If you are worried about the future, read this book. I promised you will still be worried: this is not climate denialism or blind optimism. But you will come a way with a much better understanding of what we face, and what problems we don't face because of the progress we have already made. We can beat this, if we understand it.Hannah Ritchie is not merely an spectator or analyst: she is at the forefront of this research and has been preaching the nuanced truth of environmentalism for years. And she does not stand alone. Our World In Data is the the culmination of years of work from many legendary environmentalists, researchers, and educators. You may recognize OWID from the many famous visualizations they've made over the years.Not the End of the World is arguably the distilled brilliance of many minds over the last 30 years. Hannah Ritchie states it all clearly, and without condescension or unnecessary complexity.I hope this book gives you same clarity it gave me, about how much danger we really face, and what actions really matter.- Note: I've been following Hans Rosling, Max Roser, Hannah Ritchie, and OWID for years. I've been desperately waiting for this book, because it explains these concepts better than I ever could. Please excuse me while I buy 5 more copies to force on my friends and family lolol.
Amazing book recommended by Michael Bloomberg
Not the End of the World is exactly the kind of book we need right now — clear, hopeful, and grounded in real evidence. Hannah Ritchie takes on some of the most daunting environmental challenges we face, but instead of leaning into despair, she shows — with rigorous data and careful reasoning — that progress is not only possible, it’s already happening. Ritchie’s background at Our World in Data shines through. Every claim is backed by well-researched statistics, yet the book never feels dry or academic. Her writing is accessible, deeply human, and often surprisingly uplifting. She doesn’t minimize the real threats of climate change, biodiversity loss, or pollution — but she argues persuasively that with smart policies, innovation, and collective action, a better future is within reach. What sets this book apart is its refusal to wallow in helplessness. Instead, it offers an empowering vision: one where optimism is not naïve, but earned through understanding how far we’ve come — and how much further we can go. Not the End of the World is essential reading for anyone who cares about the planet and wants a realistic, hopeful path forward. I’ll be recommending it to everyone.
A great book that provides data to counter the widespread 'everything is bad' narrative. Highly recommended.
An enjoyable read, provides an nicely balanced view of the climate issues and priorities we should be focused on. Strips away the unsupported assertions espoused by the loudest on both sides of the issue. Bottom line is we only have one home and we must respect the future world we pass onto our upcoming generations.
It is up to 80 % good overview with up to 80 % solid logic but the missing 20 % make it mid. For instance: the author skips the best garbage disposal by far (mentioned once in one of the footnotes only): incineration. So she promotes the very poor solution of landfills. Another instance: she promotes the unviable less or no meat consumption instead of industrial style farms with no emissions and a much more condensed style of urbanisation that is the only economically viable, will also save enough space for other use, rec, natural env and farm included, but will also elleviate us culturally etc. So all in all a very mid achivement by a vegan (overlooking the stats that vegans have far more psych probs than the normal ppl) and supporter of costly suburbia and other destructive urbanisation.
If you want to know what really matters, when it comes to what you, personally, can do to fight climate change, and human-induced ecocide, I know of no better, or more inspiring, reference. Well researched, enjoyable narrative, highly recommended for anyone who cares. You'll see our sustainability issues from both a local, and a global, perspective, which is essential for true insight. Sure taught me a lot. Kevin Thomas Morgan
Although chock-full of interesting and sometimes-surprising facts, I gave it one star because this is a dangerously misleading book about the existential threats humanity faces and our prospects for solving them.What the book DOES is share interesting details regarding seven environmental problems (overfishing, plastic pollution, climate, feeding the world sustainably, etc.), and then say we are making progress or can make progress on each. Ritchie then concludes that humans can carry on sustainably with modern civilization by making some moderate technological, bureaucratic, and personal changes.OK, so what’s the problem? As context for my review, I’m a senior university professor and researcher who spent much of the last decade researching the unraveling health of people and the planet and what we can do about it. From that perspective, Ritchie’s book has a many fatal flaws, and I describe them at length as a PSA regarding humanity’s predicament.First, Ritchie defines “sustainability” in a political rather than scientific way—as meaning we achieve a good material standard of living while not using up Earth’s bounty any faster than it can regenerate, repopulate, and heal. Because she inappropriately tacks good living standards onto real sustainability, she then weirdly dismisses the only humans with sustainable societies and lifestyles—indigenous peoples—as not have achieved sustainability. That inaccurate framing—including her opening myth that the world has never been sustainable—warps the perspective of the whole book.Second, the book doesn’t address all the existential threats we face. Among the existential threats that the book ignores are declining sperm counts for humans and wildlife, resource depletion, AI, capitalism, financial cliffs, the power and actions of the 1%, and wars.Third, the book is limits blind. Any book that purports to have a plan for sustainability must describe humanity’s vast ecological overshoot and suggest changes for meeting human needs while simultaneously ending that overshoot. That is, humanity’s collective consumption and wastes are now overshooting Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity by ~70% per year plus overshooting six of Earth’s nine planetary boundaries. Until we end that overshoot, worsening ecological and societal unraveling is inevitable—that’s just how the laws of nature work.Fourth, the book is economics blind. Ritchie never seriously addresses the fact that the size of the economy—and particularly energy use and material throughput—is tightly tied to the degree of ecological harm that economy causes. She promises early on but never proves that we can adequately decouple our ecological impacts from having a high standard of living, thus achieving sustainability. Despite some modest decoupling of economic activity from ecological harms in wealthy nations, countries like the U.S. and the UK still have ecological footprints that are five times higher than what would be sustainable for eight billion people having that economy and those lifestyles. To become “sustainable,” people in wealthy nations would have to shrink their ecological impacts by 60-99+%, and more wind turbines, solar panels, and a little less red meat and car use won’t get us there. Thus, although Ritchie dismisses the idea of de-growth in less than half a page, the science and math are clear than only much smaller and less industrialized economies coupled with much simpler lifestyles with more manual labor are sustainable for 8 billion humans.Fifth, the book is energy blind. Ritchie never presents any plan for getting advanced industrialized economies off of fossil fuels while maintaining the kinds of modern lifestyles she hopes for. I’m a fan of renewable energy, but it is not currently replacing fossil fuels and the notion that renewable energy can do everything that fossil fuels do for us now—let alone do them sustainably—is an unscientific fantasy. Her optimism that we will get off of fossil fuels is naïve: After 30 years of climate summits, CO2 emissions keep rising steadily and hit a record high in 2023. Her energy-blindness taints her analysis of other issues. For example, she suggests continuing factory farming but with more careful use of fertilizers and pesticides. Well, how can you call a system that uses 10 units of energy to create 1 unit of food energy “sustainable,” especially when it relies on fossil fuels that will run out and steadily destroy ecosystems over time?Sixth, Ritchie never addresses the extensive literature explaining why advanced civilizations are doomed to collapse because, by their very nature, they deplete and destroy the favorable ecological and social conditions that allowed them to arise in the first (see books by William Ophuls, Joseph Tainter, Jared Diamond). For example, making more man-made stuff inevitably increases entropy on Earth and degrades the ecosystems our lives depend on, so industrialized civilization is inherently eco-destructive. Reflectin...
The book reviews the main current environmental problems and suggests practical solutions.Unlike other non-fiction books, it is written in a lovely style that combines long and short sentences, all easily understood. Fun to read.
I have read several books on climate change and highly recommend this one. It gave me realistic hope that climate change IS being addressed as well as how it could be improved from a policy standpoint. The author also gives practical advice on what the average person can do to be a part of the solution. I learned some of what I’m doing is good (like reducing red meat intake, taking public transit, for example) and some of my efforts aren’t achieving as much as I thought or are even counter productive on a large scale (eating organic). She is the expert, yet writes in a direct way that’s easy to grasp.
I have been reading sustainability and climate books for years. More often than not they fall into the doom and gloom category. Dr. Ritchie uses a data driven approach to show that, though there are numerous concerns that still need addressing, in general we are trending in a good direction in the 7 key areas that she addresses. She tells us (and shows us with the data) areas where our concerns are misplaced, and lays out the actions that we must incorporate into our daily lives if we are to attain a sustainable future. Clearly written and easy to read. A triumph.
This is an important book. It provides clear and strong evidence for hope as we face very serious environmental problems. Hope is important, and the evidence for its justification is well-presented in this book. I recommend it for anyone who is concerned about climate change or other crucial environmental challenges.I do think that sometimes the book's tone is too rosy. Yes, good things ARE possible. However anything resembling good outcomes are far from inevitable. Until some of the dominant trends surrounding major environmental challenges shift, I personally believe that reasons for optimism face significant limits.Where I am most encouraged is the potential of personal determination in helping cope with climate change and other looming environmental disasters. People can cope with some pretty extreme challenges while at the same time helping others do the same. I have little hope that large swaths of humanity will reorient their lives in time to prevent some terrible outcomes, but determination, hard work, and intelligence can help those people - individuals, large groups and everything in between - who do get to work preparing for these challenges to make it through the hard things that we are on track toward.
This is a good overview of where we are in addressing climate change and related sustainability crises. Hannah does a great job of marshaling data to support her assessment. As some have noted, the book does not go into a lot of detail defending some of her conclusions. It is, however, extensively supported with footnotes and presents mainstream scientific views that have plenty of support.As one who works "down in the trenches" addressing climate change, I found Hannah's macro analysis very helpful in giving me perspective. Conclusion: yes, the world is on fire, but maybe we will be able to bring it under control.
In general, I like the author's approach to the controversial topic of climate change. As many reviewers note, she brings fascinating data that calls into question many sacred cows. Her approach is gentle- this is not yet another condemnation of everything modern- she seeks to strike a balance with a realistic appreciation of what social change is achievable and what might be a stretch. This "making room for where you are" is a welcome breath of fresh air to the topic.That said, I have some reservations about a number of her assertions. In many cases, these are couched as "I've crunched the numbers so you don't have to." This is disingenuous and undercuts her arguments because some of those assertions come across as specious to me.The chapter on "Food" as a topic brings this home in numerous instances. Without much qualification, she flatly states that plants produce more food per acre than animals, and that the bigger the animal is, the less efficient that use of land is. That may be true, but I can't possibly know for certain from her writing because there is no mention of all the variables and assumptions that she undoubtedly made to arrive at that conclusion. If beef, how were the steer raised? If on a feedlot, did she take into account the acreage of feed (typically corn) that is required? What crops is she comparing that to? Are her calculations based on protein content? Fat content? Calories alone?She extols the virtue of laboratory food such as Beyond Burgers with no mention at all of nutritional value. It's all flavor and nothing else. Similarly, she extols the virtues of GMO food to the extent that she sounds like a shill for Monsanto (now Bayer), and never mentions that these foods were genetically modified *to be able to withstand the direct application of herbicides.* Just as nutrition doesn't figure into her discussion of food, the presence of herbicides and pesticides ion the food we eat receives scant attention.Another topic scarcely mentioned is the impact on soil of the "modern" agriculture model she favors. The corporate farm model is notoriously derelict in in ruining soil, leading to serious depletion and polluting our water. The author extols the virtue of chemical fertilizers in producing growth, with no mention of the downsides.Michael Pollan, in his book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, cites a study that showed that approximately the same acreage is required to range feed cattle as is required to grow corn to feed them on a feedlot. Was this a good study? Have others been done to confirm or repudiate it? I don't know, and you won't either after reading this book. But for someone who claims she wants to save the environment, wouldn't you expect some mention of soil conservation, and even more, how to restore topsoil?Range-fed cattle feed the soil and capture carbon in the soil by pooping and repeatedly pressing that poop into the ground with their hooves. This not only captures carbon in the soil but key elements necessary for plant growth, in a form they readily accept. In contrast, feedlot cattle are an environmental nightmare creating horrific runoff that is poisoning our rivers and lakes, leading to algae bloom. All this is ignored when say glibly says, if you're going to eat beef, eat feedlot beef.She repeats the corporate talking point that "organic farming isn't productive enough" to be a comparable use of land compared to chemical farming. She offers ZERO substantiation for that, even though it is mentioned several times in the book. What assumptions are made to reach that conclusion? Has she considered any recent research? And over what period of time is productivity considered? When the soil won't support life, there is no productivity.I give this book zero stars for the food chapter, not because she doesn't come to my desired outcome as a conclusion, but because her evidence and data to support her conclusions is, to be kind, inadequate. Unfortunately, this tendency to glibly say "this doesn't matter" without much substantiation recurs throughout the book. Digesting microplastic? Not a big deal, an assertion that contradicts other scientists.The net is that I enjoyed much of the book, and cringed in other parts. Give it a read with both an open mind and a critical eye, and see what you think.
Developing accurate information from raw data assumes three things: you have all the data, the data is accurate and unbiased, your analysis approach is oriented towards objective, unbiased results.The web site "Our World in Data" specializes in accumulating data that is as thorough as possible. The book reflects that research and is highly objective and arrives at reasonable conclusions. The only negative comments I could make reflect more a lack of data rather than poor analysis. In the chapter on climate change there is an inherent assumption that the data from monitoring stations is accurate. But NOAA has revealed that of their 1200+ no-longer-reporting stations, they estimate what the data would show for about 30% of them. This introduces a huge amount of uncertainty in the data. The other comment is in the chapter on fishing. Based on multiple reports there is a huge amount of illegally-caught fish, primarily in the Pacific Ocean near SE Asia, so the analyzed data may be significantly inaccurate. There is also a large amount of mis-labeled fish sold in markets, making the actual species report questionable.
The facts regarding the environment can be confusing. The fossil fuel industry, climate deniers, right-wing pundits and politicians are bombarding us with falsehoods, but poorly informed environmentalists and sensationalist media are misleading us as well. The author takes special issue with doomism, the belief that it’s too late and that we are all going to die. Both denialism and doomism, as well as efforts to minimize the problems lead to inaction. What we need is to have the correct information and to be realistic, which will make it possible for us to take the best action.In the spirit of “Hans Rosling / Factfulness” she tells us about our successes and about our progress by using data. She shows us how things really are and how we can solve our current big problems. She explains that we are reducing malnutrition, eradicating poverty, and extending people’s life span all around the world despite a growing population. She mentions that we successfully tackled pollution in many large cities in the west, as well as the acid rain problem and the ozone layer/hole. Sulphur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain, has fallen by 95% in the US since the 1970’s largely thanks to scrubbers. By 2018 the emissions of ozone-depleting gases had fallen by 99.7%. The list goes on. When we make big environmental problems smaller, we stop talking about them.Climate change / global warming is a more difficult problem, but we are having some success here as well. The climate policies we have enacted so far are making a big difference. For example, greenhouse gas emissions in the US have fallen by more than 20% over the last 15 years. From 1990 to 2019 the greenhouse gas emissions fell by 21% despite the economy growing by 55% (in the 1990’s the emissions were still increasing). My native country Sweden is doing even better. Greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden has fallen by 39% over the same period despite the economy growing by 55%.The origins of the world’s carbon emissions are: 25% Electricity and Heat, 24% Agriculture and Forestry, Industry 16%, Transport 14%, direct from buildings 6%, and other energy 10%. In the US Transportation is 28% and Agriculture 10%. Agriculture includes the effects of deforestation. The good news is that the price of renewables is dropping, and they are now the cheapest while EV cars have become affordable. In Norway 88% of car sales in 2022 were electric. In Sweden, my native country, 54% of car sales in 2022 were electric. The author urges people to switch to electric vehicles – they really are more climate friendly, contrary to what many will tell you here in Texas where I live. Even if their electricity comes from a dirty grid, they are cleaner than gasoline cars, and with respect to minerals, mining, and land use their impact is much smaller than that of the gasoline cars they replace.She also suggests that we try to avoid driving big SUV, fly less, try to use or support renewables, eat less red meat, depending on our circumstances (absolutism and judgmentalism is counterproductive). She advocates for carbon prices as an effective means to reducing emissions. Things that don’t matter or are counterproductive are recycling, not using plastic bags when shopping, turning off your laptop when you don’t use it, buying local (often makes emissions worse), buying organic food (often greatly increases land use), etc.She mentions that landfills in the US and Europe are very well managed and are not a big environmental problem, unlike the developing countries. 1% of the plastic in the Ocean comes from Europe and I read elsewhere that 1% comes from the United States. The plastic in the ocean originates mostly in Asia and Latin America. A fact she mentions that may not sit well with some environmentalists is that nuclear power is a safe and clean source of energy, just like renewables, but without the problem with intermittency.In this review I mentioned a few facts from the book to give a taste of the content. Naturally, there is a whole lot more. All these claims and stats, as well as hundreds of other sometimes surprising claims that she makes she supports by referencing reliable sources and peer reviewed research. The book contains 100+ graphs, 335 references, hundreds if not thousands of interesting facts. I can add that Hannah Ritchie (PhD) is a young Scottish data scientist, senior researcher at the University of Oxford in the Oxford Martin School, deputy editor at Our World in Data, and she is the head of research at Our World in Data. She is quite an impressive young lady. I think this book is one of the most informative books on the topic of the environment that I have ever read. I think most of us will learn something important from this book. If there is a fact from the book that I’ve mentioned in my review that you doubt, why don’t you buy the book and find out the details and where it comes from. Maybe you will see the world with new eyes.A final note is that the statement in the title “H...
I read the entire book and learned much. I found many interesting facts and ideas.That said, Ritchie completely ignored economic growth, which is the root cause of the world's environmental problems. The typical method for measuring national economic growth is gross domestic product (GDP). For measuring world economic growth, the method is gross world product (GWP) which is the sum of all national GDPs.GDP is the market value of all goods and services produced within a country over a period of time, typically a quarter of a year or a whole year. The unit of measuring GDP is dollars. However, there is a physical scale to GDP. A good, by definition, is a tangible item which has a physical scale. Goods include items such as cars, buildings, paper, and apples.Services are intangible. They include providing a taxi ride, putting on a play, and giving a haircut. Most services, however, require goods. Providing a taxi ride requires a cab, putting on a play requires a stage, and giving a haircut requires barber shears.Creating energy also requires goods, such wind turbines, nuclear power plants, and fossil fuel power plants.Economic growth is not linear. A graph of linear growth is a straight line. Economic growth is compound growth. A graph of compound growth typically creates an upward rising curve. To see a chart of GWP growth, see "Global GDP over the long run" at Our World in Data. Ritchie is an editor of Our World in Data.So, in general, as long as GWP is growing enough, GDP indicates the economy is healthy. Humans are then creating more stuff. This stuff is crowding out nature. The study "Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass" by the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel was published in the journal Nature in 2020. The study compared the growth of living biomass (the mass of animals, plants, fungi and microscopic organisms) to the growth of human-made mass (categories are concrete, aggregates, bricks, asphalt, metals and other (for glass, plastic and wood for construction). In 1900, human-made mass was estimated to be only 3% of natural biomass. By 2020, human-made mass had equaled living biomass + or - 6 years. At that rate, human-made mass will double in about 2037. Living biomass has been gradually decreasing since the first agricultural revolution about 3000 years ago. Human-made mass grew very slowly until the industrial revolution and really took off in the 1960s.All countries are designed to grow. The vast majority of economists are Neoclassical growth economists. Their economic model is the circular economy of supply and demand which is not connected to the Earth. It is based on 19th century thinking.A realistic economic model would be connected to the Earth showing resources being extracted from the Earth and pollution being emitted into the Earth.A weird feature of GDP is that it does not subtract for damages or loss revenue caused human errors, such as The Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. That spill caused ecological damage and loss of income to resort owners and fishermen. The cleanup costs, however, were included positively in GDP because the spill created cleanup jobs. Using GDP logic, it would benefit the US economy to have more oils spills because they would create more oil spill cleanup jobs which grow the economy.With GDP, it is impossible to deduce when "economic" actions become "uneconomic", i.e., went costs outweigh benefits.Large companies often care more about their profits than the environment. For example, 3M is still using PFAs in their products. Publicly traded companies like Exxonmobil see their fiduciary responsibility to their share holders as more important than environmental concerns.I could add more about growth economics, but you get the idea. It is an important topic that Ritchie chose to ignore in her book.
