A scientist who believed humans would die from the climate crisis has made a U-turn and now believes the issue may have been overblown.
Hannah Ritchie, a data scientist at the University of Oxford, claims that doomsday warnings of floods, widespread famine and deaths from disasters are overshadowing the progress that has been quietly made in recent years.
She pointed out how emissions per person peaked in 2012 and remained the same since, along with the notion that organic food is not more climate-friendly and that the dreaded 2.7F of warming is not a tipping point into oblivion
Ritchie, who published the book ‘Not the End of the World,’ recently shared the seven key points that led her to change her position on the climate crisis.
A scientist who believed humans would die from the climate crisis has made a U-turn and now believes the issue may have been overblown
‘To get this out of the way, let me make one thing absolutely clear: I’m not climate change denialist or minimizer,’ reads an excerpt from Ritchie’s book.
‘I spent my life – inside and outside work – researching, writing, and trying to understand our environmental problems and how to solve them.’
She continued to explain that it may do less harm to consider that the total doom is an exaggeration as ‘the exaggeration simply acts as a counterbalance to those who underplay the issue.’
‘But I’m convinced that there is a better, more optimistic and honest way forward.’ the book continued.
Ritchie, who published the book ‘Not the End of the World,’ recently shared the seven key points that led her to change her position on the climate crisis
‘It has become common to tell kids that they’re going to die from climate change,’ the first line of the Introduction reads.
1. Small stuff is taking away from the big picture
The over-exaggeration is what seems to have led Ritchie to do a 180 on the issue, finding it has distracted us with small issues.
Writing for The Times, the scientist shared that most people are told to recycle, use energy-efficient lightbulbs and end single-use plastic.
But in the grand scheme of things, such acts are small and only cause stress like forgetting a canvas bag when visiting the grocery store.
The scientist shared that most people are told to recycle, use energy-efficient lightbulbs and end single-use plastic. But in the grand scheme of things, such acts are small and only cause stress like forgetting a canvas bag when visiting the grocery store
‘What they often miss is the big things: installing a heat pump, shifting to a more plant-based diet, reducing food waste, buying clean energy, and driving and flying less,’ Ritchie wrote.
Those changes, she explained, have the largest impact in reducing a person’s carbon footprint, while ditching plastic straws only makes a tiny dent – reports show 0.025 percent of plastic pollution comes directly from straws.
2. Debunking the local and organic food myth
Many restaurants proudly exclaim their menu items are either locally grown or organic – and sometimes both.
The idea behind buying those potions is that they reduce greenhouse gas emissions, due to a reduced shipping distance and that organic crops do not use fossil fuel-based fertilizers.
Ritchie highlighted a survey in 2021, which found six in 10 people worldwide believed eating a locally produced diet, including meat and dairy products, is a better way to reduce an individual’s greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the scientist debunked that idea with the face that ‘food miles’ accounted for only five percent of global emissions attributed to the food industry.
The reason this option is not the most climate-friendly is because organic fertilizers also emit greenhouse emissions and contaminate water supplies
Ritchie continued to explain that it is not where your food comes from that reduces emissions, it is what the food choice is.
A recent study from Oxford University found that eating just 100g of meat per day – less than a single burger – creates four times more greenhouse gases compared with a vegan diet.
Ritchie noted that hearing organic food is not all it is cracked up to be may be surprising to most people.
The reason this option is not the most climate-friendly is because organic fertilizers also emit greenhouse emissions and contaminate water supplies.
Then there is the fact organic farms need more land, which in turn emits more carbon.
And a 2020 study conducted by researchers at Maximilian Pieper of the Technical University of Munich found the production of organic meat has the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as regular meat.
‘Nuclear energy, dense city-living, and processed food can all be good for the environment, despite going against our instincts,’ Ritchie wrote for The Times.
‘If we’re to embrace these solutions, ‘sustainable living’ needs a rebrand.’
3. Humans have overcome environmental crisis
The world was faced with a near global catastrophe starting in the 1980s when British meteorologist Jonathan Shanklin discovered a hole in the ozone layer
The world was faced with a near global catastrophe starting in the 1980s when British meteorologist Jonathan Shanklin discovered a hole in the ozone layer.
The hole – which hit the global headlines – was created by the release of human-made chemicals, particularly CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), into the atmosphere.
This discovery led to the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to halt the production of CFCs, signed in December 1987, and mend the hole.
However, scientists’ alarm was first dismissed by government officials who downplayed the ozone layer issue.
But eventually, world leaders came together to form the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to halt the production of CFCs, which was signed in December 1987.
Since then, CFC emissions have dropped by more than 99 percent and the hole is slowly shrinking.
Ritchie highlighted how humans solved the acid rain issue in Europe and North America in the 190s and 80s.
‘Strict controls were put on power plants, and emissions of sulfur dioxide — which causes acid rain — fell by more than 85 percent in many countries,’ she wrote.
‘There are things we can learn from past successes, lessons that should put pressure on our leaders to deliver more.’
4. Emissions per person have peaked – and the total is on its way
Global per capita emissions appeared to peak at 5.4 tons in 2012, which has since stayed around the same range
The Global Carbon Projected estimated that carbon emissions rose about one percent in 2023, but the amount is much slower compared to the 1990s and early 2000s.
Ritchie explained that emissions have been ‘reaching a long plateau ‘ in the last five to ten years, suggesting the world is heading to its peak.
‘Now, this is not enough: we urgently need to peak then reduce our emissions to try to get on a better trajectory,’ she shared.
Global per capita emissions appeared to peak at 5.4 tons in 2012, which has since stayed around the same range.
There was a noticeable dip in 2021 due to Covid-19 lockdowns.
5. Your choices do make a difference
Ritchie noted that one way humans are fighting the war on climate change is through the movement of green energy and lower-carbon products.
The scientist explained that making personal choices sends a message to governments that such things as electric vehicles, solar panels, and plant-based foods.
When there is a demand for these products, Ritchie explained prices will start to fall and products will be more accessible.
‘This is especially important for richer consumers who can afford to lead the way and make the transition cheaper for those that follow,’ she wrote in The Times.
6. Ritchie explained that fossil fuel alternatives are more affordable in our modern world, noting solar power costs have dropped by 90 percent and wind by 70 percent.
Electric cars are also not only driven by the wealthy – the average person can purchase one for a little more than $27,000 – and they are cheaper to keep powered than one that runs on gas.
‘This puts us in a much better position than ever to tackle climate change,’ Ritchie explained.
7. 2.7F is not a tipping point to the end of the world
Many nations have made a historic pledge to limit global warming to 2.7F, but data has suggested that we are sure to pass it as early as 2030. The warming target has been perceived as ‘a threshold’ and once passed, we enter a time of environmental catastrophe
Many nations have made a historic pledge to limit global warming to 2.7F, but data has suggested that we are sure to pass it as early as 2030.
The warming target has been perceived as ‘a threshold’ and once passed, we enter a time of environmental catastrophe.
‘But this isn’t true,’ Ritchie shared.
‘The impacts of climate change increase with every increment of warming. And they increase non-linearly: so, going from 1.8 to 2.7Fis not as drastic as going from 2.7 to 3.6F.’
If the world perceives 2.7F as going off a cliff, then we would need to keep fighting with each increase in warming.
‘Doing so will limit the impacts of climate change, and ultimately save lives. It’s never too late for us to act,’ concluded Ritchie.
