Not The End Of The World: How To Build A Sustainable Planet - Hannah Ritchie | Intelligence Squared

In our latest immersive session of 2024, acclaimed author Hannah Ritchie saw down with Intelligence Squared, delving into the profound insights from her recent book, "Not The End Of The World: How To Build A Sustainable Planet." Here, she eloquently explores a spectrum of options to address the pressing climate crisis, painting a vivid landscape of possibilities. Her discourse not only highlights the challenges we face but also instills a sense of optimism, offering a glimpse into a promising and sustainable future that awaits us as we collectively strive for a brighter, eco-conscious planet.
Want to see more videos and virtual events?
✅ Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: kzbin.info...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world. Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Follow Intelligence Squared on:
👉 Facebook page: / intelligence2
👉 Twitter page: / intelligence2
📌 Website: www.intelligencesquared.com/
#environment #sustainablility #hannahritchie #intelligencesquared #intelligencesquaredplus #iq2

[@MonicaHernandez-vu6ps]

Mexican Chemical Engineer and atmospheric scientist Dr. Mario Molina was awarded the Nobel price in chemistry for being able to figure out what was causing the destruction of the ozone layer, he also was an expert in diplomacy; thus, being able to translate science into common language. Key lessons were knowing how to approach governments, knowing how science works, and translating it to a language understandable to the common folk. Bridges must be built between academia, governments, the industry, and society. Humans who don’t know history will most likely make the same mistakes. Those who know and apply such knowledge are more likely to succeed.

[@lokiva8540]

A key fact rarely stated is that the ratio of Insolation to human energy generation (really form conversion) is 10,000 to 1, within a roughly 50% imprecision factor (which matters little with that high a value). That means that how humans generate energy as to atmospheric side effects on natural solar intake re-radiating back out to space, matters more than if we use slightly more or less energy. Population is a huge factor, IF we assume present industrial systems and lifestyles. If those could see massive changes to cleaner energy, overpopulation would be less of a factor in energy use, and more of one in other respects, including food and water, assuming we leave green spaces not cleared for cities or farms.

[@Coolcmsc]

I’ll go and read that book, thank you. My own view is that subjectivity - eg optimism and pessimism - may have been wise in the past and may become wise again for society. Just now, the facts are required. We, all of us, can chat amongst ourselves with those and together develop a view. There lies the lever to overcome the dissonance in the press, politicians and, yes even climate scientists. Let me offer an analogy for those who disagree. Imagine a World in which doctors chose to manage public health by together strategising to always be optimistic in passing in information to their patients. We can argue a lot about what doctors actually do, but that isn’t my point here. There are few who would support the unadulterated optimism doctors used to ‘protect’ patients and their families that was present in times past (e.g. for those optimistic parents of boomers back in the 50’s and 60’s… perhaps?). Societies seek the facts clearly communicated by their doctors, especially risk, translated into every day language and clear factual descriptions kindly conveyed. We want the problem set out clearly and of the options for addressing it equally clearly described in relatable language. So, that’s my view on the power of optimism just now. Objectively, whilst we have made progress in managing climate change and communicating about it, we are not yet ready to segue from the current confused communications towards “optimism” being the default. And I do understand the danger of negativity. But that’s my point. Subjectivity is a risk either way. The time now is for well communicated facts, including risk, is a convincing manner using data that is also communicated in that way.

[@lokiva8540]

Many electric grid issues need 30 to 50+ year life cycle designs revised, to implement solar and distributed point source and time of day variable cogen loads. Traditional grid-substation-feeder systems with I^2R hub to branch loss designs don't work well if reversed to more than a trivial extent. Details also matter with both nukes and system management, where emerging Thorium reactors can be inherently safe as to catastrophic failure modes found in older reactors, while larger U-235 reactors have seen several generations of improved safety designs suppressed due to political phobic responses often making archaic assumptions that would never be built today, as engineers have progressed several eras of improvements. These are issues where bright people pay attention to serious details with great complexity, that are largely shielded from non-engineers. They're also issues where phobic political opposition has a 100% chance of causing global warming and acid rain, whereas smart nukes and grid redesigns coupled with green energy sources also have costs and risks, but comparatively low ones.

[@dikkgozinya1042]

I like how Rachel Notley is in the title card and not Danielle Smith lol

[@lokiva8540]

The Alberta NDP is in turmoil, given how Notley became more of a cult leader than Smith in the winning party, and just quit. It's amazing how rational Smith can sound, given the nutcase and terrorist elements of Wild Rose and other factions with overlap or mergers and splits in Alberta poly-ticks, or their criminal activities around the border, or with the Ottawa protests. It'd be nice to see honest politicians, whereas Notley's platform was full of frauds with NDP dog whistles, as Smith's side tries to retain oil and gas prioties even as Alberta is finding itself home to major solar projects, and employment in those industries is far less dangerous or erratic than Wildcats on seasonal oil projects.

[@MrPaddy924]

I 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. Ritchie states in the book, as cause for optimism, that the EU and USA have significantly reduced their greenhouse gas emissions. Which is, of course true, but not the cause for optimism that she suggests. Since the rise of China as the world's manufacturing powerhouse, countries like the USA, those in the EU and other developed nations have essentially delegated all of their manufacturing to China which has resulted in their own emissions reducing and China's growing. Overall, global emissions are still rising - it's just that the manufacturing component of those emissions have shifted from other G20 nations to China. This makes China look like the bad guys, when actually all they are doing is producing all of our stuff for us. Against that backdrop, you can understand why it is disingenuous for Ritchie to pick out EU and US emissions to support her case for optimism when these wealthy countries are contributing to record global emissions by buying more stuff than ever from China. At no point in her book does she caveat her positive message with these ugly truths. She's set out to write a positive book and has evidently cherry picked her data to support that thesis. This is why Greta Thunberg urges people to keep their eye on the global emissions data and nothing else. This clarity of focus makes one immune to the positive spin that the likes of Ritchie churns out. 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.

[@alunjones2550]

The solution doesn't need a book. It just needs the whole world to realise there are too many people. “All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people.” Sir David Attenborough

[@nancyreyes5677]

excuse me, but a lot of poor people here in Asia fly. They work elsewhere in the world.

[@nancyreyes5677]

at the end, the suggestion is to cut back the economy. Degrowth. But this will be unpopular so hide what their plan actually is, because some folks might object. does she really know what she is proposing? Massive famine. Get rid of fossil fuel, so farmers can't farm.