Not the End of the World by Hannah Ritchie.



As an old fart, when I first heard that an entire generation was suffering from "eco-anxiety", I thought the media was exaggerating as usual. But then I came across actual young people who did feel a tremendous sense of dread and despair concerning the future of the planet; young people who do not interpret "the planet is doomed and we're all gonna die" as hyperbole meant to stress the importance of taking care of the environment, but as a factual condemnation.

In that context, a book like Not the End of the World (just like Hans Rosling's Factfulness, a few years ago) should be mandatory reading... if not for the kids themselves, then at least for their educators so that we'd stop spreading depressing disinformation.

Ritchie started as a serious environmental activist, getting university degrees to better try and save the world. And along the line, she realized that a genuine concern for environmental issues had morphed into something of a doom cult, ignoring what real-world numbers say and sidestepping very real solutions to current problems. Without belittling the environmental crisis we face, she provides a very positive message : yes, we have problems, but we have the means to solve them without going back to the stone age. Hers might be the first generation ever to actually deliver on the promises of a sustainable economy.

Because, as the book explains clearly (with plenty of real numbers and not mere hand waving), we have never lived in a sustainable economy. Ever.  Seneca used to complain about how toxic the very air in Rome was, and that was way before the industrial revolution! However, while an increasing level of industrialization does lead to increased pollution at first, there comes a time when more efficient technology reverses the tendency. The author points out that in our era of transatlantic flights, massive overconsumption and leisurely trips to space, our individual carbon footprint is half that of our grandparents. More efficient technology is the key, and we can be encouraged by things like a 98% drop in price for solar panels or the ever-lowering use of coal as a power source. 

Hans Rosling had made the point in his own book: while most people get the impression that things are going badly and getting worse, the absolute opposite is true. Things have never been so good (generally speaking) and are getting better. The key, initially, is to create wealth (and oh, how the capitalists in their ivory towers must love hearing that); poor nations don't have the means to pursue less polluting ways to develop. But when they reach a certain level of wealth, their citizens start complaining about the unbreathable air and dirty rivers, and the state has the means to do something about it. Beijing was so polluted for the Olympics in 2008 that the government essentially stopped the activity of factories weeks before the event, to allow some air back in town; by 2013, the population demanded that something be done. The government response was pretty heavy handed (China, right?) but it bore fruit: air pollution levels dropped 55%. The city isn't even in the list of the 200 most polluted cities in the world anymore. Did China stop exporting stuff? No; it just used technology in a smarter way. It's not a perfect example, but it shows that we can do something right now, using current technology, to make modern life compatible with the environment.

One aspect of the book I quite enjoy (even if it makes me go "whaaaa...?" at times) is its description of the impact some of our well-meaning actions really have on the environment. Me, a heavy recycler since the mid-80s, learned that my habit has basically zero impact. What a disappointment! My not having a SUV does, however, and if I were to turn vegetarian it would be even better. (But I don't think that's gonna happen! )

I don't agree with Ritchie on every point she raises; her faith in electric cars, for example, strikes me as a bit of wishful thinking. Especially so since she condemns bio-fuels, which she dismisses as little better than fossil fuels. That's a point I don't think takes into account that bio-fuels don't need to be made from plants that would otherwise be used as food (like corn); the most promising bio-fuel possibilities involve making it out of cellulose or even out of CO2 capture by certain types of bacteria. Granted, those are still not ready for prime time (they cost a lot and produce little) but the concept of making fuel out of cellulose (which itself is initially made of atmospheric CO2) or from CO2 coming out of chimneys guarantees a closed circuit for carbon. As long as we don't dig our fuel out of the ground, we should be fine.

Anyhoo... a welcome positive look at the state of things, with no pink-tinted glasses but showing us how things can turn out all right without sacrificing our modern world.