What do you think?
Rate this book
Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers
We can’t afford to delay climate action, but with all the shouting and disagreement, it’s hard to know where to turn. In Clearing the Air, data scientist and bestselling author Hannah Ritchie answers 50 key climate questions once and for all, clearing the air so we can take action and fix things.
The first piece of good news is that Ritchie is here with answers and the steps we need to take right now. Using simple, clear data, she tackles questions such as: Is it too late? Won’t we run out of minerals? Aren’t we too polarized? The second piece of good news: The truth is far more hopeful than you might think.
We’re at a critical moment for our planet, and getting the facts straight is step one. But even more crucial is feeling hopeful about what we can do next. The third piece of good news? We already have many of the solutions we need to create a more sustainable planet for future generations.
The first piece of good news is that Ritchie is here with answers and the steps we need to take right now. Using simple, clear data, she tackles questions such as: Is it too late? Won’t we run out of minerals? Aren’t we too polarized? The second piece of good news: The truth is far more hopeful than you might think.
We’re at a critical moment for our planet, and getting the facts straight is step one. But even more crucial is feeling hopeful about what we can do next. The third piece of good news? We already have many of the solutions we need to create a more sustainable planet for future generations.
296 pages, Hardcover
Published February 17, 2026
154 people are currently reading
4828 people want to read
About the author
Hannah Ritchie
8 books195 followersHannah Ritchie is deputy editor and research leader at Our World in Data, an online publication making data and research on the world's largest problems accessible and understandable for non-experts. She is a senior researcher at the University of Oxford, where she studies how environmental issues intersect with others like poverty, global health and education. She has also done extensive research into the question of how to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet without wrecking the planet. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Economist and New Scientist.
In 2022, Ritchie was named Scotland's Youth Climate Champion. Her forthcoming book, The First Generation, makes an evidence-based case for why we have a meaningful chance to solve global environmental problems for the first time in human history.
In 2022, Ritchie was named Scotland's Youth Climate Champion. Her forthcoming book, The First Generation, makes an evidence-based case for why we have a meaningful chance to solve global environmental problems for the first time in human history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
September 20, 2025
Maybe it's overly optimistic, maybe it's familiar to anyone who's done even at least a couple hours' research into whatever subject raised... but this is crucial information everyone should know in this pathologically pessimistic yet crucial time. Read it, tell all your friends what's in it. Give Ritchie a Damehood.
December 10, 2025
Like 3.75/5. Not that it’s bad but it doesn’t go in depth. Maybe 50 was too ambitious?
Her style of writing is very accessible so I’d happily read “Clearing the air part 1” and “Clearing the air part 2” instead of being served so many questions and answers without going fully in depth. Touched onto many important topics to be discussed in just 260 pages.
All in all, recommend as a read if you want to get acquainted with the topic
Her style of writing is very accessible so I’d happily read “Clearing the air part 1” and “Clearing the air part 2” instead of being served so many questions and answers without going fully in depth. Touched onto many important topics to be discussed in just 260 pages.
All in all, recommend as a read if you want to get acquainted with the topic
October 27, 2025
Hannah Ritchie delivers again! I loved her first book ("Not the End of the World"), and I wasn’t disappointed this time either. Ritchie is that rare kind of researcher who has a real gift for bringing context and explaining complex ideas without oversimplifying them. Her honesty and openness about challenges (e.g. the difficulties of becoming carbon neutral) only add to her credibility in my eyes.
This little book is surprisingly comprehensive! It’s structured around 50 questions about climate change that Hannah is most often asked. While a large part focuses on the energy sector’s transition to net zero, it also covers agriculture, travel, and even geoengineering.
It’s an enlightening, engaging read in a very digestible format. I highly recommend it!
This little book is surprisingly comprehensive! It’s structured around 50 questions about climate change that Hannah is most often asked. While a large part focuses on the energy sector’s transition to net zero, it also covers agriculture, travel, and even geoengineering.
It’s an enlightening, engaging read in a very digestible format. I highly recommend it!
October 4, 2025
By addressing all key questions, it's a must-read for politicians and sceptics — but being an expert, it feels like reading ChatGPT answers.
April 24, 2026
This book is a great primer for counteracting all the disinformation out there saying we can’t transition away from fossil fuels. It’s too hard. It costs too much. It’ll cost jobs.
BS.
Yes, it’s hard, but things are going in the right direction.
BS.
Yes, it’s hard, but things are going in the right direction.
January 4, 2026
Great read simplifying the essential challenges people pose against doing more. Ritchie answers them all in a concise manner but sometimes could have provided more depth. That might have been counter to the idea of the book as well though
January 27, 2026
Probabbblyyy more of a 3.5 for me personally bc it was a lot of stuff I already knew (girls in renewables 💁♀️) BUT I would recommend it to other people who are keen to learn more about climate solutions and renewable energy, although I’d recommend ‘not the end of the world’ more as I thought this one was a little dry. Interesting points nuclear though as that’s not something I know a lot about!
April 13, 2026
Borde vara obligatotisk läsning för att få rösta!
October 28, 2025
‘Climate change- and the energy, materials and food systems that drive it- is a massive but solvable problem.’
It is not often that we find a climate book that is openly honest, factual and optimistic about where we are in ‘one of the biggest challenges that humanity faces’. Ritchie structures this book into a question- answer format which makes the writing accessible, while at the same time, objective and factual. Her 50 questions are divided into 10 sections covering issues ranging from food, carbon removal, heating, electric cars, renewable energy and more. Every section has clear action points which are necessary to bring about the change that is needed. Her objective, data based clarity approach makes her writing compelling and her arguments convincing. She argues that ‘We are not only capable of solving climate change but also poised to create a better future for ourselves in the process. To do that, we first need to understand that it’s possible.’
Ritchie repeats that aiming for ‘perfect solutionism’ is a pathway doomed to failure. She argues, like many others, that we should not ‘let perfect be the enemy of good. ‘Another problem is that we seem to be stuck in something I call ‘perfect solutionism’. People seem to expect solutions to climate change that have no downsides…Unfortunately, perfect climate solutions don’t exist.’ She challenges what this search for a ‘perfect solution’ actually means: ‘We also need to recognise where a search for perfection will leave us: in a much hotter world, still hooked on fossil fuels, with millions still dying from air pollution.’
‘It won’t be straightforward, but it will be worth it.’
Ritchie begins by tackling some of the oft-repeated questions that seek to delay climate action. Some of these will now be summarised here, owing to the quantity of times we have seen these arguments. ‘Isn’t it too late? Aren't we headed for a 5 or 6℃ warmer world?’
Ritchie tackles this question head on and deals with it by highlighting how much progress we have made from the early scenarios that suggested these higher global temperatures. She urges honesty in these discussions, in order that the public do not lose trust in the messages from climate scientists. Her succinct answer is that, ‘Every tenth of a degree matters. There’s no point at which it’s too late to limit warming and reduce damage from climate change.’
Attention is then turned to the issues of polarisation, or apparent political divides and support for climate action. Ritchie argues that the data indicates that ‘more people care about climate change than you think’ and that views on this are skewed by the preferred media that is consumed. She points to survey findings which indicate that the public welcome climate policy action. ‘A survey of 59,000 people across 63 countries found that 86% thought that humans were causing climate change and that it was a serious threat to humanity.’ Ritchie urges that talking to real people about climate issues and actions, such as installing solar panels or choosing to drive an electric car, can really make a local difference. When communities work together and people talk to each other, solutions can be found which then drive further innovation. ‘Systemic change is driven by culture and public sentiment, and how we all think and talk about climate solutions shapes that culture.’
Why should my country act when others are not acting?
Ritchie also explores the ‘1%’ argument when she poses the question, ‘My country only emits 1% of the world’s emissions; surely it’s too small to make a difference?’ She highlights two factors here when this is used as an excuse not to act; one, that ‘the world’s ‘small emitters’ make up more than one-third of the world’s emissions, enough to significantly turn the dial’ and secondly the moral argument of understanding the importance of historical emissions and not just emissions now. ‘There is also a strong moral argument for why countries like the UK should care, even if their emissions today are not a big piece of the pie. The UK emits just 0.9% of emissions, but if we add up all its historical emissions, it accounts for 4.5%.’ Countries like the USA historically have emitted around 24%, but the spotlight is rarely focused on them, but rather the climate scapegoat of China.
Ritchie does focus on China and answers the question, ‘Aren’t our efforts pointless if China’s emissions keep growing?’
She acknowledges China’s position now, but also highlights its climate leadership position, when she argues that the data demonstrates that, ‘China is the world’s largest emitter but it’s rolling out renewables and electric vehicles at breakneck speed.
China is rolling out solar and wind at a staggering rate. In a single year, it builds enough solar and wind to power the entire UK. In 2023, it installed more solar power than the US had in its entire history.’
She makes the point that, ‘[r]elying on others is a geopolitical liability’, one which was demonstrated only too well in the UK, when the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was felt in electricity prices. Her point is that solar and wind energy are free in every country, although some countries may make decisions on their energy needs depending on their geography and local conditions.
The future is there, waiting for us to take it. Or, rather, build it.
‘Clearing the Air’ continues in this analytical approach, outlining the facts around electric cars, the energy needs from the food industry, heating and cooling and nuclear power- the ‘big topics’ of climate discussions and policy. Throughout, Ritchie stresses what the data indicates, which heightens the optimistic possibility of what can be achieved.
‘Getting our emissions to zero- while providing a good life for billions of people- is one of the biggest challenges that humanity faces. It’s possible to do it, and there are very few technical constraints in our way, but that doesn’t mean it’ll be easy.’
Ritchie finally urges us to understand and appreciate that a mindset shift will help enormously. We accept that society has changed in the past- oftentimes very quickly, but oddly, we find it difficult to project this understanding into future events.
‘We accept that changes have happened in the past but are sceptical that tomorrow, next year or the next decade will be much different.’
It can be difficult, when living in a transitional moment, to recognise that change is happening and that attitudes are shifting. But looking back to how much progress we have made to reduce emissions and to negate high emission pathways, demonstrates that significant progress has been made.
The journey has already started.
Where it ends, is up to us.
It is not often that we find a climate book that is openly honest, factual and optimistic about where we are in ‘one of the biggest challenges that humanity faces’. Ritchie structures this book into a question- answer format which makes the writing accessible, while at the same time, objective and factual. Her 50 questions are divided into 10 sections covering issues ranging from food, carbon removal, heating, electric cars, renewable energy and more. Every section has clear action points which are necessary to bring about the change that is needed. Her objective, data based clarity approach makes her writing compelling and her arguments convincing. She argues that ‘We are not only capable of solving climate change but also poised to create a better future for ourselves in the process. To do that, we first need to understand that it’s possible.’
Ritchie repeats that aiming for ‘perfect solutionism’ is a pathway doomed to failure. She argues, like many others, that we should not ‘let perfect be the enemy of good. ‘Another problem is that we seem to be stuck in something I call ‘perfect solutionism’. People seem to expect solutions to climate change that have no downsides…Unfortunately, perfect climate solutions don’t exist.’ She challenges what this search for a ‘perfect solution’ actually means: ‘We also need to recognise where a search for perfection will leave us: in a much hotter world, still hooked on fossil fuels, with millions still dying from air pollution.’
‘It won’t be straightforward, but it will be worth it.’
Ritchie begins by tackling some of the oft-repeated questions that seek to delay climate action. Some of these will now be summarised here, owing to the quantity of times we have seen these arguments. ‘Isn’t it too late? Aren't we headed for a 5 or 6℃ warmer world?’
Ritchie tackles this question head on and deals with it by highlighting how much progress we have made from the early scenarios that suggested these higher global temperatures. She urges honesty in these discussions, in order that the public do not lose trust in the messages from climate scientists. Her succinct answer is that, ‘Every tenth of a degree matters. There’s no point at which it’s too late to limit warming and reduce damage from climate change.’
Attention is then turned to the issues of polarisation, or apparent political divides and support for climate action. Ritchie argues that the data indicates that ‘more people care about climate change than you think’ and that views on this are skewed by the preferred media that is consumed. She points to survey findings which indicate that the public welcome climate policy action. ‘A survey of 59,000 people across 63 countries found that 86% thought that humans were causing climate change and that it was a serious threat to humanity.’ Ritchie urges that talking to real people about climate issues and actions, such as installing solar panels or choosing to drive an electric car, can really make a local difference. When communities work together and people talk to each other, solutions can be found which then drive further innovation. ‘Systemic change is driven by culture and public sentiment, and how we all think and talk about climate solutions shapes that culture.’
Why should my country act when others are not acting?
Ritchie also explores the ‘1%’ argument when she poses the question, ‘My country only emits 1% of the world’s emissions; surely it’s too small to make a difference?’ She highlights two factors here when this is used as an excuse not to act; one, that ‘the world’s ‘small emitters’ make up more than one-third of the world’s emissions, enough to significantly turn the dial’ and secondly the moral argument of understanding the importance of historical emissions and not just emissions now. ‘There is also a strong moral argument for why countries like the UK should care, even if their emissions today are not a big piece of the pie. The UK emits just 0.9% of emissions, but if we add up all its historical emissions, it accounts for 4.5%.’ Countries like the USA historically have emitted around 24%, but the spotlight is rarely focused on them, but rather the climate scapegoat of China.
Ritchie does focus on China and answers the question, ‘Aren’t our efforts pointless if China’s emissions keep growing?’
She acknowledges China’s position now, but also highlights its climate leadership position, when she argues that the data demonstrates that, ‘China is the world’s largest emitter but it’s rolling out renewables and electric vehicles at breakneck speed.
China is rolling out solar and wind at a staggering rate. In a single year, it builds enough solar and wind to power the entire UK. In 2023, it installed more solar power than the US had in its entire history.’
She makes the point that, ‘[r]elying on others is a geopolitical liability’, one which was demonstrated only too well in the UK, when the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was felt in electricity prices. Her point is that solar and wind energy are free in every country, although some countries may make decisions on their energy needs depending on their geography and local conditions.
The future is there, waiting for us to take it. Or, rather, build it.
‘Clearing the Air’ continues in this analytical approach, outlining the facts around electric cars, the energy needs from the food industry, heating and cooling and nuclear power- the ‘big topics’ of climate discussions and policy. Throughout, Ritchie stresses what the data indicates, which heightens the optimistic possibility of what can be achieved.
‘Getting our emissions to zero- while providing a good life for billions of people- is one of the biggest challenges that humanity faces. It’s possible to do it, and there are very few technical constraints in our way, but that doesn’t mean it’ll be easy.’
Ritchie finally urges us to understand and appreciate that a mindset shift will help enormously. We accept that society has changed in the past- oftentimes very quickly, but oddly, we find it difficult to project this understanding into future events.
‘We accept that changes have happened in the past but are sceptical that tomorrow, next year or the next decade will be much different.’
It can be difficult, when living in a transitional moment, to recognise that change is happening and that attitudes are shifting. But looking back to how much progress we have made to reduce emissions and to negate high emission pathways, demonstrates that significant progress has been made.
The journey has already started.
Where it ends, is up to us.
September 27, 2025
In a week where the president of the United States has yet again said climate change is a hoax, this book clarifies what is going on and how we are and can tackle climate change. Hannah analyses the hard data and finds the truth behind the headlines. A must read for anyone in sustainability.
April 18, 2026
Remember: almost all reviews here are written by people who don’t know anything about climate science. Making us feel good is not the measure of a climate book.
The title, *Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers*, sounds like it is missing a final “For Just Pennies a Day!” Here is Ritchie’s 2nd climate book, following her more in-depth but equally wrongheaded *Not the End of the World* from 2024. These 50 mostly irrelevant questions and answers amount to little more than 50 flashcards, apparently for those with little time, attention spans or existing knowledge of global warming. In the book I have just written on global warming (looking for publisher) I present sharp criticism of what I call mainstream climate deniers, who are essentially people like Ritchie who clearly accept climate science but who are not willing to go anywhere near rocking the boat of Earth Incorporated, or billionaires, or capitalism, or to identify the many failings of mainstream climate research which is often infected by excessive optimism as many scientists are on a short leash.
Climate change won’t wipe out life on Earth tomorrow. Without a doubt one can find examples of “pessimistic” claims that have gone too far, but Ritchie is trying to be seen as a representative of the voice of reason, of truth, when for me she’s just another wishful thinker trying to get people to keep supporting business as usual. It’s called “techno-optimism” and while it may have scored some wins somewhere, when it comes to climate change, it’s leading us down a dark path. Consider her comment on p.20-21 regarding where to find trustworthy climate writing “Read less mainstream and social media…I like The Economist…and Semafor for this.” Wow. Similar to The Economist, Semafor is a news platform founded by establishment figures from the New York Times and Bloomberg, the financial giant. Both of these news sources are known for supporting the status quo and cheerleading big business: they are PART OF THE PROBLEM, not part of the solution. That Ritchie endorses them helps explain where she’s coming from.
Unlike Ritchie, I and so many others plainly see that it was our socioeconomic and political systems themselves that caused global warming, rather than it being some kind of accident or unexpected side-effect of an otherwise peachy world order characterized by heroic human “progress.” Until we fess up to that we don’t have a hope in hell of achieving our best possible future. You can’t shine a turd, and while you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. On p.7 she explains how human progress involves solving problems leading often to new, but only minor hurdles as “Each generation solves problems and creates new ones for those who come after them… Yes, we have a new problem to contend with, but it’s much smaller than the previous one. This is how progress happens – incrementally.” This tidy overgeneralization is how we try to explain the world to children while avoiding real honesty: some problems get smaller and smaller, but some get bigger and bigger. Global warming is an example of a problem on a scale we’ve never had to deal with before. Is that “progress”? Then she quotes physicist David Deutsch’s “three laws of the human condition” where 1) Problems are inevitable, and 2) Problems are solvable.
Deutsch probably did not intend his laws to be used as a scapegoat for corporate greed, but Ritchie seems to think we don’t need to point any fingers at capitalism or corporate greed for causing climate change because climate change was “inevitable” and in any case, “problems are solvable”. Does she really think ALL problems are solvable?
Capitalism is not mentioned. Ever. On p.56 “The world burns huge amounts of fossil fuels every year. That’s why we’re in this climate mess.” (Oops, I made a mess.) No, we’re here because of greed, competitive capitalism, a political structure based on empowering the wealthy, and a habit of seeing humanity as above and apart from nature. Think: global warming was featured in the American mega-news magazines Newsweek and Time, as well as on national television in the Bell Telephone Science Hour television series’ episode “The Unchained Goddess” already IN THE 1950s! In 1965 US President Lyndon Johnson was delivered a highly detailed and very accurate description and impact scenario for global warming titled “Restoring the quality of our environment”. (You can download it.)
That was over 50 years ago! With all that attention, what happened? Well, capitalism and power did.
When considering solutions, on p.9 Ritchie naively prefers to let markets and consumers do their thing, where appropriate climate responses are on a purely voluntary basis because “governments and companies are never going to step up unless…the public is also on board. There’s no point in setting up an electric charging network if individuals refuse to give up their petrol cars. No point in setting up public transport if no one wants to take the bus.” Many people have rightly pointed out that global warming requires a wartime-level effort whereby governments require public and commercial action: they don’t ask for volunteers. Yet people like Ritchie know that making those kinds of noises might mean their books won’t be published.
On p.34 of her book Not the End, she quickly dismisses degrowth, seen by many as a required answer to capitalism’s suicidal march, based on a false characterization of it as involving a simple wealth redistribution (see Parrique “A response to Hannah Ritchie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Economic Growth”). This gave her the option to actually speak on the subject of the absolutely sickening wealth inequality of today, but does she? No, not a word. What about overconsumption? In the same book under “How do we tackle climate change?” she mentions overconsumption on p.103―but only in reference to overeating! I kid you not.
I accept that, as Ritchie says in Not the End, we need to spend more energy fighting those opposing us―like the climate deniers and the fossil industry―than fighting those whose “arrows point in the same direction” but not exactly at the same target. But fighting climate change isn’t like making food for a large party, where we can say that whether or not all the cooks make the food the same way the partygoers won’t go hungry. Our material, energy and temporal resources are limited: if we fail to accurately count how many guests are coming to the party, we could come up short, and if we spend it on impossible direct air capture technology, for example, which Ritchie supports, we waste it and reduce our ability to create a real impact. She claims “doomsday” narratives are harmful, but so are falsely optimistic ones: both can lead people away from action, as well as encouraging people to spend money on climate venture capital that makes money but not sense.
True to its title, the book is overflowing with hope―or rather hopium. Such statements as “We are not only capable of solving climate change but also poised to create a better future for ourselves in the process” have CORPORATE PROPAGANDA written all over them. Very few climate scientists would agree with Ritchie’s statement, which could have just barely been possible in 1960. Today, such sentiments come from a place of either ignorance or deceit.
A central error of CTA is its narrow focus: considering only the nitty gritty of how to deal with the symptoms of this disease rather than taking a broader look at what is causing humanity such pain. She begins her Q&A on p.13 with a few words on five “big questions,” only one of which is actually big: “Isn’t it too late? Aren’t we heading for a 5 or 6°C warmer world?” This is a very important question, but her answer is largely incorrect. Her follow-up to “Let’s look at what the latest science says about where we might end up by 2100” on the same page does not discuss reality, but instead focuses on mere “policies” “commitments” and “pledges” as if they meant anything: The three considerations leave us at 2.5-3C assuming “current policies…already in place”, or 2.4C assuming just the commitments for 2030, and finally―the real zinger―1.8C by 2100, assuming net-zero fantasies come true by 2050 (already in just 24 short years!).
Accepting these estimates at face value is her most damaging oversight. Similarly, on p.14 she says 2.5C or 3C are not “locked in” but in fact, they are. And not by 2100, as per Ritchie, but already by 2050, because based on current temperature rise rates and the quite warranted assumption that in just 25 years we will neither make massive inroads in emissions reductions nor will we wave a magic wand and build the gargantuan global carbon sequestration infrastructure required to make up for our failure in simple emissions reductions, we will be at or above 3°C (see for example Infante-Amate “The history of a + 3 °C future: Global and regional drivers of greenhouse gas emissions (1820–2050)” and Erdmann “Global Warming At 3 °C By 2050? What’s Behind The New German Climate Warning”).
Temperature expectations are crucial because they drive so many of global warming’s impacts, such that every discussion Ritchie might have on things like ice melt, sea level rise, extreme weather, food scarcity, tipping points… ALL of them are impacted by heat. If you get the temperature wrong, you get just about everything wrong.
The problem with policies, commitments and pledges is that they are ALL politically grounded castles in the sand. We can neither count on the promises being honored, nor can we count on them being effective. Ritchie doesn’t say upfront (but cites 2 papers): what do these “commitments” rely upon? It turns out, they rely on a lot. Without reading the cited papers, one can already note that “current policies” belong only to those currently in power; when they are no longer in power, it’s a new ball game that may have to be played over again―assuming the policies and commitments last that long: politicians bend the way the (primarily corporate) wind blows in far too many countries. And just a handful of them, the biggest emitters, are the most important to consider, like the US, which used to have policies, commitments and pledges, but not any more. Now it’s “drill, baby, drill!”. (For an excellent look at how oil has spectacularly bounced back under right-wingers, plus a chilling tally of recent weather catastrophes, see the intro section on Amazon.com “read a sample” of Carton and Malm’s excellent 2024 book Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown.)
Here today, gone tomorrow.
The two papers, “Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C” and “A multimodel analysis of post-Glasgow climate targets and feasibility challenges” from 2022 and 2023 (sorry: paywall) make very clear that their estimations of end-of-century temperature rise that fall between 2 and 3C are best-case scenario (optimism!) estimates, assuming that promises are kept and fully met by participating governments. In other words: completely unrealistic. A major flaw: “multimodel” paper’s Table 2 reveals that all models used to compute the results assumed a cumulative geological (underground) carbon sequestration of 214 Gt (billion tons) by 2050, or about 8 billion tons per year: but a cooperative effort by several international organizations including Oxford University (see Smith, “The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2024 - 2nd Edition”) estimated global geological sequestration in 2024 to be only about 1.3 million tons, or more than 6,000 times below this target! Scaling up is impossible. As that report shows, almost all current CO2 removal, amounting to just 2Gt CO2 per year, is done by more traditional biological methods like land use and forestry efforts, NOT the mechanical “novel” efforts like direct air capture that theoretically store carbon underground, and which are regularly considered hopeless by climate scientists willing to stick their necks out.
On top of this, there is a detail Ritchie never mentions called “climate sensitivity” which the IPCC has been lowballing for years and which skews such estimates down. Climate sensitivity describes how much the Earth warms for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. One of the most well-respected climate scientists in the world, James Hansen, who has been called “the Godfather” of climate science and who is NOT one of the scientists Ritchie lists in her acknowledgments, has been arguing for some time that the climate sensitivity metric accepted by the IPCC is suspiciously low. In 2024 he published a revised estimate of climate sensitivity indicating that in fact the IPCC-endorsed metric so many researchers use is considerably too low, meaning that estimates of future temperatures, like the ones in the papers mentioned above Ritchie relies on, should be revised significantly upwards.
So much for the only true “big question” Ritchie considers. Why are the other 4 not BIG? These two: “Is there enough public support to tackle climate change?” and “Isn’t climate action too polarized and politically divisive to fix?” are concerned with fickle opinions and human will, when the unchanging issues are the chemistry and physics of Earth’s systems and what humans can do to influence them, how fast, and to what extent. Opinions change, physics does not. These are the tough issues, and Ritchie avoids them altogether as so many do, merely assuming that “problems are solvable” means that we can accomplish anything we want to. We can’t.
The other two “big” questions, “My country only emits 1% of the world’s emissions…” and “Aren’t our efforts pointless” if China doesn’t play ball, are both mere side issues. Important as details, but entirely out of what SHOULD be the central focus of this discussion. Ritchie, like many others do, devotes almost all her effort to the subject of energy sources, which so many climate scientists admit has been totally over-emphasized for numerous reasons.
It has long been observed that one unit of energy input equals one unit of GDP, which makes simultaneous economic growth and emissions reductions incompatible. Some people like Ritchie love to talk of “decoupling” economic growth from emissions, but it’s just talk. She shows a chart of 6 nations on p.83 of GDP vs per capita CO2 emissions 1990-2019. Problem: GDP is a known but flawed metric, equalling consumption + government spending + investment + net exports. Government spending, particularly deficit spending, can be very large and does not indicate actual financial health or economic growth (and certainly not human welfare). Similar issues exist with investment. Real decoupling has been measured only in minor and limited cases, and hey, big surprise, the problem is that the physics are still real: you cannot get more and more product from less and less input. If we want to reduce emissions drastically, we must reduce economic growth. Note: degrowth does not mean recession, or austerity. Don’t listen to people like Ritchie on the subject, go to its proponents.
When it comes to the idea that in a renewable energy-only world, which we are VERY far away from, economic growth need not equal climate impact, there is a catch―or three. First is that until we get there we will have blown so many GHGs into the atmosphere that warming beyond liveable limits will result, particularly considering the impact from purely natural emissions of both CO2 and methane from our oceans, wetlands, peatlands, and other sources that INCREASE as the planet warms. (Notice in Ritchie’s Q8 “Can we transition to clean energy fast enough?” she does not actually answer the question or even frame it properly: fast enough to avoid catastrophic impact.)
Second, emissions aren’t the only problem: biodiversity loss and ecosystem destruction marches on, and our lives depend on their lives. Third is something called the “rebound effect” observed all over the world when technological efficiencies become available to consumers. It is characterized by consumer behavior that regularly involves MORE energy consumption, not less. Money saved on energy efficiency isn’t always put aside, it is often spent, creating new energy demand. Like if your new car gets better gas mileage than your old one, you will drive more. There are many manifestations of the rebound effect (see Andrew “Multidisciplinary perspectives on rebound effects in sustainability: A systematic review”). Sometimes, the amount of energy in the new purchase is even more than the amount that was saved, a scenario known as “backfire” because instead of saving a bit of energy or even breaking even, we end up consuming even MORE energy, such that the concept of “efficiency improvements” towards energy savings has completely backfired. Why is Ritchie silent on this?
Ritchie only asks the questions that she feels comfortable answering, and even then, her answers are filled with landmines.
The title, *Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers*, sounds like it is missing a final “For Just Pennies a Day!” Here is Ritchie’s 2nd climate book, following her more in-depth but equally wrongheaded *Not the End of the World* from 2024. These 50 mostly irrelevant questions and answers amount to little more than 50 flashcards, apparently for those with little time, attention spans or existing knowledge of global warming. In the book I have just written on global warming (looking for publisher) I present sharp criticism of what I call mainstream climate deniers, who are essentially people like Ritchie who clearly accept climate science but who are not willing to go anywhere near rocking the boat of Earth Incorporated, or billionaires, or capitalism, or to identify the many failings of mainstream climate research which is often infected by excessive optimism as many scientists are on a short leash.
Climate change won’t wipe out life on Earth tomorrow. Without a doubt one can find examples of “pessimistic” claims that have gone too far, but Ritchie is trying to be seen as a representative of the voice of reason, of truth, when for me she’s just another wishful thinker trying to get people to keep supporting business as usual. It’s called “techno-optimism” and while it may have scored some wins somewhere, when it comes to climate change, it’s leading us down a dark path. Consider her comment on p.20-21 regarding where to find trustworthy climate writing “Read less mainstream and social media…I like The Economist…and Semafor for this.” Wow. Similar to The Economist, Semafor is a news platform founded by establishment figures from the New York Times and Bloomberg, the financial giant. Both of these news sources are known for supporting the status quo and cheerleading big business: they are PART OF THE PROBLEM, not part of the solution. That Ritchie endorses them helps explain where she’s coming from.
Unlike Ritchie, I and so many others plainly see that it was our socioeconomic and political systems themselves that caused global warming, rather than it being some kind of accident or unexpected side-effect of an otherwise peachy world order characterized by heroic human “progress.” Until we fess up to that we don’t have a hope in hell of achieving our best possible future. You can’t shine a turd, and while you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. On p.7 she explains how human progress involves solving problems leading often to new, but only minor hurdles as “Each generation solves problems and creates new ones for those who come after them… Yes, we have a new problem to contend with, but it’s much smaller than the previous one. This is how progress happens – incrementally.” This tidy overgeneralization is how we try to explain the world to children while avoiding real honesty: some problems get smaller and smaller, but some get bigger and bigger. Global warming is an example of a problem on a scale we’ve never had to deal with before. Is that “progress”? Then she quotes physicist David Deutsch’s “three laws of the human condition” where 1) Problems are inevitable, and 2) Problems are solvable.
Deutsch probably did not intend his laws to be used as a scapegoat for corporate greed, but Ritchie seems to think we don’t need to point any fingers at capitalism or corporate greed for causing climate change because climate change was “inevitable” and in any case, “problems are solvable”. Does she really think ALL problems are solvable?
Capitalism is not mentioned. Ever. On p.56 “The world burns huge amounts of fossil fuels every year. That’s why we’re in this climate mess.” (Oops, I made a mess.) No, we’re here because of greed, competitive capitalism, a political structure based on empowering the wealthy, and a habit of seeing humanity as above and apart from nature. Think: global warming was featured in the American mega-news magazines Newsweek and Time, as well as on national television in the Bell Telephone Science Hour television series’ episode “The Unchained Goddess” already IN THE 1950s! In 1965 US President Lyndon Johnson was delivered a highly detailed and very accurate description and impact scenario for global warming titled “Restoring the quality of our environment”. (You can download it.)
That was over 50 years ago! With all that attention, what happened? Well, capitalism and power did.
When considering solutions, on p.9 Ritchie naively prefers to let markets and consumers do their thing, where appropriate climate responses are on a purely voluntary basis because “governments and companies are never going to step up unless…the public is also on board. There’s no point in setting up an electric charging network if individuals refuse to give up their petrol cars. No point in setting up public transport if no one wants to take the bus.” Many people have rightly pointed out that global warming requires a wartime-level effort whereby governments require public and commercial action: they don’t ask for volunteers. Yet people like Ritchie know that making those kinds of noises might mean their books won’t be published.
On p.34 of her book Not the End, she quickly dismisses degrowth, seen by many as a required answer to capitalism’s suicidal march, based on a false characterization of it as involving a simple wealth redistribution (see Parrique “A response to Hannah Ritchie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Economic Growth”). This gave her the option to actually speak on the subject of the absolutely sickening wealth inequality of today, but does she? No, not a word. What about overconsumption? In the same book under “How do we tackle climate change?” she mentions overconsumption on p.103―but only in reference to overeating! I kid you not.
I accept that, as Ritchie says in Not the End, we need to spend more energy fighting those opposing us―like the climate deniers and the fossil industry―than fighting those whose “arrows point in the same direction” but not exactly at the same target. But fighting climate change isn’t like making food for a large party, where we can say that whether or not all the cooks make the food the same way the partygoers won’t go hungry. Our material, energy and temporal resources are limited: if we fail to accurately count how many guests are coming to the party, we could come up short, and if we spend it on impossible direct air capture technology, for example, which Ritchie supports, we waste it and reduce our ability to create a real impact. She claims “doomsday” narratives are harmful, but so are falsely optimistic ones: both can lead people away from action, as well as encouraging people to spend money on climate venture capital that makes money but not sense.
True to its title, the book is overflowing with hope―or rather hopium. Such statements as “We are not only capable of solving climate change but also poised to create a better future for ourselves in the process” have CORPORATE PROPAGANDA written all over them. Very few climate scientists would agree with Ritchie’s statement, which could have just barely been possible in 1960. Today, such sentiments come from a place of either ignorance or deceit.
A central error of CTA is its narrow focus: considering only the nitty gritty of how to deal with the symptoms of this disease rather than taking a broader look at what is causing humanity such pain. She begins her Q&A on p.13 with a few words on five “big questions,” only one of which is actually big: “Isn’t it too late? Aren’t we heading for a 5 or 6°C warmer world?” This is a very important question, but her answer is largely incorrect. Her follow-up to “Let’s look at what the latest science says about where we might end up by 2100” on the same page does not discuss reality, but instead focuses on mere “policies” “commitments” and “pledges” as if they meant anything: The three considerations leave us at 2.5-3C assuming “current policies…already in place”, or 2.4C assuming just the commitments for 2030, and finally―the real zinger―1.8C by 2100, assuming net-zero fantasies come true by 2050 (already in just 24 short years!).
Accepting these estimates at face value is her most damaging oversight. Similarly, on p.14 she says 2.5C or 3C are not “locked in” but in fact, they are. And not by 2100, as per Ritchie, but already by 2050, because based on current temperature rise rates and the quite warranted assumption that in just 25 years we will neither make massive inroads in emissions reductions nor will we wave a magic wand and build the gargantuan global carbon sequestration infrastructure required to make up for our failure in simple emissions reductions, we will be at or above 3°C (see for example Infante-Amate “The history of a + 3 °C future: Global and regional drivers of greenhouse gas emissions (1820–2050)” and Erdmann “Global Warming At 3 °C By 2050? What’s Behind The New German Climate Warning”).
Temperature expectations are crucial because they drive so many of global warming’s impacts, such that every discussion Ritchie might have on things like ice melt, sea level rise, extreme weather, food scarcity, tipping points… ALL of them are impacted by heat. If you get the temperature wrong, you get just about everything wrong.
The problem with policies, commitments and pledges is that they are ALL politically grounded castles in the sand. We can neither count on the promises being honored, nor can we count on them being effective. Ritchie doesn’t say upfront (but cites 2 papers): what do these “commitments” rely upon? It turns out, they rely on a lot. Without reading the cited papers, one can already note that “current policies” belong only to those currently in power; when they are no longer in power, it’s a new ball game that may have to be played over again―assuming the policies and commitments last that long: politicians bend the way the (primarily corporate) wind blows in far too many countries. And just a handful of them, the biggest emitters, are the most important to consider, like the US, which used to have policies, commitments and pledges, but not any more. Now it’s “drill, baby, drill!”. (For an excellent look at how oil has spectacularly bounced back under right-wingers, plus a chilling tally of recent weather catastrophes, see the intro section on Amazon.com “read a sample” of Carton and Malm’s excellent 2024 book Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown.)
Here today, gone tomorrow.
The two papers, “Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C” and “A multimodel analysis of post-Glasgow climate targets and feasibility challenges” from 2022 and 2023 (sorry: paywall) make very clear that their estimations of end-of-century temperature rise that fall between 2 and 3C are best-case scenario (optimism!) estimates, assuming that promises are kept and fully met by participating governments. In other words: completely unrealistic. A major flaw: “multimodel” paper’s Table 2 reveals that all models used to compute the results assumed a cumulative geological (underground) carbon sequestration of 214 Gt (billion tons) by 2050, or about 8 billion tons per year: but a cooperative effort by several international organizations including Oxford University (see Smith, “The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2024 - 2nd Edition”) estimated global geological sequestration in 2024 to be only about 1.3 million tons, or more than 6,000 times below this target! Scaling up is impossible. As that report shows, almost all current CO2 removal, amounting to just 2Gt CO2 per year, is done by more traditional biological methods like land use and forestry efforts, NOT the mechanical “novel” efforts like direct air capture that theoretically store carbon underground, and which are regularly considered hopeless by climate scientists willing to stick their necks out.
On top of this, there is a detail Ritchie never mentions called “climate sensitivity” which the IPCC has been lowballing for years and which skews such estimates down. Climate sensitivity describes how much the Earth warms for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. One of the most well-respected climate scientists in the world, James Hansen, who has been called “the Godfather” of climate science and who is NOT one of the scientists Ritchie lists in her acknowledgments, has been arguing for some time that the climate sensitivity metric accepted by the IPCC is suspiciously low. In 2024 he published a revised estimate of climate sensitivity indicating that in fact the IPCC-endorsed metric so many researchers use is considerably too low, meaning that estimates of future temperatures, like the ones in the papers mentioned above Ritchie relies on, should be revised significantly upwards.
So much for the only true “big question” Ritchie considers. Why are the other 4 not BIG? These two: “Is there enough public support to tackle climate change?” and “Isn’t climate action too polarized and politically divisive to fix?” are concerned with fickle opinions and human will, when the unchanging issues are the chemistry and physics of Earth’s systems and what humans can do to influence them, how fast, and to what extent. Opinions change, physics does not. These are the tough issues, and Ritchie avoids them altogether as so many do, merely assuming that “problems are solvable” means that we can accomplish anything we want to. We can’t.
The other two “big” questions, “My country only emits 1% of the world’s emissions…” and “Aren’t our efforts pointless” if China doesn’t play ball, are both mere side issues. Important as details, but entirely out of what SHOULD be the central focus of this discussion. Ritchie, like many others do, devotes almost all her effort to the subject of energy sources, which so many climate scientists admit has been totally over-emphasized for numerous reasons.
It has long been observed that one unit of energy input equals one unit of GDP, which makes simultaneous economic growth and emissions reductions incompatible. Some people like Ritchie love to talk of “decoupling” economic growth from emissions, but it’s just talk. She shows a chart of 6 nations on p.83 of GDP vs per capita CO2 emissions 1990-2019. Problem: GDP is a known but flawed metric, equalling consumption + government spending + investment + net exports. Government spending, particularly deficit spending, can be very large and does not indicate actual financial health or economic growth (and certainly not human welfare). Similar issues exist with investment. Real decoupling has been measured only in minor and limited cases, and hey, big surprise, the problem is that the physics are still real: you cannot get more and more product from less and less input. If we want to reduce emissions drastically, we must reduce economic growth. Note: degrowth does not mean recession, or austerity. Don’t listen to people like Ritchie on the subject, go to its proponents.
When it comes to the idea that in a renewable energy-only world, which we are VERY far away from, economic growth need not equal climate impact, there is a catch―or three. First is that until we get there we will have blown so many GHGs into the atmosphere that warming beyond liveable limits will result, particularly considering the impact from purely natural emissions of both CO2 and methane from our oceans, wetlands, peatlands, and other sources that INCREASE as the planet warms. (Notice in Ritchie’s Q8 “Can we transition to clean energy fast enough?” she does not actually answer the question or even frame it properly: fast enough to avoid catastrophic impact.)
Second, emissions aren’t the only problem: biodiversity loss and ecosystem destruction marches on, and our lives depend on their lives. Third is something called the “rebound effect” observed all over the world when technological efficiencies become available to consumers. It is characterized by consumer behavior that regularly involves MORE energy consumption, not less. Money saved on energy efficiency isn’t always put aside, it is often spent, creating new energy demand. Like if your new car gets better gas mileage than your old one, you will drive more. There are many manifestations of the rebound effect (see Andrew “Multidisciplinary perspectives on rebound effects in sustainability: A systematic review”). Sometimes, the amount of energy in the new purchase is even more than the amount that was saved, a scenario known as “backfire” because instead of saving a bit of energy or even breaking even, we end up consuming even MORE energy, such that the concept of “efficiency improvements” towards energy savings has completely backfired. Why is Ritchie silent on this?
Ritchie only asks the questions that she feels comfortable answering, and even then, her answers are filled with landmines.
March 17, 2026
I had a slight preference for her previous book, 'Not the End of the World'. In her latest book, geopolitics are largely omitted, which created a disconnect for me between the recommended actions and what feels realistically possible today. Given the book was published in 2025, the author would have been aware of the likelihood of another Trump term - and, with his stance on climate policy, could have anticipated that many of the recommended solutions would struggle to gain backing from the world’s largest economy. While I appreciate that political contexts change over time, it sometimes feels as though more damage is being done in the meantime, effectively setting us back.
By attempting to address 50 questions in just over 250 pages, the book remains at a 30,000‑foot level, which limits the depth with which individual topics can be explored. The emphasis is often on broad direction. While this breadth offers a useful holistic perspective, topics are sometimes passed over too quickly to fully explore what is realistically achievable.
A particularly important takeaway is the reminder that climate impact will disproportionately magnify existing inequalities. Hannah makes a compelling case that richer countries have a clear obligation to support poorer ones - not only because they are better positioned to act, but because they have historically contributed far more to the problem than those who will suffer its worst consequences. Reinforcing one of the book’s core messages: that we are stuck in a form of perfect solutionism, waiting for ideal answers instead of making meaningful progress with the solutions already available to us. We can and should act NOW!
That said, Hannah does succeed in leaving me with a more optimistic view of our collective capacity to avoid the worst climate disasters.
By attempting to address 50 questions in just over 250 pages, the book remains at a 30,000‑foot level, which limits the depth with which individual topics can be explored. The emphasis is often on broad direction. While this breadth offers a useful holistic perspective, topics are sometimes passed over too quickly to fully explore what is realistically achievable.
A particularly important takeaway is the reminder that climate impact will disproportionately magnify existing inequalities. Hannah makes a compelling case that richer countries have a clear obligation to support poorer ones - not only because they are better positioned to act, but because they have historically contributed far more to the problem than those who will suffer its worst consequences. Reinforcing one of the book’s core messages: that we are stuck in a form of perfect solutionism, waiting for ideal answers instead of making meaningful progress with the solutions already available to us. We can and should act NOW!
That said, Hannah does succeed in leaving me with a more optimistic view of our collective capacity to avoid the worst climate disasters.
March 25, 2026
Love a title with a solid pun, really love a climate change book with clear answers and data to back up those answers.
"One argument for slapping tariffs on cheaper solar panels and batteries (mostly from China) is that it makes domestic manufacturing in the US or Europe more cost-competitive, and therefore boosts blue-collar work at home. This misses the fact that most clean energy jobs are not in manufacturing; they're in the deployment, installation, operations and repair of solar and wind farms, grid networks, and storage. In the US, over 80% of the jobs in solar power are not in manufacturing." p. 68
"The US uses 2.5% of its land-- an area the size of the UK--to produce bioethanol, which provides 10% of its motor gas supply. If it used that land for solar farms instead, the US could generate enough electricity to power itself two to three times over." p. 93
"Researchers estimate that fossil fuels case 4 to 8 million premature deaths per year from air pollution alone. That's around 11,000 to 22,000 people every day. You never see the headline 'Fossil fuels killed 11,000 people from air pollution yesterday,' yet a single accident at a nuclear plant that killed no one would be one of the year's most talked about events." p. 109
"Nuclear power is (quite rightly) the most regulated and tightly monitored waste industry in the world. The rules are strict, and there are no cutting corners. Much less attention is paid to waste from coal power, where the ash and residues from mining can be much more radioactive than waste from a well-regulated nuclear plant." p. 120
"One argument for slapping tariffs on cheaper solar panels and batteries (mostly from China) is that it makes domestic manufacturing in the US or Europe more cost-competitive, and therefore boosts blue-collar work at home. This misses the fact that most clean energy jobs are not in manufacturing; they're in the deployment, installation, operations and repair of solar and wind farms, grid networks, and storage. In the US, over 80% of the jobs in solar power are not in manufacturing." p. 68
"The US uses 2.5% of its land-- an area the size of the UK--to produce bioethanol, which provides 10% of its motor gas supply. If it used that land for solar farms instead, the US could generate enough electricity to power itself two to three times over." p. 93
"Researchers estimate that fossil fuels case 4 to 8 million premature deaths per year from air pollution alone. That's around 11,000 to 22,000 people every day. You never see the headline 'Fossil fuels killed 11,000 people from air pollution yesterday,' yet a single accident at a nuclear plant that killed no one would be one of the year's most talked about events." p. 109
"Nuclear power is (quite rightly) the most regulated and tightly monitored waste industry in the world. The rules are strict, and there are no cutting corners. Much less attention is paid to waste from coal power, where the ash and residues from mining can be much more radioactive than waste from a well-regulated nuclear plant." p. 120
April 30, 2026
Provides detailed answers to 50 FAQs. It devotes a chapter to each of these questions. For example:
Q1 Isn’t it too late? Aren’t we heading for a 5 or 6°C warmer world?
Short answer: Every tenth of a degree matters. There's no point at which it's too late to limit warming and reduce damage from climate change.
This is supplemented by several paragraphs, following by two sections: What We Need To Do and Things To Bear In Mind.
An interesting item among the answers caught my eye:
Q36 Won’t we become dependent on a few countries' just like we did with fossil fuels?
Short Answer: Unequal distribution of critical minerals puts the energy transition at risk, but not energy security; every country has free sunshine and wind.
In other words, solar and wind power is a resource equalizer.
MISSING from the 50 Qs are, to my mind, a couple of important Qs:
I. What role does earth's time-proven long-term climatic cycle play in global warming? Or specifically, is this role significant in the current global warming? Even more specifically, what percentage of the current global warming is earth's cycle responsible for? Or, is the answer: we don't know?
II. Since it’s been said that humans are the cause of global warming, and since population growth continues unabated, then shouldn’t population control be one of the strategies? [The U.N. estimates 83 million people are added to world population every year, meaning about ONE BILLION every dozen years.]
Q1 Isn’t it too late? Aren’t we heading for a 5 or 6°C warmer world?
Short answer: Every tenth of a degree matters. There's no point at which it's too late to limit warming and reduce damage from climate change.
This is supplemented by several paragraphs, following by two sections: What We Need To Do and Things To Bear In Mind.
An interesting item among the answers caught my eye:
Q36 Won’t we become dependent on a few countries' just like we did with fossil fuels?
Short Answer: Unequal distribution of critical minerals puts the energy transition at risk, but not energy security; every country has free sunshine and wind.
In other words, solar and wind power is a resource equalizer.
MISSING from the 50 Qs are, to my mind, a couple of important Qs:
I. What role does earth's time-proven long-term climatic cycle play in global warming? Or specifically, is this role significant in the current global warming? Even more specifically, what percentage of the current global warming is earth's cycle responsible for? Or, is the answer: we don't know?
II. Since it’s been said that humans are the cause of global warming, and since population growth continues unabated, then shouldn’t population control be one of the strategies? [The U.N. estimates 83 million people are added to world population every year, meaning about ONE BILLION every dozen years.]
March 29, 2026
Another excellent book from Hannah Ritchie. In this one, she tackles climate change, what we can do about it, and things to be aware of. The book is structured in 50 short chapters, each one addressing a common misconception or “gotcha” about climate change. Everything from “if we’ve already passed 1.5 C, does it even matter what we do now?” to “isn’t nuclear power dangerous?” to “aren’t electric cars just as bad for the environment as gas cars?” Each one is meant to be read in only a few minutes, and it’s excellent as a quick reference. Much like Ritchie’s first book, “Not the End of the World,” this one gave me a lot of hope. Notably, that most of the problems facing us with regards to climate change are not technological issues – we have the technology in most cases to get where we need to go – but social ones. We need the social and political will to make the changes. And while this is hard, it’s not impossible. Ritchie reminds us that there are also things we can do on an individual level, and if everyone did them, we’d be a long way closer to a more sustainable world. And even though, as Ritchie says, information on this topic goes out of date very quickly (just look at how quickly the price of solar panels has come down in the last decade), it will nonetheless be one I keep as a quick reference. Recommended.
February 11, 2026
More like 3½★, I think.
It seems important and useful, and I am glad I have read it, but also a little unsatisfied. Maybe this is partly because I fear I shall rapidly forget too much of it for it to have the effect I think it deserves. The 50-question format makes it somewhat fragmentary, though she does try to fit it all into a larger structure. Some of these problems probably reflect the untidiness of reality, in particular of the reality of climate change. I cannot say that I have tried to check her data, nor that I doubted it, though I would be prepared to listen to a different viewpoint.
It could have done with better copy editing: “They compare the land used, minerals mine or waste generated compared to zero.” was last slip I noticed, and every now and again I was a little unhappy with formulations.
I also find her use of units inconsistent: in the same pair of diagrams she states energy needs for aviation with biofuels as 13–14 EJ (exajoules), but for hydrogen as 4,000 TWh, rather than 14.4 PJ (or even 4 PWh!). These are presumably per year, but that is not stated; I personally find joules/year ugly, and would prefer watts, giving a figure of about 440 GW.
It seems important and useful, and I am glad I have read it, but also a little unsatisfied. Maybe this is partly because I fear I shall rapidly forget too much of it for it to have the effect I think it deserves. The 50-question format makes it somewhat fragmentary, though she does try to fit it all into a larger structure. Some of these problems probably reflect the untidiness of reality, in particular of the reality of climate change. I cannot say that I have tried to check her data, nor that I doubted it, though I would be prepared to listen to a different viewpoint.
It could have done with better copy editing: “They compare the land used, minerals mine or waste generated compared to zero.” was last slip I noticed, and every now and again I was a little unhappy with formulations.
I also find her use of units inconsistent: in the same pair of diagrams she states energy needs for aviation with biofuels as 13–14 EJ (exajoules), but for hydrogen as 4,000 TWh, rather than 14.4 PJ (or even 4 PWh!). These are presumably per year, but that is not stated; I personally find joules/year ugly, and would prefer watts, giving a figure of about 440 GW.
April 6, 2026
9.1/10 This is the sort of book that everyone should have on their shelf, even if they never read it cover to cover. I really like the format of questions and extended, data-based answers. It means that anytime you’re curious about (or discussing) a particular topic, the safety of nuclear power say, you can just flip to that section and read about it. Her analysis is clear-eyed, data-driven, and down to Earth. She doesn’t say everything will be fine when it won’t, she doesn’t play things down, she just gives you the realistic truth. Lucky for us, the truth isn’t half as bad as many of us have come to think. She lays out the problems, the solutions, and potential problems with those solutions. It’s all very reasonable and easy to digest. I think I might recommend you read her other book, Not the End of the World, first, but this is a great book to have. How fortunate we are to have a successor to Hans Rosling.
December 22, 2025
This book is an essential and hopeful guide that shows readers it is not too late to solve climate change. Through 50 questions and answers, the author takes us through various subjects that affect climate change, including fossil fuels, renewable energy, nuclear energy, electric cars, minerals, heating and cooling, food, and construction materials.
For each question, the author explains or debunks the issue mainly by providing data-driven evidence. She also provides helpful tips on what we need to do and what to keep in mind.
Through this book, I learned about carbon removal and solar geoengineering technologies. I also found it fascinating to learn about heat pumps as a replacement option for gas or oil boilers.
The author explains that the last two sectors to decarbonise are aviation and shipping. International aviation and shipping are progressing very slowly, as no country feels responsible for them.
She also gives readers five general tips to stay immune from misleading claims, which I found very helpful.
For each question, the author explains or debunks the issue mainly by providing data-driven evidence. She also provides helpful tips on what we need to do and what to keep in mind.
Through this book, I learned about carbon removal and solar geoengineering technologies. I also found it fascinating to learn about heat pumps as a replacement option for gas or oil boilers.
The author explains that the last two sectors to decarbonise are aviation and shipping. International aviation and shipping are progressing very slowly, as no country feels responsible for them.
She also gives readers five general tips to stay immune from misleading claims, which I found very helpful.
March 17, 2026
I feel like Ritchie should be required reading for anyone who wants to talk about climate change. She is undoubtedly my favorite data scientist because of the way she approaches her subjects with honestly and clarity. Honestly she might be my favorite science communicator I've encountered, so I highly recommend anything she touches.
Like her previous "Not the End of the World," I find myself optimistic for the world after reading this. And I actually think this is the more useful book for broad climate change understanding -- both the challenges, the successes, and for the complexities of the problems that face human civilization.
It's getting four stars simply because I'm not a data scientist and I can't exactly call this a compelling cannot-put-it-down type of book. But it is very readable in small chunks. I highly appreciated the format and her organization of the information. If you have to only ever read a single book about climate change I feel like this is the one I would choose.
Highly recommend.
Like her previous "Not the End of the World," I find myself optimistic for the world after reading this. And I actually think this is the more useful book for broad climate change understanding -- both the challenges, the successes, and for the complexities of the problems that face human civilization.
It's getting four stars simply because I'm not a data scientist and I can't exactly call this a compelling cannot-put-it-down type of book. But it is very readable in small chunks. I highly appreciated the format and her organization of the information. If you have to only ever read a single book about climate change I feel like this is the one I would choose.
Highly recommend.
March 29, 2026
Great way to show the variety of steps that can/must be taken to handle the necessary climate changes we must make, by presenting 50 questions often asked and then offers several "What we must do" alternatives. Hannah does offer several easily read graphs to support her views but in the end cautions against putting too much support into photos. She ends with 5 questions to help us separate facf from fiction: 1. what are the numbers - need them to support the pictures;
2. is that a big number - so often talking very large #s but remember the world emits around 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year;
3.compared to what - need to find the least impactful way of producing low-carbon energy but don't compare zero to land use, minerals mined, waste generated;
4.how old is the data you are studying -changing so rapidly; 5. how could things change in the future - societal and technological changes are rapid.
Time to turn our thinking into action: 1. want to see change and be curious about what needs to be done; 2. understand the solutions and challenges of each;
2. is that a big number - so often talking very large #s but remember the world emits around 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year;
3.compared to what - need to find the least impactful way of producing low-carbon energy but don't compare zero to land use, minerals mined, waste generated;
4.how old is the data you are studying -changing so rapidly; 5. how could things change in the future - societal and technological changes are rapid.
Time to turn our thinking into action: 1. want to see change and be curious about what needs to be done; 2. understand the solutions and challenges of each;
November 9, 2025
Nog niet te laat is een interessant vervolg op Hannah Ritchie’s eerdere werk, Niet het einde van de wereld. In dit nieuwe boek beantwoordt ze vijftig concrete en praktische vragen over klimaatverandering, en laat ze zien dat een hoopvolle aanpak mogelijk is. Ritchie bespreekt uiteenlopende thema’s zoals hernieuwbare energie – hebben we wel genoeg ruimte voor wind- en zonneparken? – voedselproductie – zijn vleesvervangers echt beter voor het klimaat? – de toekomst van fossiele brandstoffen, co2-verwijdering, etc., etc.
De thema's klinken vrij technisch, maar het boek is zeer toegankelijk geschreven en maakt complexe thema’s begrijpelijk voor een breed publiek. Ritchie combineert data met nuchtere optimisme, wat het lezen niet alleen leerzaam maar ook motiverend maakt.
Ik kijk nu al uit naar de volgende vijftig vragen en antwoorden.
De thema's klinken vrij technisch, maar het boek is zeer toegankelijk geschreven en maakt complexe thema’s begrijpelijk voor een breed publiek. Ritchie combineert data met nuchtere optimisme, wat het lezen niet alleen leerzaam maar ook motiverend maakt.
Ik kijk nu al uit naar de volgende vijftig vragen en antwoorden.
December 13, 2025
I'll always be biased when it comes to Hannah's books but she's done it again with an incredibly well researched and easily digestible narrative working through the biggest climate questions and the solutions we have at our disposal to tackle them! Every claim is backed up with real world data. Hannah is completely transparent with her sources and presents the data visually for readers to have a look for themselves. Not only do we have to take into consideration the technologies available to us, but also the economical and societal factors, in order to be able to select the most appropriate solutions across different geographical regions and contexts. If we can align policy, technology, and public awareness, we can make the necessary changes!
We have to do more to reduce our global emissions and this book is both reassuring and optimistic that progress is possible!
We have to do more to reduce our global emissions and this book is both reassuring and optimistic that progress is possible!
January 10, 2026
As someone who has recently stepped into the field of environmental engineering, this was hands down the best book I read in 2025. While some aspects aligned with what I already knew and helped confirm my understanding, the book also introduced new perspectives that genuinely sparked my curiosity and gave me several topics I now want to explore further.
Hannah Ritchie doesn’t just tackle the big, often overwhelming questions around climate change, she breaks them down in a clear, practical way. What I particularly liked the most was how she goes beyond theory and clearly explains what actually needs to be done as well as what pitfalls we should be careful to avoid.
This book feels more like a guide you want by your side all the time. An absolute must-read for anyone looking for clarity and hope in climate action.
Hannah Ritchie doesn’t just tackle the big, often overwhelming questions around climate change, she breaks them down in a clear, practical way. What I particularly liked the most was how she goes beyond theory and clearly explains what actually needs to be done as well as what pitfalls we should be careful to avoid.
This book feels more like a guide you want by your side all the time. An absolute must-read for anyone looking for clarity and hope in climate action.
January 10, 2026
Ritchie offers a hopeful view vs fearful analysis with the 50 questions. The list of these 50 questions are great and probably are on top of mind for those who care about climate change. She also highlights some practical steps that individuals, industries and governments can take.
The answers however, lack a lot of depth, don’t consider complexities due to geopolitical issues, economic disparities, corruption. E.g. certain solutions suggested are just impossible to implemented at an individual level, and here government and policies will make a difference.
Out of the 50 questions, my top favourite are : 13, 17, 35, 37, 44.
This book definitely for those who want an overview / breadth on the topic, and not for those who want a deeper dive.
The answers however, lack a lot of depth, don’t consider complexities due to geopolitical issues, economic disparities, corruption. E.g. certain solutions suggested are just impossible to implemented at an individual level, and here government and policies will make a difference.
Out of the 50 questions, my top favourite are : 13, 17, 35, 37, 44.
This book definitely for those who want an overview / breadth on the topic, and not for those who want a deeper dive.
March 6, 2026
I don't think I'd ever have the staying power to write a book, but if I _had_ to, then I think the cheat code would be to write one like this: a collection of 50 loosely connected pieces that could be knocked down one-by-one, with no need to try to weave a narrative through them.
I read and enjoyed 48 Laws of Power, so it's not just the format and structure of this book that I've taken a disliking to, it's how formulaic and derivative it is. There's not a lot in here for people with just a little more than a casual interest in climate change, and honestly, I'm not sure I'd have finished it if I'd read rather than listened to it.
Perhaps it's got some merit as a survey, from which to go off and dig deeper into specific topics of interest.
I read and enjoyed 48 Laws of Power, so it's not just the format and structure of this book that I've taken a disliking to, it's how formulaic and derivative it is. There's not a lot in here for people with just a little more than a casual interest in climate change, and honestly, I'm not sure I'd have finished it if I'd read rather than listened to it.
Perhaps it's got some merit as a survey, from which to go off and dig deeper into specific topics of interest.
December 13, 2025
Really good stuff. I borrowed a copy from the library but I'd like to buy a copy so that I can lend it to people. To give you a sense of what kinds of questions and answers are in the book, my favourites were "Won't electric car charging break our electricity grids?", "Don't wind farms kill lots of birds and wildlife?", and "Won't renewables and electric cars mean a lot more mining?". I appreciate the author's frank style, which acknowledges things that we just don't know at the moment, but that we can't necessarily afford to wait to find out about. She also (appropriately, in my opinion), acknowledges things that we need to learn more about, where we shouldn't rush in, like geoengineering.
March 6, 2026
Lukewarm Feeling
Overall, the book tries to convey an optimistic message, but if you are perspective enough and can read between the lines, you can almost hear the sigh of despair - the sigh she took silently or her subconscious was able to suppress it altogether. And, she tried to peddle the hopium near the end of the book by stressing upon the necessity to change individual behavior, circumventing the need to put the blame on the real perpetrators, the tax-evading ultra rich.
Overall, the book tries to convey an optimistic message, but if you are perspective enough and can read between the lines, you can almost hear the sigh of despair - the sigh she took silently or her subconscious was able to suppress it altogether. And, she tried to peddle the hopium near the end of the book by stressing upon the necessity to change individual behavior, circumventing the need to put the blame on the real perpetrators, the tax-evading ultra rich.
April 10, 2026
It is incredibly easy to read but noy superficial. The writing is simple, clear, and accessible but at the same time, it goes deep. You can feel the quality of the research behind every page, without it ever becoming heavy or overwhelming.
What I appreciated most is how helpful and needed this book is today. It doesn’t just inform it shifts the way you see the world.
I shared many of the insights with my kids. It opens the door to meaningful conversations about our planet, our choices, and the future we’re building. it is a must-read
What I appreciated most is how helpful and needed this book is today. It doesn’t just inform it shifts the way you see the world.
I shared many of the insights with my kids. It opens the door to meaningful conversations about our planet, our choices, and the future we’re building. it is a must-read
March 7, 2026
Clar i concís. Tot i que en moltes de les respostes hi caldrien més matisos, és difícil respondre tantes preguntes relacionades amb transició energètica o medi ambient en menys espai, mantenint el rigor.
Probablement peca de massa tecnooptimisme, però està molt ben documentat.
En cadascuna de les respostes ofereix algunes sol•lucions, però moltes (òbviament) no són res que puguem fer a nivell individual. Tot i així és informació útil.
Probablement peca de massa tecnooptimisme, però està molt ben documentat.
En cadascuna de les respostes ofereix algunes sol•lucions, però moltes (òbviament) no són res que puguem fer a nivell individual. Tot i així és informació útil.
March 18, 2026
In an age of constant misinformation and rejection of evidence, this is an important book. It isn't written as a gripping narrative, and I judge it based on the stated purpose and whether it achieves it. Perfect marks. Not every climate objection will be new to each reader, but the breadth means that there are some important nuggets for nearly anyone regarding the most recent research and development of the technologies.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews