in many cases already have, overcome them. Ritchie does an amazing job of clearly stating the challenges without resorting to doomerism and shows how we can achieve a better world both materially and environmentally.
I think many of the solutions laid out in this book will surprise people. Turns out, a lot of pastoral, naturalistic ideas we have of what environmentalism looks like are not that effective and in some cases are actually counterproductive. For example, I was definitely surprised to learn that eating locally or organically was not necessarily better for the environment, both in terms of CO2 emissions and land use. In fact, often times that is the worse choice than having your entire meal shipped from another country. But Ritchie does a great job of discussing trade-offs of issues like this one and keeping perspective. It's not all zero sum. See below for some fave fun facts (FFF) from this book:
Some favorite facts from this book:
-If we switched back local, small pastoral farming from current conventional farming, we'd need 10 earths to feed the planet with our current population.
-Electric vehicle battery prices fell 98% in the last 30 years. In the 90s, the battery in an EV would have cost between $500K-$1M. Now, a Tesla battery is ~$12K, Nissan Leaf batteries are $6K.
-The Amazon consumes as much Oxygen as it produces.
-The number of deaths per year from natural disasters over the last hundred years decreased. By a lot.
-Per capita Economic growth has been decoupled from CO2 emissions, pollution, deforestation and other environmental impacts in rich countries. More needs to be done, but it is a good trend!
-Since 2009, the price of solar energy declined 89%!! Wind declined 70%! Both cheaper than coal. :)
April 26, 2024
Longest review ever for me, but I want to get my book club ideas down before I forget…
As a sustainability data analyst, I enjoyed this read. It was interesting to see deep dives into a few pivotal sustainability factors with a cut of the data we dont usually see. What I worry many readers will miss is that our progress (although in the right direction) is not rapid enough at this point to create the sustainable world Hannah lays out. Drastic action is still needed to avoid the end of the world. The author explicitly states that idea in a couple areas, and admits that she won’t continue to harp on it to avoid boring repetition. Even knowing this, I felt the conclusions to many of her arguments were too focused on the progress we’ve made and not on the progress we still need to reach sustainability. If you’re looking for an optimistic climate book, this scratches the itch but I worry the arguments leave readers with contentment rather than motivation. Hannah offers great solutions for individual action, and I can appreciate her approach for carrots (praising the progress we’ve made so far) instead of sticks (scaring readers into taking the issue seriously).
Hannah mentions that her data driven sustainable lifestyle is in conflict with what the quintessential idea of a sustainable lifestyle is. In this spirit, I am also driving my opinion using data that shows carrots are more effective than sticks for generating change; my gut says this positive spin won’t be as effective as a more pessimistic take on the same data, but I’m hoping this book is a motivator and not a pacifier.
As a sustainability data analyst, I enjoyed this read. It was interesting to see deep dives into a few pivotal sustainability factors with a cut of the data we dont usually see. What I worry many readers will miss is that our progress (although in the right direction) is not rapid enough at this point to create the sustainable world Hannah lays out. Drastic action is still needed to avoid the end of the world. The author explicitly states that idea in a couple areas, and admits that she won’t continue to harp on it to avoid boring repetition. Even knowing this, I felt the conclusions to many of her arguments were too focused on the progress we’ve made and not on the progress we still need to reach sustainability. If you’re looking for an optimistic climate book, this scratches the itch but I worry the arguments leave readers with contentment rather than motivation. Hannah offers great solutions for individual action, and I can appreciate her approach for carrots (praising the progress we’ve made so far) instead of sticks (scaring readers into taking the issue seriously).
Hannah mentions that her data driven sustainable lifestyle is in conflict with what the quintessential idea of a sustainable lifestyle is. In this spirit, I am also driving my opinion using data that shows carrots are more effective than sticks for generating change; my gut says this positive spin won’t be as effective as a more pessimistic take on the same data, but I’m hoping this book is a motivator and not a pacifier.
February 16, 2024
Probably a 3.5 but bumping due to the nature of the material. It’s a great overview and provides important context. I really liked the way the book was structured.
There were a few places I wanted the author to talk more about and others I questioned. Like a section on palm oil, I don’t think all of the alternatives to palm oil were listed in a couple of the charts shown. I don’t know it the author was taking a more narrow view or if I just missed something.
With my background there wasn’t much that was new here. If each chapter was made into its own 300-400 page book, I would read each one.
Would have loved to know more…
There were a few places I wanted the author to talk more about and others I questioned. Like a section on palm oil, I don’t think all of the alternatives to palm oil were listed in a couple of the charts shown. I don’t know it the author was taking a more narrow view or if I just missed something.
With my background there wasn’t much that was new here. If each chapter was made into its own 300-400 page book, I would read each one.
Would have loved to know more…
April 1, 2024
A speaker at this year’s industry and alumni dinner recommended this. I thought the book was fine and I kinda just assumed the data was legit. (Was taken aback when the author said it’s fine if all pollinators die, though.) The amount of high-ranking negative reviews is making me rethink that, but ultimately this is a single three-star review out of thousands so whatever.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 316 reviews