What the Climate Story Gets Wrong  ## Metadata - Author: [[Decoder with Nilay Patel]] - Full Title: What the Climate Story Gets Wrong - Category: #podcasts - URL: https://share.snipd.com/episode/1b199661-1ba8-40d9-9b08-8c28ee2d77a3 ## Document Notes ## Highlights - **Progress Seen In Long-Term Data** - Long-term data shows humanity has solved many huge problems over decades, which shifts perspective from doom to possibility. - Hannah Ritchie uses this historical view to argue progress on climate solutions is plausible and measurable. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie Focus of my work is often on environmental problems and climate change in particular. And I think before we even zoom in on the climate problem, I think one thing you get from looking at data and specifically data over long timescales, right? But, you know, how have things changed over decades or centuries? What you tend to find when you zoom out is that humans have made amazing progress in many ways. Actually, if you look at almost any kind of human development indicator, whether it's poverty or hunger or child mortality or saving mothers or life expectancy, the list goes on, we've Made huge improvements over the last few centuries and in particular over the last 50 years. And I think it's often hard to get that perspective just following the day-to coverage of stuff or what people are speaking about happened in the last hour. We are capable of solving problems and making progress. And then I think specifically on the environment and climate, we're still in a very bad position on that. Progress has been too slow, but we have made progress in many different ways. And I think some of the very clear data there is on stuff like the price of renewables or the price of batteries and how competitive they are, or actually now how quickly we are deploying This stuff, which again, you just can only see through the data. ([Time 0:04:31](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a61c547c-a4cc-4c2d-b4cf-3ae1cce6b8e5)) - **Extremes Dominate Climate Coverage** - Media and psychology amplify extreme climate stories, skewing public perception toward denial or despair. - Nuanced progress narratives get less attention despite being more accurate, Ritchie says. Transcript: Sean Illing Do often feel like we are kind of toggling between dueling climate stories. There's either a story about denial or a story about despair and not much in between, present company excluded. Do you think we're just naturally attracted to extremes because maybe in some ways that's just a simpler, neater way to look at the world? Hannah Ritchie I think so. I think we're often more fine-tuned, I think, to be pessimistic about the world in general. And I think there's some ingrained psychology in that that in the past it's definitely more advantageous to think about what's the next problem that's coming rather than saying you Know oh like how good we're doing so I think there's that kind of psychological part in us and then I think most people get their information from the news or from social media. And I think the reality is that often nuanced stories just don't do well in the media, right? Often it is one extreme or the other that gets the attention. And if that's where you're getting your news on what's happening on climate or any other issue, then I think you are mostly seeing the extremes in one or the other direction, right? As you say, either climate's not a problem, we're doing fine, or the opposite, you know, the world's going to collapse tomorrow and we're all doomed. And I've spoken to journalists in the past about this, right? And their response has often been, well, we kind of want to, you know, produce ([Time 0:06:00](https://share.snipd.com/snip/6ae188c9-a9c6-4a0b-a4c6-258906128b4c)) - **Combine Individual And Systemic Action** - Reduce emissions through both systemic change and individual action; both matter and reinforce each other. - Push governments and companies while adopting available low-carbon choices to drive broader shifts. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie Can absolutely make a difference. So if you look at any of the kind of future pathways, the range of possible climate futures, you know, the trajectory we take is very much determined by the decisions we make today and Tomorrow and the next day. And we're very much the driving force of the trajectory that we take, the final temperature rise that we end up in. I think people have a sense that there is often some single threshold in the system that once we pass that, it's over, there's nothing we can do to stop this. This is generally not how climate impacts work. What's really clear is that the higher the warming, the higher the impacts, right? So going from 1.5 to 1.6 to 1.7 to 1.5, all of those incremental increases in global temperatures make a difference to the impacts. So I think people have this sense of, you know, if we're past 1.5, you know, we're done, we're doomed. Or if we're past two degrees, you know, we're done, we're doomed. That's not how it works, right? Even if we're past 1.5, pursuing 1.6 or 1.7, these all make a difference to the final climate outcomes that we will have to deal with. So it's always worth making the effort to reduce those potential dangers and hazards as much as we can. Another question I get a lot is, you know, as individuals, do we have any agency in this, right? And here I often hear kind of polar opposite arguments where some people are all about individual behavior change, right? This notion that, you know, if we all just do a little, you know, we'll fix this. I think that's incorrect. You know, it's not the case that if we all as individuals do something, we'll fix this huge global problem. But you also get the other extreme that says, you know, individuals don't matter. This is purely about systemic change, right? So it's only on governments and businesses and economic systems to change this. And I think that's a false dichotomy. I think both really, really matter here. What's really key is that governments, companies, investors, etc., they play a huge role in making the alternatives to the drivers of climate change. ([Time 0:09:25](https://share.snipd.com/snip/4bce66c1-fe64-4ef3-b62f-7ab6723a88d7)) - **Cost Curves Changed The Game** - Rapid cost declines in solar, wind, and batteries turned expensive alternatives into the cheapest energy choices. - That economic shift aligns short-term incentives with long-term climate goals, making political buy-in easier. Transcript: Sean Illing And yet, for some of the reasons you've already mentioned, the public mood still feels pretty grim. But there is, however, a chart early in the book that shows that most people underestimate how much others care about climate action, even in the U.S. And, you know, I confess that I've probably said many times on this very show that most Americans don't care enough about this issue. And that's a massive political problem for people who do. But am I wrong about this? I mean, how much do people actually care about the climate, according to the data that you've seen? Hannah Ritchie Yeah, so there are a number of international surveys on this where they ask people about, you know, whether they believe in climate change, you know, is it human caused? You know, should governments take more action, do they care about us taking action? And what's really clear is that in every country, the majority of people say yes to all of the above. So they think climate change is happening and they want governments and people to be too. Even in the US, there's a majority, right? You can also look at the polarization in that, right? So generally, a higher share of people on the left say yes relative to the right. And that's the case in most countries. In most countries, that partisan gap is much, much smaller than people imagine. In some countries, it's basically non-existent. In the US, the partisan gap is still large, right? But even on the right, a lot of people do care about climate change. And actually, if you ask Republicans, they also vastly underestimate how many other Republicans care about climate change. So it seems to be this kind of underlying secret that, you know, you don't talk about climate change, but you do actually care and worry a bit about climate change. So that tends to be the dynamic. You can then argue whether people care enough, right? And I think that's a very relative term, you know, what's your enough versus my enough. But they generally say they care about climate change and want to see more action on it. And I think that is not portrayed very clearly to the public. It's not portrayed very clearly to politicians or the media. The one kind of key caveat I would make to that is that, you know, saying you care about climate change does not necessarily mean you follow through really strongly with, you know, climate Friendly behaviours or climate friendly purchases, right? So even if you say you care about climate change, you know, you might not be willing to spend a ton of money on a more climate-friendly alternative, for example. So what I always try to make really clearly there is that people are receptive to climate solutions and taking action. But what's really, really key is that the alternatives, they need to be available for people and they need to be cheap and affordable for them. They will generally not pay more for those solutions. And many people cannot pay more, actually, for the climate-friendly alternative. Sean Illing Well, that's a huge point, right? Getting people to stop doing things they like or stop doing things that they're accustomed to is hard. It's a hard sell. But if you can offer them substitutes for the things they like, instead of asking them to sacrifice, is this part of what makes you an optimist on this, at least politically, that maybe Increasingly we do have the tools to create these cleaner substitutes? And that changes the politics of climate. Absolutely. Hannah Ritchie So when I was looking at this 10 years ago, even when globally we signed the Paris Agreement, you know, these really ambitious climate goals, we were in the situation where the alternatives To fossil fuels for electricity, like solar and wind, were hugely more expensive than coal or gas. And to me at that time, it seemed totally implausible that the world was just going to pick these really expensive energy sources in order to solve climate change. What's happened over the last decade is that the cost of these substitutes have plummeted, right? So solar has fallen by around 80 to 90 percent, wind by 70 percent, batteries, which is really key for building out electricity grids, but also really key for the transition in road transport To electric vehicles, has fallen by around 90% as well. And what's happened is that solar and wind have gone from being much more expensive, which I didn't think people would choose, to actually being the cheapest choice, right? So now your short-term incentives in terms of economics are now also matching up with these longer-term goals for climate. ([Time 0:12:23](https://share.snipd.com/snip/07b8f9e2-3019-495b-99b8-f79b35b7fa12)) - **Climate Concern Is Broader Than Perceived** - Surveys show majorities in most countries accept climate change and want action, including many on the political right. - People underestimate how many others care, leaving a silent majority not reflected in discourse. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie So there are a number of international surveys on this where they ask people about, you know, whether they believe in climate change, you know, is it human caused? You know, should governments take more action, do they care about us taking action? And what's really clear is that in every country, the majority of people say yes to all of the above. So they think climate change is happening and they want governments and people to be too. Even in the US, there's a majority, right? You can also look at the polarization in that, right? So generally, a higher share of people on the left say yes relative to the right. And that's the case in most countries. In most countries, that partisan gap is much, much smaller than people imagine. In some countries, it's basically non-existent. In the US, the partisan gap is still large, right? But even on the right, a lot of people do care about climate change. And actually, if you ask Republicans, they also vastly underestimate how many other Republicans care about climate change. So it seems to be this kind of underlying secret that, you know, you don't talk about climate change, but you do actually care and worry a bit about climate change. So that tends to be the dynamic. You can then argue whether people care enough, right? And I think that's a very relative term, you know, what's your enough versus my enough. But they generally say they care about climate change and want to see more action on it. And I think that is not portrayed very clearly to the public. It's not portrayed very clearly to politicians or the media. The one kind of key caveat I would make to that is that, you know, saying you care about climate change does not necessarily mean you follow through really strongly with, you know, climate Friendly behaviours or climate friendly purchases, right? So even if you say you care about climate change, you know, you might not be willing to spend a ton of money on a more climate-friendly alternative, for example. So what I always try to make really clearly there is that people are receptive to climate solutions and taking action. But what's really, really key is that the alternatives, they need to be available for people and they need to be cheap and affordable for them. They will generally not pay more for those solutions. ([Time 0:13:05](https://share.snipd.com/snip/03ae2e55-5eff-491b-a95c-b6e58bf396bc)) - **Different Nations, Different Climate Psychologies** - Some countries view clean tech as the future while others see it as a threat to growth, shaping very different politics. - China frames renewables as 21st-century tech, while parts of the U.S. cling to fossil-fuel growth myths. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie Think in some countries, it's more of a problem than in others. I think the US is a good example where I think the US does very much still have this mindset that its growth has been based on fossil fuels and drill baby drill. And that's how it's became this economic superpower. And therefore, you know, going for, you know, the kind of tree hugging green stuff would be a step backwards. And I think that's a very, very different psychology from how many other countries in the world are viewing this. So the contrast there is China, where China, I think, is now seeing fossil fuels and petrol cars as the technologies of the 20th century, and it wants to build the technologies of the 21st century. And that is solar and wind and batteries and electric vehicles and basically electrification, right? So some countries like the US are stuck in this mindset where they see the kind of green transition as a step back and incompatible with growth because they are used to growth being powered By, you know, huge energy giants and fossil fuel use. And I think that's disconnected from reality. ([Time 0:22:26](https://share.snipd.com/snip/01db6390-dc3f-4083-9e4c-03c89bb2bda9)) - **Red States Leading Renewable Build-Out** - Much U.S. renewable deployment happened in red states driven by local benefits like income and air quality. - Texas and wind-belt states built large clean installations even without climate-motivated national politics. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie The political situation has shifted a lot in the last year. But if you were to look at the build-out of renewable power across the U.S. From historical data, the majority of the stuff was being built in red states, right? And it wasn't necessarily because they were really focused on getting to net zero or reducing their emissions like often often local air pollution would come up as a key problem right So a lot of people are more kind of motivated by addressing local environmental problems than than global climate change but also the focus on energy independence for landowners in States along the wind belt. You know, it's just an additional source of income, right? So why not put up a wind farm and get some extra income, generate some clean energy, right? So framing it in that way in red states has actually been, and especially having a kind of legislative environment that allows you to build stuff relatively quickly without large bottlenecks Has been really, really key. And red states have taken that on and built a ton of clean energy, regardless of the climate reasons for doing so. ([Time 0:25:14](https://share.snipd.com/snip/fab419a7-3e0f-40f8-9137-f8bd36176805)) - **Leapfrogging Offers A New Path** - Rich countries' historical fossil-fuelled development creates a hypocrisy when limiting poorer countries' options today. - Yet falling solar exports from China enable poorer nations to potentially leapfrog dirty infrastructure. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie I think, yeah, I think there has been this rich world hypocrisy where countries like the UK, where I'm from, we have basically built our prosperity on building energy system running On fossil fuels, right? I have the life i have today which is a nice life because my ancestors used fossil fuels to build infrastructure to build up an economy they burned a lot right to get us to where we are now And they basically had free reign of that where they could do that without any political uh global climate agreements or without any countries telling them, oh, that will put you over The carbon budget. There was none of those constraints. So many of the world's richest countries got to do that without any limits or constraints. And now we're in the situation where many of the world's poorest countries basically want to do the same. They have large of their population living in energy poverty. Naturally, they want to escape that. Naturally, they want to prosper. And there is this sense of, you know, but you can't use fossil fuels to do that. Of course, you can't use fossil fuels. Now, you know, we have global climate change. And that hypocrisy is still very, very clear, because, you know, even if you were to argue countries like the UK or the US, historically we used fossil fuels and now we're transitioning. But if you compare the amount per person of fossil fuels we're still using, it's vastly, vastly, vastly more than the poorest countries in the world. So even if you look at the situation today, there's still a huge inequality in the amount of fossil fuels that different countries are using. But there has been this case where rich countries often, if there are loans or financial agreements for poor countries to build out energy systems, basically won't support anything That includes any fossil fuels at all in those agreements, which does, I think, highlight this hypocrisy. I think some of the dynamics of that are changing, where this deadlock is breaking. ([Time 0:28:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/0311e680-6a8e-4f2a-af3d-e68bd2379304)) - **Eat Less Meat To Free Land** - Reduce agricultural land use by shifting diets; plant-based eating dramatically lowers land and emissions per calorie. - Even partial reductions by many people beat a few going fully vegan, so encourage incremental change. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie Yeah, I think for here, we focused on climate change and we always focus on fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. And I think actually agriculture is a very underrated environmental problem. In fact, like if you were to take almost any environmental problem, whether it's land use, biodiversity loss, deforestation, freshwater use, water pollution, agriculture is the Leading cause of all of those environmental problems by far. It's not even comparable. Climate change, it's responsible for between a quarter to a third. So even for climate change, it's a huge contributing factor to the problem. So, and I think many people vastly underestimate this. And I think what people vastly underestimate is how much we've made the world into a giant farm, right? So if you were to look at how much of what we call habitable land, so that's land that's not a desert or is not glaciers or that we couldn't use or other ecosystems couldn't use, half of that Is used for farming. So we use huge amounts of land for farming. And what's really key there is that there are huge differences in the environmental impact of different products. As a brief summary, animal products tend to use more land, emit more greenhouse gas emissions, use more water, any impact really, use much more than plant-based products. And actually there's a kind of ranking there among animal products where generally the largest animals have the highest impact and the smallest have the lowest, right? So as an individual, one of the biggest environmental changes you can make to have a positive impact is shift to a more plant-based diet. That would make a huge difference. And as you said, if we were to have a hypothetical world where everyone went vegan tomorrow, we would reduce our agricultural land use by 75%. So this huge drop in the amount of land we're using for farming. ([Time 0:40:58](https://share.snipd.com/snip/b6b849e2-f92f-4601-809f-dee3638a84b3)) - **Carbon Removal Is Necessary, Not Sufficient** - Nearly all net-zero pathways require some carbon removal, but it complements steep emission cuts rather than replaces them. - Direct air capture exists but remains expensive and energy intensive, so focus on cutting emissions first. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie Yes. If you look at kind of any of our most models of, you know, how globally we get to what we call net zero emissions, which is basically that we're not adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere Than we are sucking out. The reality is that there's basically almost no pathway that gets completely to zero without any carbon removal whatsoever. We're going to need some carbon removal 20, 30, 40 years from now. The question is, you know, what are the specific technologies or solutions that are going to have the largest impact? And there are a range of solutions. There are what we call more natural carbon removal technologies, i.e. Trees. They suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The issue often with trees, one is land. If you want to plant a lot of trees, you need land to plant them on. And currently, a lot of that land has been used for other causes like agriculture. And also, you can plant trees, but if that burns down in a wildfire or someone cuts it down, that's lost. But there are other solutions. Very few of them are at scale at the moment. Most of them are kind of in the early stage, research and development stage. And that ranges from, I what people envision when they think about uh carbon removal which is direct air capture it's basically a giant fan that basically tries to pull carbon dioxide Out of the atmosphere and store underground the issue there is it uses a lot of energy and that means it's expensive right so to remove a ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is extremely Expensive. And I think there are very few governments or companies that would be willing to pay at the current price. So a huge part of that is trying to basically bring down the price and make it more affordable and feasible. ([Time 0:44:20](https://share.snipd.com/snip/6dbaedfc-ee53-45d4-8ece-40254aca57ab)) - **Focus On High-Impact Actions** - Stop over-focusing on low-impact rituals like plastic recycling and prioritize high-impact choices like food emissions. - Ritchie recommends shifting attention to big drivers of your footprint rather than symbolic actions. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie Yeah, quite a lot. Sean Illing What sticks out the most? Hannah Ritchie I mean, I think people focus way too much on plastic from a climate perspective. Like, I think if you talk to people about environmental problems or what they're doing to solve environmental problems, the first thing they see is recycling. Sean Illing I wanted to ask you about that. I didn't know if I would, but good. All right, tell me, is recycling, this is a secular ritual I participate in, everyone I know has participated in, and I have heard from so many people that it's kind of bullshit. I still do it. I don't know if that's true or not, but there's not a better person to ask if that's true or not than you. So please. Hannah Ritchie Tell me. And I mean, if you recycle too, you should continue recycling. Okay. I think the marginal benefits of recycling, especially materials like plastic, are very small. And that's just because in order to recycle stuff requires energy. And the amount of energy required to make new plastics is actually quite small. They're really light materials. So the net benefit there is often quite unclear, maybe marginally on the side of recycling, but it's not this huge benefit. And when you zoom out and look at the climate impact of that relative to all of the other behaviors that make up your carbon footprint, it's extremely, extremely small. So i often use this example of um i don't know if it's a big thing in the us but in the uk we have like a you now have to if you go to the supermarket you have to pay for a plastic bag it's it's quite Cheap but you have to pay but that's drastically changed the social fabric and expectations right so uh you know if you go to the supermarket and you don't have a plastic bag it's like Why have you not brought your plastic bag right come on we're all protecting the environment here you have to bring your plastic back so people really really care and think about the Plastic bag but the reality is that they then wander around the supermarket not thinking at all about the environmental impact of the food products that they're buying and if you were To weigh up the environmental impacts of the stuff they're buying and putting in the bag, you know, it's probably thousands to tens of thousands times more than actually just the environmental Impact of the bag. So that's just one example of where, you know, what people are focusing on is really skewed from the reality of what makes the most difference. ([Time 0:47:08](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ceb81400-952d-4e5f-94ee-5c84cf60d1e6)) - **Use Voice And Vote To Drive Change** - Talk honestly about your willingness to change and back leaders and companies that deliver clean alternatives. - Use voting, purchasing, and social influence to make clean choices mainstream and lower political barriers. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie Way we talk about climate and its solutions, I think, really has quite a profound impact on public discussion more broadly. And I think that filters up to how governments feel about taking action and about how companies feel about taking action. If you have a populist that can see the potential of clean energy, wants to shift away from gasoline cars to electrified transport, or wants to develop cities that run on public transport, If you have a populist that's really passionate about that, I think it makes a huge difference to, I guess, you might frame it bravery of the government or willingness of the government, The incentives for companies to get involved and take action. And I think that starts with us as individuals. And I think that means having really honest discussions with others about your willingness to change and the benefits of these technologies in this transition, and then supporting Political parties or leaders that are willing to make that change, and basically putting your money on the table for companies that are also trying to shift in that direction. ([Time 0:49:59](https://share.snipd.com/snip/7b1e0100-8f52-454f-8f3f-30c17498aacd)) - **A Positive Vision Of A Decarbonized Future** - A hopeful future has cheaper energy, more efficient systems, and local control over clean supplies, not energy scarcity. - Ritchie frames decarbonization as an opportunity to expand access and efficiency, not to shrink prosperity. Transcript: Hannah Ritchie So rather than living in a world where a few countries basically have a monopoly on the energy system, most countries have a large amount of control over their own energy supplies. And that is not a pipe dream. There's definitely a pathway by which countries get there with these new technologies. The cost of energy is much lower than it is today. So overall, people are getting more energy services, but they're using vastly less energy. And that's because we build this much more efficient system than we currently have. Sean Illing You dedicate the book to your niece, who will very likely, unlike me, live to see the 22nd century. If she, her name is, is her name Maeve or Maeva? Maeva. If she listens to this conversation in 50 years, what do you hope she says about this period and about our generation? Hannah Ritchie So I think many of these issues were at a crossroads. In a very good position to make the right choice and go down the pathway that not only protects us but also protects the future generations and the opportunities that that they have and There's a not so good pathway so I hope that looking back on this my niece in 50 years would be proud that we took the better path, not just for us, but for her and also for the next generation That comes after her. So I would hope that she would look back and I guess be proud and satisfied that we made the right choice rather than the wrong one. Sean Illing We're doing it. We're totally doing it, right? Is that where you've landed? We're doing it? It's happening? Hannah Ritchie We can do it. And I'm trying to do whatever I can to push us in that direction. As I always say, I always present these kind of more positive visions of the future as an opportunity because they're not inevitability. It's going to take us to actually make it happen. ([Time 0:52:31](https://share.snipd.com/snip/1a915be3-b654-420d-974c-f59e066ab633))