.png)
Environmentalists need o grapple with hard data, shed virtue-signaling behaviors that don't provide strong environmental benefits, and stop romanticizing a past in which the world was more "sustainable" than the present.
Those are a few of the takeaways from Hannah Ritchie's book Not the End of the World: How We Can be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet (Little Brown Spark, 2024). I thought about this book long after I finished it. The best way to sum up Ritchie's arguments is with a triad of statements that she uses in the book: "Things are awful; things are much better; things can be improved." Ritchie uses data to back up these complementary but contradictory assertions throughout the book. This makes it a unique work of environmental nonfiction -- and a highly debatable one, too.
"Being an effective environmentalist might make you feel like a bad one," writes Ritchie, who is an environmental scientist and editor of the popular website Our World in Data. She makes assertions that may surprise some environmentalists and cause others to bristle. These include:
Organic farming is worse than conventional farming in terms of land use, lake pollution and river pollution.
Landfills aren't as bad as they're made out to be, and occupy a tiny portion of the world's land.
Paper straws are ridiculous, and are a distraction from real solutions to plastic pollution.
In some cases, sustainability comes at the expense of animal welfare. For example, grain-fed beef should be favored over grass-fed because it requires less land.
GMO crops are to be celebrated because they have improved farm yields, meaning less land needs to be deforested for agriculture.
Analyzing Doomsday Headlines
Ritchie is at her best when she analyzes media headlines that feed doomsday narratives about climate change. She examines the so-called insect apocalypse, the sixth extinction, and the frequently repeated claim that by 2050, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. Her findings are informed by peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses. They are sobering and encouraging at the same time. For example, she shows that not all insect populations are collapsing. Land-based insects are indeed declining, but water-based insects are on the upswing.
Ritchie's brand of environmentalism is pragmatic. She states that "the loss of some insects is inevitable," and suggests that the resources that are being spent on saving the last two surviving Northern White Rhinos "doesn't really make sense." On the topic of species extinction, it is helpful to be reminded that climate change is not the main driver of biodiversity loss. The three biggest drivers are overexploitation (i.e., hunting, fishing, logging, and gathering plants), agriculture, and urbanization. Ritchie notes that "humans and their livestock" have crowded out other living animals, accounting for 60% of global biomass since 1900. Another reason why we should eat less beef.
Her chapter on the food system is illuminating, particularly her critique of "eating local." Ritchie demonstrates that where your food comes from is less important than what you choose to eat. She is categorical about eating less beef. She shows that even the most climate-friendly beef emits more carbon than the highest-carbon plant protein.
Less Convincing Claims
Ritchie is less convincing in other parts of the book. For example, I was perplexed by her confidence in landfills, which is based on the observation that they occupy a tiny fraction of land globally. That's reassuring, but Ritchie doesn't explain how long landfills can accommodate society's rate of consumption. I would have appreciated elaboration here, particularly with respect to textile waste and e-waste.
Similarly, her claim that deforestation will "hit zero if we continue to invest in productive crops and make better decision won what food to eat" sounds idealistic, given the lack of evidence that societies are on course to eat more sustainably.
This is a book to be debated vigorously. It is equal parts sobering, uplifting, and perplexing. Sobering because behind the doomsday headlines that Ritchie disapproves of, there are truly worrisome trends. Uplifting because over timescales short and long, humans have proven themselves capable of reversing the decline of endangered species, solving air pollution, and slowing deforestation. Perplexing because Ritchie tells us to "stress less" about plastic straws, recycling, and replacing light bulbs, and to focus on things that require more initiative, like eating less meat, advocating for systemic change, and picking a career where you can make an impact.
If you've read this book, I'd love to discuss it with you. Leave a comment below or message me directly.