In a recent global survey of young people about how they feel about climate change, half told researchers that they believe “humanity is lost.” In other words, they do not believe that the needs of the current generation can be met without undermining those of the next. They doubt that life as we know it is not sustainable.
Data scientist Hannah Ritchie used to believe the same. As a teenager, she feared that humanity’s devastation of the planet – in all its forms from climate change to deforestation and extreme fishing – posed a series of insoluble problems.
His career studies, begun at the age of 16 at the University of Edinburgh, only seemed to confirm those concerns. “She used to be convinced that there was no future to live for,” she writes now at age 30 in her first book, Not the End of the World (It’s not the end of the world).
Today, Ritchie thinks differently. She remains concerned about the path the world is on, but she believes there is hope that humanity can reverse course.
As deputy editor of Our World in Data (a scientific journal that analyzes global issues based at the University of Oxford) and researcher at that university, highlights developments and statistics that tell a more positive story, from improving air quality to increasing sales of electric vehicles .
Ritchie spoke with BBC Future Planet about how his thinking changed, why the world could be reaching its “pollution peak”, and the ways in which a more sustainable future could be ensured.
What made you change your mind about the future of humanity? And why do you now believe that “catastrophic” forecasts do not inspire action?
Climate change has always been part of my life and has always worried me, even as a child. That got worse when I went to university, because I studied environmental sciences and all the trends were definitely going in the wrong direction. At that time I felt a lot of anxiety, hopelessness and that these problems were completely insoluble.
The key turning point for me happened when I discovered the work of the Swedish physician and statistician Hans Rosling. As a student, he assumed that all measures of human well-being, such as global poverty, mortality and hunger, were also worsening along with environmental ones. But Rosling gave TED talks where he showed, through data, that the world had changed for the better over the last few centuries.
So I asked myself: can we do both at the same time? Can we continue to improve human well-being while reducing our impact on the environment? And, over the past 10 years, according to environmental data, there have been signs to be cautiously optimistic. It is not certain that we will achieve it, but I think we have the opportunity to do it.
The problem with catastrophic pessimism is not that people think climate change is actually a serious problem, because I think the same. It’s the idea that it’s already too late to do anything about it.
I think the science is very clear that it is never too late; The impacts of climate change run along a spectrum and where we end up falling on that spectrum depends on what we do today. The more action we take, the more we will limit climate damage.
The feeling that “it’s too late” only leads to inaction and paralysis. And I know, from having felt the same way in the past, that it didn’t really make me very effective at making progress with solutions.
Your data analyzes have given you hope for a possible greener future. What do you think has been the greatest example of humans’ ability to effect positive change?
At one time, the ozone layer was a problem related to climate change, but today we no longer talk about it because it is a problem that we solved. We reduced emissions of gases that affect ozone by more than 99%.
It is easy for us to look back and say that this was inevitable. But I think the people who were working on it then faced really strong opposition from governments, as well as industry, who denied that it was a problem. You can see a lot of parallels between that and current climate change.
Another example is acid rain. That was a big, big environmental problem that, especially in Europe and North America, has been addressed in a good way.
Regarding air pollution in general, while it remains a serious health problem, we have seen progress. In rich countries, in particular, public measures have been very effective in lowering air pollution levels. And China has managed to dramatically reduce its levels in many cities in a short period of time.
Given those trends, would you say the planet has already reached its total “pollution peak”?
That requires summarizing across many different measures. I am going to say that we are very close to the maximum point of contamination. We are very close to the maximum of CO2 pollution: we have been stagnant for several years and I hope that we will reach the maximum point and start to decline very soon.
As for air pollution, we could be very, very close to the peak. And we have already passed that point with some pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, which caused acid rain.
We have also passed the peak with small but significant things like the sale of cars with combustion engines. So, there is already a range of small maximum points that add up to reach a macro level of maximum pollution.
What is most helping humanity to reach maximum pollution points?
The fall in the cost of low-carbon energy – particularly solar, wind and batteries – is essential for us to reach a peak and from there begin to reduce CO2 emissions.
To progress, these technologies need to be cost competitive with fossil fuels. Without that, our hopes of tackling climate change would be really low. So it’s good news that its cost is competitive.
What is the biggest obstacle to reaching the maximum point of pollution?
The main factor limiting progress is the lack of investment in the energy transition to clean technologies by fossil fuel companies. These generate extremely large revenues that could be reinvested in cutting-edge solutions, but they are not doing so. That doesn’t mean we eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow, but it does mean investing in a clean energy future.
Another challenge to reaching the peak of pollution – in terms of CO2 emissions and air pollution – is the levels of energy poverty in the world. Pollution is falling in rich countries, but continues to rise in low- and middle-income nations. That’s because you have billions of people who rightly aspire to a higher standard of living. For these countries, the priority is not necessarily how to keep pollution levels low, but how much energy to provide quickly and cheaply.
Diets high in meat pose problems in passing the peak of total pollution, in terms of deforestation and emissions. What would you say to politicians who are wary of telling people what to do when it comes to their diets?
I’m much more optimistic about the energy transition and less about the food system aspect. Many individuals don’t really care where their energy comes from. They may protest the construction of a wind or solar farm, but most people don’t care as long as the energy is cheap and reliable.
While diet is a very personal matter. It is closely linked to our identity and changes in individual behavior are more difficult to achieve than technological ones. I doubt we will see a long-term, large-scale shift to plant-based diets without significant technological advances that can provide meat-mimicking products.
In general, I’m also very cautious about telling people what to do. Prescribing is ineffective, especially about what people eat, but also more broadly. So, for politicians, it’s a very fine line to walk. How do you show people the impacts, and the alternatives, without forcing yourself on them?
Other personalities who, like you, emphasize the importance of technology and the possibility of continued economic growth, have been called “ecomodernists.” And some of the high-tech solutions this group is proposing – from nuclear power to agricultural intensification to cultured meat – have created controversy.
Do you identify with the term ecomodernist? And what would you say to those who warn that sometimes relying on new technologies can accelerate environmental deterioration?
There are probably a range of definitions of what an ecomodernist is. For me, technology is a very strong lever. I don’t think technology alone is our salvation, but when you’re trying to scale solutions to eight billion people, you need it.
Many times, people try to look for solutions in the past. They may have worked for a small population of millions, but they don’t cut it for a population of billions. In agriculture, for example, you cannot feed eight billion people without strong technological changes and without increasing crop yields, which we have achieved with technological innovations. Furthermore, I doubt that nuclear energy is a new technology; It takes much longer than solar and wind.
Even if the idea is to drastically reduce individual demand on the planet’s resources through behavioral changes, you would need a strong technological component. Even if energy demand falls, for example, you would still need plenty of solar, wind and batteries. You would probably still need nuclear or geothermal or hydrological power to have a balanced grid.
So, I think there’s often a false dichotomy. In a world where demand has to be reduced, really strong technological developments are still necessary.
Businessman Bill Gates and American journalist David-Wallace Wells have praised you as the “Hans Rosling” of the environmental movement, based on your optimism about the world’s potential to develop positively. Others, however, have warned that Rosling’s figures are overly optimistic and that the averages can mask underlying inequalities within and between nations. How aware are you of these risks?
We cannot simply look at global averages. In our work at Our World in Data, we show data metrics across countries, not just the global average. This often reveals that, while great inequalities still exist, on the human side things are improving.
How hopeful are you, heading into 2024 with a planned election year, that the world will maintain its positive trajectory in terms of peak pollution?
I think it is a decisive year. I am quite worried about a couple of elections: the result in the US will be crucial. It could significantly slow the nation’s transition — and how other countries respond — if it backs down on climate action. So it is important that the economic incentives for the energy transition are preserved. When these incentives exist, this issue can begin to happen even if there is no strong political support. We need to develop solutions and structures that can withstand the swings from one political side to the other.
What gives you the most hope?
The amount of incredible people from so many disciplines working on these problems. I felt very helpless when I thought I was alone and that others were not working on this. But now the landscape has changed dramatically. That’s what makes me more optimistic that we will get it done.
Here you can read the original English version of this interview on BBC Future Planet.
Click here to read more stories from BBC News World
And remember that you can receive notifications. Download the new version of our app and activate them so you don’t miss our best content.
- Do you already know our YouTube channel? Subscribe!
- What does it mean for the world that for the first time the temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees for an entire year?
- 5 false claims about climate change debunked by science
- What are super-emitting events and why is it so important to control them for the future of the planet?