Air Date: Week of April 17, 2026

Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers by Dr. Hannah Ritchie. (Photo: Courtesy of Hannah Ritchie)

Climate solutions like renewable energy tech that requires intensive mining can run into skepticism from people across the political spectrum. But according to data scientist Hannah Ritchie, many of the concerns are based on partial and misinformation, and the outlook for addressing the climate emergency isn’t as grim as some people may think. Ritchie is the author of Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers and spoke with Host Steve Curwood.

Transcript

O’NEILL: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Aynsley O’Neill

CURWOOD: And I’m Steve Curwood.

When it comes to taking better care of our only home, Planet Earth, climate disruption has a lot of people feeling worried and hopeless. And when solutions are offered, they can run into skepticism from people across the political spectrum. For example, many question carbon-free nuclear power, saying it’s highly dangerous. And some doubt the advisability of mining a lot of the essential minerals needed for certain renewable energy technologies. But if you do the math carefully and deeply, you will find many of the concerns are based on partial and misinformation, and that the outlook for addressing the climate emergency isn’t as grim as some people may think. That’s according to data scientist Hannah Ritchie. She has a message of pragmatic hope about the future, using data as her guiding star. Hannah Ritchie is Deputy Editor at Our World in Data and author of Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers. And some of the answers are surprising! She joined us for a session of the Living on Earth Book Club with our media partner, Inside Climate News. Hannah, welcome to Living on Earth!

RITCHIE: Thanks so much. It's great to be here.

CURWOOD: Well, let's cut to the chase here. People are somewhat skeptical about dealing with the climate. I mean, we've been talking about it for so long, and it doesn't feel like a lot of progress is being made. So I want you to dive into the very first question of your book for a moment, which you know, sets things up. It's one of the quote, "big questions" you have in your volume, as you call it, and it is simply four words, "Is it too late?"

RITCHIE: Yeah. And I think it's a question I hear a lot where I think people do feel very despondent. They feel like we've been on this journey for a long time. We've kind of delayed, delayed, delayed, and oh no, now it's too late, and there's nothing we can do about it. And I think the reality is there is just stuff that we can do, and it's actually never too late. I think what I caveat that around is that there are particular temperature targets for which the reality is that it's too late, right? So I think lots of people pin this around keeping temperatures below one and a half degrees. I'm optimistic, but I'm not that optimistic that I think that we can do that. I think that the reality is that is too late for us now, that we just will not be able to achieve the one and a half degree target. But what's really, really crucial is that does not mean that it's too late for us to take action and limit temperatures even more, right? The way that these climate impacts work is, the higher the temperature, they increase the danger and the hazard, right? So even if, when we go past 1.5 degrees, you know, fighting for 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8, those incremental changes in temperature do limit damages, and it's worth us investing in those solutions to prevent those damages as much as we can. So, no, it's never too late. There's no point at which there's just no point in us trying to take action and limit temperatures as much as we can.

CURWOOD: So how do we get to the feeling of, yes, we are really addressing the climate emergency? I mean, how do we get to that point if it's not too late?

RITCHIE: I mean, I think there are lots of signs of progress across the world. One of the most optimistic changes for me in the past decade has just been the plummeting cost of renewable energy technologies, right? So when we were looking at this 10 years ago, it was very, very hard for me to see how we would make progress, because the reality is that solar and wind and batteries and electric vehicles were all much, much more expensive than the fossil fuel alternatives. So to me, it just wasn't viable that people would take those extra costs, or could I even afford to take those extra costs for the low carbon option? Now that's flipped, and that's the opposite, right? So, many of these low carbon technologies are also economically viable or economically competitive, plus you have the climate benefit as well, and you're seeing that in terms of deployment rates, like you look across the world, most of the new electricity technologies being built today are not fossil fuels. They are renewables. You've seen increasing shares of sales of electric vehicles, right? So take the example of China, and China, now more than half of new cars in China sold are electric. Many other countries are up at 98% so Norway is up at 98% so you can look across the world, and there are lots of pockets where you can see that progress is happening, and importantly, progress is accelerating. This stuff is getting faster and faster every year.

CURWOOD: So how do you make sure your data is true?

RITCHIE: Yeah, that's a very good question. I mean, I think part of the challenge, and part of the reason I wrote the book is because people see so much conflicting data and information. They see a number in news article or a headline. We put so much emphasis on that, right. We put so much trust in that number. And it's extremely, extremely hard to put that number into context, which is what I try to do in the book. And it's really, really crucial, one to know is this a big deal? It's also really, really crucial to understand if a particular solution is greenwashing, for example, right? So you'll often hear reports of this fantastic solution that saves you know, a thousand tons of carbon dioxide. And of course, a thousand tons of carbon dioxide sounds huge, right? Wow. We've had this massive new solution. And the reality is that we emit 36 billion tons of CO2 every year. So it's being able to understand that context that's really crucial. So my general advice is always, when you see a number, ask, is that a big number? Is that small number? And compared to what?

CURWOOD: Compared to what, yes. So one of the intriguing pieces of data in your book is about the attitudes of folks here in the United States and the world. You say that, hey, a majority of us are concerned about climate disruption, and yet there's this sort of dark cloud of gloom over, oh the climate really can't be addressed. What do you think is going on, and how can people get out of that funk?

RITCHIE: Yeah, I think there are two attitudes there. The first is this kind of blanket no one cares, which the data very strongly suggests in every country in the world that's just not true, in every country in the world that's been surveyed, and that's a large number. The majority of people, you know, believe in climate change, care about climate change, are concerned and want to see governments and other policy makers make effort to take climate action. So the notion that, you know, just no one cares, it's just not true. The majority of people do care. And the second thing that people always bring up is this polarization issue, where often it's framed as people on the left care about climate, but people on the right do not care about climate, and we struggle to make progress because we can't bridge this gap. For most countries in the world, even that polarization gap is really, really small, right? The US is actually a bit of an outlier here. So the US is much more polarized than other countries, so the gap in other countries is very small, but even in the US, I think that gap is exaggerated, right? So the majority of people on the left care about climate, but also more than half of people on the right also care about climate, right? So this notion that it's only people on the left that care about climate is just not true, but that breaks down even further when you actually just stop talking about climate and you just talk about clean energy. Actually the share of people on the right that support clean energy goes up even more. And you can see that in attitudes, but you can also see that and what's actually happening on the ground, where, if you look at where renewable energy is being built most quickly, across the US is in incredibly red states, right? It's not blue states, it's red states, right?

CURWOOD: Yeah.

RITCHIE: So Texas is a very clear example. So Texas has been building huge amounts of solar, huge amounts of wind, has now taken over California in terms of how much of this it's building. It's really investing in battery storage. You know, these technologies that people might frame as being "lefty," right, some of the reddest states in the US are building them out very quickly. Now, part of the driver there might be climate, but part of the drivers is other stuff, like local air pollution or economic gains or employment. And I think it’s really, really important for us if we're to try to bring as many people along with us as possible, is like, yes, focus on the climate aspect of this. This is really important, but focus on the other stuff that people care about as well, these co-benefits of clean energy, which is not just about climate.

CURWOOD: Interestingly enough, Inside Climate’s reporter Dan Gearino was out in Iowa not so long ago, and Iowa, as you point out in your book, is a red state that has the largest proportion of renewable energy. I think it's like, 65 or 63%. And yet, when people move to try to install more wind power there, there's sort of a thread of disinformation that sometimes comes out into the discussion there with wind power. And so what about disinformation? Where does your data say that it comes from, and what, according to the data, can really counteract it, do you think?

RITCHIE: It's an interesting question, because I think there is what we might frame as disinformation, which is almost kind of deliberately trying to give someone facts or information that's false, basically telling lies, right? So that's one aspect of this, and I think there is, there's quite a bit of this, often, because there are incentives to not shift towards clean energy, right? If you are in the business of fossil fuels, you don't really want this transition to happen. So there's some incentive to deliberately seed doubt. But then what I actually think is more powerful and more persuasive is misinformation, which is not necessarily deliberately telling lies, but it's kind of white lies. You kind of plant a kind of half truth, and don't give people the complete picture by which they would be able to understand whether this is correct or incorrect, it kind of comes back to this context thing, right? Where actually a lot of the most dangerous misinformation is like planting a little seed of doubt or a little half truth, not giving all of the numbers, just like giving one number that sounds kind of big or kind of small, depending on the context. I actually think that's more damaging for people than the very, very deliberate disinformation. Often it's easier to spot the disinformation. I think a lot of people are clued into that. It's very, very hard to spot misinformation, especially if you're not an expert in that given area.

CURWOOD: Is there an example you'd like to give us on the misinformation, do you think has that effect?

RITCHIE: I mean, I think coming back to wind energy, right? So like Donald Trump's favorite line when he talks about wind energy, is that wind turbines kill millions of birds, right? And that's one reason why we shouldn't deploy wind power. Now, it's actually correct that wind turbines across the US kill a couple of million birds every year. What's missing there is the context of whether that's a little or a lot compared to other hazards to birds, right? So in the book, I have this chart that shows you know, basically hazards to birds in the US, actually the biggest one is cats, right? So cats in the US kill billions of birds every year. Buildings, fertilizers, roads, these are all much, much higher than wind turbines in terms of the risks and the threats to birds. So I think that's just like one very clear example where, like, it's actually the statement itself is true, but without the context, it's really hard to evaluate whether that should be a blocker on us going forward with wind power or not.

CURWOOD: Then you have a, "what we can do about it." It doesn't sound great to have a couple million birds dying every year, and you want to share how you suggest that we deal with it?

RITCHIE: Yeah, and I think this part is really crucial. I'm very positive about the solutions that we have to work with and continue to develop. But the on center is that they're not perfect, right? It's not that you know any of the solutions don't have any mining impacts or any land use impacts or any impact on wildlife whatsoever. So for each of these questions and these solutions, there are things that we can do and need to do in order to make things better. So to take the bird example, I don't think that the fact that wind turbines kill some birds, means that we should stop wind power entirely, right? I think we need to continue and go ahead with the transition, but along the way, there are things that we can do to reduce that toll significantly, right? And there are a range of projects and implementations that actually really make a difference. So for example, there's been experiments where if you paint the blades of the wind turbine black, or put kind of rings of black on the wind turbines. Birds and bats can see them much better and are able to avoid them. They've been experiments where, if you for particular birds, and particularly birds of prey, are very much at risk if you basically switch off the turbines at very, very low speeds, where you're not generating much power whatsoever, it dramatically reduces the death toll from birds. So I think the numbers are around more than half the number of birds that are killed, and the amount of energy you lose by turning the wind turbines off at very low speeds is like something like 0.1%. For bats, if you play often, ultrasound sounds, it allows them to detect them. So there are a range of things across these different solutions that means that we can make things better and actually reduce the impact even more. And I think it's important that we be able to do both of those things at the same time, like we know that we need to go ahead with the energy transition and get a move on. So that shouldn't stop us or halt us from doing that, but there are certainly things that we can do along the way in order to do that in the most responsible way that we can.

CURWOOD: There's another area that perhaps is related to misinformation or disinformation that you have in your book, and that's about nuclear power. And there's this public perception that nuclear power is really dangerous. Oh, and it's way too expensive. But your book suggests that you know nuclear power is on a par, literally, with wind and solar as a carbon free, safe and relatively reasonable way to get energy. Can you talk about that, please?

RITCHIE: Yeah, I think this is a very, very common misconception about nuclear power is that it's very dangerous. That's actually been the kind of strongest opposition. It's been strong in the US. It's very strong across Europe. Many countries have basically shut down their nuclear power plants because of public concerns about safety. And I think there are a couple of reasons for this. I think the main one is that when people think about the hazards to nuclear power, it comes back to a few very, very specific, headline worthy events, right? So there's Three Mile Island, there was Chernobyl, there was Fukushima, so there's really memorable single, dangerous events that happened, and that's what comes to mind for people. But when you look at how many people died across those events for 50 years or more, it's in the thousands, a couple of thousand at most. Now, again, it comes back to context, right? So if you compare that to how many die from burning fossil fuels, right, one of the alternatives, you know, we have millions of people dying prematurely from fossil fuels every single year. So you have millions every year compared to thousands over decades. So when you break it down by, you know how many deaths occur per unit of electricity produced, burning coal or gas or oil is order of magnitudes more dangerous than nuclear power. So the notion that you shouldn't move to nuclear power because it's more dangerous than fossil fuels is just incorrect, but I think it's very, very persuasive and plays a huge role in public perception.

CURWOOD: So you must have had some fun doing this, huh?

RITCHIE: [LAUGH] Yeah. I mean, part of what was enjoyable about it, and I think is just really, really important, is that for some of the questions, I was also just coming at them, no idea of what the answer would be, right? And just willing to accept what the answer was. So part of it was also just discovery of me, is like putting into context, how much mining does solar panels and batteries need, and how does that compare to the mining impact of fossil fuels, like, again, before coming to this, I didn't know exactly what the answer would be. So it was a bit of a kind of discovery process as well, which was, you know, extremely fun.

CURWOOD: And what's the answer?

RITCHIE: Oh, the answer is that, again, people are very concerned about the mining impacts of renewable energy technologies. And there are impacts. Again, coming back to this, know what we need to do next. There are ways and things that we need to do to do this in a more responsible way. But you know, if you look at the amount of mining that we'll basically need to build a clean energy system over decades, will be hundreds of millions of tons of materials, which, again, sounds huge, hundreds of millions of tons. There's no way that we could possibly do that. But then put it into context, and we're, you know, taking out 15 billion tons of fossil fuels every single year, right? So the amount of mining we need to do for renewables over decades is less than we need to do for fossil fuels in one single year.

CURWOOD: So it's fair to say that you are certainly not Pollyanna here in your representation of the facts and the data that are in your book, but you do remain a level of optimism. So what keeps that hope alive for you?

RITCHIE: One, the data. Every day I see another data point that suggests we're moving in the right direction, and again, from very, very different parts of the world, like some country in Africa has just basically banned the sale of new petrol motorbikes, and now they're going electric where there are actually now a number of countries in Sub Saharan Africa that have more progressive policies on electrification of transport than North America or some countries in Europe. I think there has been this narrative that the energy transition is only for rich countries, and they'll do a bit, but the other rest of the world are not going to do anything, or can't do anything on this. And I think there are a number of stories emerging which is bucking that trend, right? I think following the data and seeing that stuff is happening, even though it may not make you know the headlines in The New York Times, right? But it's still happening. If you dig a bit under the surface, you can see that progress is there. And then just another reason I'm optimistic is I just come across so many fantastic, intelligent, driven people working on these problems and trying to make a difference. And again, it kind of goes on beneath the surface, but it doesn't mean it's not there. Whether it's, you know, trying to improve technologies and batteries or solar power, whether it's trying to change government policies, whether it's trying to change within a boardroom, what a company is doing, there are lots and lots of fantastic people trying to make a difference, and that's what really keeps me going.

CURWOOD: Hannah Ritchie’s book is Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers. Hannah, thank you so much for joining us.

RITCHIE: Thank you very much for your time.

 

Links

Learn more about Hannah Ritchie

Purchase a copy of Clearing the Air on Bookshop, which supports indie bookstores and nonprofits like LOE

Our World in Data