The data behind our biggest environmental problems | Hannah Ritchie: Full Interview

Reducing emissions increases global average temperature. Consult the work of James Hansen, Kevin Anderson and Stephen Ramsdorf, then study the Jevons paradox and population overshoot. This year is the coolest year anyone will remember.

Try to talk sense to a "rich" population where they gladly receive the goods and services scientific progress has provided but ignore all science that forces them to compromise. There are 3 billion overweight people on the planet and twice as many obese people as there are people starving and we're literally medicating them to stop them from eating themself to death rather than helping those who starve.

Oh no! Not Hannah 'don't worry – everything is going to be just fine ritchie again!? I'm sick of seeing her spout her nonsense without ever being asked any hard questions.

Do yourself a favour and watch Hannah's ingterview with Rachel Donald on Mongabay to see what happens when Hannah meets a climate journalist who knows what she's talking about. (Hint: It's not pretty).

Ritchie is just a mouthpiece for Bill Gates, who funds her. No-one ever asks her why her views align so neatly with Gates's.

For Pete's sake…if you're going to have her on your show…ask some decent questions.

I recently read Hannah's book 'Not the End of the World' and 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.

How does this not have 1 billion views.

This is why it is so dangerous to know some things, maybe even b an expert in somethimg bit kmow little about many others. She says very little that is wrong but doesnt seem to realize that
1. In greenhouses and im earths past eras CO2 was in the THKOUSANDS of ppm and in both cases more CO2 gave HIGHER plant growth, hence higher levels of oxygen simce plants exhale it, and HIGHER and more varied animal life and MUCH MUCH more land suited for agriculture. Higher CO2 levels also gave us MUCH more of earth that humans would WANT to inhabit since subtropical climates extended to the arctic circles. Thats climate change I can get behind! Dinosaurs loved it. There is nothing "natural" about an earth this cold. Ice ages suck and we are in one geologically speaking. The next downswing to where a 2 mile thick glacier covers Berlin London and New York would have started already but thank God man HAS produced some CO2 increase to stall the cooldown. It will still occur at some point, agriculture and OUR culture will suffer, lots of plants and trees will die and LOTS less of the earths surface will b pleasantly livable as it was 10000 years ago. Amd the right solution for energy is ALL nuclear, safer and more environmental than anything else. Anyone who does not know that is environ- MENTAL

Look at the data then I think…, I think…. and lot of lack about qtts regarding metals, uranium, etc available.

Poor Hannah suffered from Climate Phobia…
Maybe a good psychiatrist could have done the trick ?!
Instead she started a Reformation of the Climate Church, becoming a protestant.
And the delusion goes on with under the banner of HOPE.
A modern day Calvin…
😣

I'm here because I've just seen one of her graphs being used by a climate change denier to make a cherry picked argument that "it's just summer" so it's good to see she's not a dafty.

I dont understand how this crucial information only has 38K views!! that just proves that social networks are used to distract us from the REAL problems, instead of utilizing the platform to teach, inform , and influence on us to fight for our precious planet!!

you know the real reason why people dislike doomers so much? theyre right.

5:12

For solving climate crisis we would need a global economy based on cooperation. We don’t have this, our global economy is based on competition. And in a world economy based upon competition there just cannot be enough cooperation to successfully tackle challenges like global warming.
Yes, technically its possible, our global economic system just doesn’t provide the means to turn that possibility into reality. Therefore it will not happen.

I've read the book and watched this interview, and two main issues stand out. First, the author appears to cherry-pick topics. For example, water security—despite its enormous global impact—is not discussed at all, whereas overfishing, though important but significantly less consequential, receives an entire chapter. Second, by placing too much emphasis on individual responsibility, the author obscures the broader socio-political transformations necessary to address these challenges. Slavoj Žižek articulates this critique effectively in his article on the "recycling superstition," highlighting how focusing excessively on personal action diverts attention from systemic change.

Being of cognitive age in 1990 I watched and studied the US newscasts and documentaries on global warming that was rising at 2/10°C per decade and appeared to be accelerating reaching a reported high of 1.1°C in 1991. Then no reports on global warming in 1992 and 1993 with statements saying the studies were looking for hidden atmospheric abnormalities. In late 1994 it was announced that no atmospheric abnormalities had been found. In early 1995 it was announced that global warming had suddenly paused and fallen in 1992 to 1°C. NASA reports global warming being at 1°C in 2025. Global warming has remained around 1°C between 1992 and 2025 varying a few 1/100°C. The Arctic region is warming, but not so much in recent years.

The cause of global warming is not known in 2025. It is scientifically impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. Earth's water vapor saturated greenhouse effect absorbs all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within a few meters of the radiating surface to a maximum of 20 metes from the radiating surface adding 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and can't have its overall effect changed. This was taught in US high school science when I was in high school.  

Greenhouse radiant energy is a lower frequency than far inferred light behaving as a high frequency electromagnetic radio wave loosely interacting with the lumpy electrostatic fields of greenhouse gas molecules slowly draining it down to zero within a few meters of the radiating surface. In the lower atmosphere no greenhouse radiant energy can be measured farther than 20 meters from the radiating surface. After being absorbed the greenhouse energy's further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. Earth's atmosphere is too cold to radiate greenhouse energy. When depictions of greenhouse radiant energy are using photon interaction that is an incorrect depiction. Greenhouse radiant energy behaves as a high frequency radio wave.

Carbon dioxides share in earth's water vapor saturated greenhouse effect: Water vapor has a CO2e of 18 and is on average is 1% of the troposphere. Carbon dioxide has a CO2e of 1 and is about 0.04% (400 ppm) of the atmosphere. 1.00%/0.04%=25, water vapor is 25 time more present than carbon dioxide. Multiplying by water vapor's CO2e 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e for water vapor and 1 CO2e total for carbon dioxide. All the other greenhouse gases total to little less to about the same as carbon dioxide or 1 CO2e. On average carbon dioxide has 1/452 share in earth's greenhouse effect.  

About 40% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is considered to be from human activity. 1/452 X 0.40 =0.000884955752212 or 0.09% share, less than 0.1% share, of earth's water vapor saturated greenhouse effect is from human caused atmospheric carbon dioxide. Earth's water vapor saturated greenhouse effect is from water vapor the other greenhouse gases can not change its overall effect.

Climate Change pseudo science claims earth's greenhouse effect is never saturated and on average adds 33°C to earth's temperature. That makes for totally absurd predictions. A 30°C day with average 1% tropospheric water vapor would be 30°C. The pseudo science climate change greenhouse effect is adding 33°C. Without it the temperature would be -3°C. That same situation with 100% humidity that creates 4% atmospheric water vapor at 30°C would have the day temperature at 4 X 33°C -3°C= 129°C vaporizing all water in the area! The other greenhouse gases were not included in this calculation for clarity. They are only 1/2% share at 1% tropospheric water vapor and only 1/8% share at 4% water vapor.  

This is why when the UN IPCC after for years being obsessed with human caused carbon dioxide causing global warming from the mid 1980s to 1995, with no mechanism given on how this could be, had the engineering scientific audience quietly giggling because carbon dioxide is an extremely well known gas. Then when in 1996 the UN IPCC suddenly stated it was carbon dioxide's greenhouse behavior causing global warming the engineering scientific audience was ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING because it was so moronically scientifically impossible and the IPCC had gone on and on obsessed with human caused carbon dioxide causing global warming for years! The other aspect was that global warming had fallen to 1°C in 1992 had had no indication of rising and was likely falling a few hundredths of a degree Celsius.

The actual IPCC science report never actually comes out and directly states atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse gas behavior is causing global warming because the scientists don't want to get sued.