Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet

Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet by Hannah Ritchie

This book offers a "middle road" to environmental policy. It avoids the "doom and gloom" of some environmentalist rhetoric. It specifically calls out "alarmist rhetoric" as being unfruitful. The author has an optimistic view that we will be able to make it through with our human ingenuity. However, we must act, but we shouldn't waste our time being stupid.

People get focussed on small things that will not provide significant benefit. Sometimes it is even counterproductive. Palm oil is banished from food due to the impact on forests. Then the it is later imported as "green" biofuel. People get hung up on recycling, plastic bags and other small things. However, these don't make a huge difference (and there are trade offs).

Agriculture is one of the more significant sources of emissions. Local food may be marginally better. However, shipping is a very minor part of the energy input. Produce from the other side of the world may be produced cheaper and use less energy overall than local produce that requires intensive "assistance" to grow. Meat production consumes a large amount of energy, with the larger the animal produce a greater amount of "waste energy". (The author even mentions that grain-fed is more efficient than grass fed. Though, I question that. If the area is natural prairie, the animals should be providing the fertilizer that helps the growth with minimal excess energy need.)

Organic agriculture has its place, but fertilizer has become important for feeding the world. Grain spent to feed animals or produce fuels is agriculture that is not used for feeding people. Vertical farms use a huge amount of energy making them less efficient.

The author gave examples of acid rain and the ozone hole as two areas where the world banded together to benefit the environment. Those were two cases  where the harms were readily apparent and a solution was available with minimal change required. Global warming appears a different beast. The problem and harm are both not readily visible. Some reactionaries will point to climate change for every weather event. Deniers will brush it all off. We are left primarily with models. Some areas may benefit. Others will be decimated. Are the models sufficient? There has been a big focus on CO2. But what about other factors? This can be one of the pitfalls of climate studies.

We have been getting more expensive. Out local air is much less polluted than it has been before. (No more smoke from cooking fires!) Beijing is an example of a place that cleaned up the air "for show" for the olympics, then took the steps to get ir really cleaned up for real. We have a number of competing factors in the environment. What about a clean source like nuclear energy? It will be challenging to find complete solutions, but things are not as bad as the doomsayers make out.