>>> TURNING TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS.

DATA SCIENTIST HANNAH RITCHIE SAYS, WE NEED TO SWITCH OUR FOCUS FROM DOOM AND GLOOM TO SOLUTIONS, AS SHE ARGUES IN HER NEW BOOK ME NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

>> THANKS FOR JOINING US.

YOUR BOOK IS TITLED, "NOT THE END OF THE WORLD, HOW WE CAN BE THE FIRST GENERATION TO REBUILD A SUSTAINABLE PLANET."

TELL ME ABOUT WHAT MOTIVATED THIS OPTIMISM IN YOUR BOOK.

>> IT IS FRAMED AS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD, NOT TO BE PRONOUNCED AS, OH, IT IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD, BUT DEFINITIVE, NO, IT IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD BECAUSE WE CAN TACKLE THESE PROBLEMS.

THE WAY I TRIED TO FRAME IT IS, WE ARE IN A BAD PLACE ON A BAD TRAJECTORY.

I CAN SEE FROM LOOKING AT THE DATA, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO BEGIN A MUCH BETTER TRAJECTORY.

I THINK THERE ARE SOLUTIONS THERE, SOME PROBLEMS WE HAVE SOLVED.

I THINK ON MANY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, WE HAVE GOTTEN TO THE STAGE WHERE WE FEEL LIKE, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO AND WE FEEL HELPLESS TO DO ANYTHING AND I'M TRYING TO SHAKE ACTION AND GET US GOING PEERS >> YOUR DAY JOB IS AT A PLACE CALLED, OUR WORLD AND DATA.

PEOPLE AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THAT, FOR YEARS NOW, HAS HAD SOME OF THE BEST VISUALIZATION OF.

FOR ARTISTS-- VISUAL ARTIST AUDIENCE THAT DOES NOT KNOW, CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

>> WE ARE ONLINE.

WE FRAME AS DATA RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD'S LARGEST PROBLEMS.

BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND RESEARCH, THE GENERAL PUBLIC, POLICYMAKERS, JOURNALISTS, AND WE TRY TO MAKE THIS DATA UNDERSTANDABLE TO A GENERAL AUDIENCE.

WE DO THAT ACROSS ENVIRONMENTAL WITH CLIMATE TOPICS, ALSO HEALTH, WAR, WHAT WE FRAME AS THE WORLD'S LARGEST PROBLEMS.

WE TRY TO ZOOM OUT AND LOOK AT THE LONG-TERM TRENDS, RATHER THAN SINGLE HEADLINES.

>> WHAT IS IT ABOUT YOUR WORK WITH KIND OF THE RAW DATA THAT HELPS YOU BE MORE OPTIMISTIC, BECAUSE ESPECIALLY SAY IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE, WHAT MOST PEOPLE HERE ARE NUMBERS THAT ARE ALARMING, AND AT TIMES, MAKE THEM FEEL HOPELESS.

>> SPECIFICALLY ON CLIMATE.

THE TRAJECTORY WE ARE ON NOW IS A VERY SCARY ONE.

WE ARE HEADING BETWEEN 2 1/2 TO THREE DEGREES, WHICH WOULD BE REAL SEVERE AND CATASTROPHIC.

WHAT MAKES ME A BIT MORE OPTIMISTIC, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT ENERGY TRENDS, WE ARE IN A VERY DIFFERENT POSITION NOW THAN EVEN A DECADE AGO ON THESE TOP ISSUES.

A BIG REASON FOR THAT HAS BEEN A RAPID DECLINE IN THE COST OF LOW CARBON TECHNOLOGIES.

IF WE ARE LOOKING AT CLIMATE ACTION A DECADE AGO, ARE ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS WERE WAY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN FOSSIL FUELS.

IT WAS REALLY HARD TO SEE HOW THE WORLD WOULD ADOPT THEM.

WHAT WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST DECADE IS MUCH IT COST OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES.

NO COMPETITOR WHERE WE SEE CHEAPER FOSSIL FUELS, A LOT MORE OPTIMISM THAT RICH COUNTRIES CAN ADOPT THESE, BUT MIDDLE INCOME AND LOW INCOME COUNTRIES CAN RAISE THE STANDARD OF LIVING IN A LOW CARBON WAY.

>> THERE IS THE TECHNOLOGY ASPECT OF IT.

AS YOU POINT OUT, WE HAVE ENGINEERED SOME SOLUTIONS, THEN, THERE SEEMS TO BE A POLITICAL DIMENSION TO IT AS WELL.

DO YOU THINK THAT EVEN IF HUMANITY IS PRESENTED WITH THESE LOW CARBON ALTERNATIVES, THAT WE ARE, NOT JUST CAPABLE, BUT WILLING TO MAKE THE SACRIFICES NECESSARY TO HAVE THIS ENERGY TRANSITIONAL CURVE?

>> I DON'T THINK IT IS GOING TO BE EASY.

I THINK IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT.

THE POLITICAL WORLD ISSUE IS A BIG ONE.

WE CONTEST FREEDOM AS A SACRIFICE.

IN THE PAST ME WE FRAME THIS AS A SACRIFICE, WHICH IS WHY I THINK CLIMATE ACTION HAS BEEN SLOW.

WITH THESE TECHNOLOGIES, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY.

YOU ACTUALLY SEE THAT WHERE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE DEPLOYING THESE TECHNOLOGIES, OR CLAIMING IT.

THEY ARE ALSO DOING IT FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES, OR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, OR ENERGY SECURITY.

I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS FREEDOM AS A MODEL AND SACRIFICE TO CLIENT TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE.

EVEN IF THE POLITICAL WILL IS NOT THERE, THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY WE MIGHT SWITCH TO THESE TECHNOLOGIES.

>> WHEN WE THINK OF TIME IT, A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION, AT LEAST IN THE PRESS, CRESCENDOS AT THESE ANNUAL MEETINGS, THE COP FOLKS, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE PARIS AGREEMENT, WE ARE SLEEPING PAST TO THIS DEGREE CELSIUS, AND THE PHRASE, TIPPING POINT, ALWAYS COMES UP AND YOU KIND OF TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT NOTION OF TIPPING POINT, EXPLAIN.

>> I DON'T TAKE NOTION, BUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TIPPING POINT, THERE ARE TIPPING POINT IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM.

THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT ONES.

THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE TIPPING POINT.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE.

THERE ARE A RANGE OF DIFFERENT TALKING POINTS.

YOU CAN SEE REVERSIBLE IMPACTS WE CAN'T RETRACT BACK FROM.

WHERE I TAKE ISSUE IS THE TARGET BEING MENTIONED AS A TIPPING POINT.

THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY A TIPPING POINT.

I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT IN COMMUNICATION BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, WE ARE GETTING VERY CLOSE TO NUMBER 1.5 DEGREES.

PERSONALLY, I AM QUITE PESSIMISTIC THAT WE REACH 1.5 DEGREES.

IF YOU FRAME IT AS A TAPPING POINT, WE LOSE ANY SENSE OF URGENCY.

WHAT IS THE POINT IN TAKING ACTION?

WE EITHER NEED TO FRAME IT AS 1.5 DEGREES SHOULD BE OUR TARGET, BUT WE NEED 1.6, 1.7, 1.8.

WE PREVENT MANY OF THESE POINTS , BUT WE ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE IN THE SYSTEM.

MAKE THE IN-DEPTH SUSTAINABILITY -- DO YOU END UP RAMMING SUSTAINABILITY AS A TIPPING POINT?

>> NORMALLY I THINK OF IT AS HAVING A LOW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO PROTECT FUTURE GENERATIONS AND OTHER SPECIES.

I THINK WHAT IS ALSO REALLY IMPORTANT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IS, PROVIDING A GOOD LIFE FOR EVERYONE ALIVE TODAY.

THERE IS THIS GOAL UNDER AN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY END GOAL.

THE WAY I FRAME IT, WE NEVER REALLY ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY UNLESS WE ACHIEVE BOTH HALVES AT THE SAME TIME.

IN THE PAST, THESE TWO WERE STRONGLY IN CONFLICT.

IF YOU LOOK OVER THE LAST TWO CENTURIES, WE MADE AMAZING PROGRESS ON THE HUMAN DIMENSION, BUT IT HAS CAME AT THE COST OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

WE BURN FOSSIL FUELS, NOW DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE.

WHERE I SEE THE OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE, I THINK THESE TWO GOALS ARE NO LONGER INCOMPATIBLE.

I THINK WE CAN PROVIDE A GOOD LIFE FOR EIGHT, NINE, 10 BILLION PEOPLE, REDUCING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT THE SAME TIME.

I THINK THAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE.

>> HOW DO YOU BALANCE I GUESS THE OPTIMISM THAT YOU ARE LAYING OUT IN PARTS OF THIS BOOK WITH A SENSE OF URGENCY THAT IS ALSO NECESSARY?

RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE GOT NASA CONFIRMING THAT 2023 WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD.

THERE ARE SCIENTISTS SAYING, LISTEN, A DECADE FROM NOW, WE WILL LOOK BACK AT HIS AS A RELATIVELY COOL YEAR.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HELP PEOPLE KEEP BOTH OF THOSE IDEAS IN THEIR BRAIN THAT WE DO HAVE POTENTIAL AND ALL HOPE IS NOT LOST, BUT THAT WE DO NEED TO ASK QUICKLY?

>> ISAAC IT IS VERY DIFFICULT.

THERE IS ALWAYS THE RISK THAT PEOPLE BECOME COMPLACENT.

WE DO NEED TO CONVEY THE CURRENT TRAJECTORY WE ARE ON IS ON EXCEPT DOUBLE, AND A REALLY SERIOUS, DANGEROUS ONE.

WE ALSO NEED TO GIVE PEOPLE THE SENSE OF AGENCY THAT WE CAN TACKLE THIS AND WE DON'T NEED TO BE ON THIS PARTICULAR TRAJECTORY.

OFTEN, WHEN PEOPLE ARE HIT WITH HEADLINE, AFTER HEADLINE, AFTER HEADLINE, THEY CAN FALL INTO THIS STATE WHERE YOU ARE TELLING THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEM, BUT NO NOTION OF SOLUTIONS, OR A WAY WE CAN GET OUT OF THIS YEAR THEY OFTEN FEEL HELPLESS.

THAT WILL NOT HELP US DRIVE FORWARD.

WE NEED TO CONVEY THE SERIOUSNESS AND URGENCY BY WHICH WE NEED TO ACT.

WE ALSO NEED TO CONVEY A SENSE OF THERE ARE ACTUALLY SOLUTIONS OUT THERE AND THEY ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED AND WE CAN DRIVE THAT PASTOR.

>> YOU WRITE ABOUT YOUR BROTHER AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A SINGLE HUMAN BEING CAN DO.

WHAT ARE THE STEPS THAT HE TOOK?

I FRAME -- >> I FRAME MY BROTHER IN THE BOOK AS HE IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTALIST, BUT NEVER REALLY BEING THAT INTERESTED IN CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT HE, FOR EXAMPLE, HE GOT TESLA, HE GOT AN INTO ELECTRIC CAR, AGAIN, NOT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HE JUST GOT AN ELECTRIC CAR BECAUSE IT MADE SENSE.

IT WAS A NICE CAR TO DRIVE.

IT WORKED REALLY WELL FOR CHARGING.

HIS BILLS ARE LOWER.

THIS COMES BACK TO THE OPPORTUNITY ANGLE.

WE NEED TO ALSO CONVEY THE OTHER BENEFITS OF THESE SOLUTIONS.

IF WE ARE GOING TO RELY ON EVERYONE BEING MORE TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE, I DON'T THINK WE WILL GET THERE.

YES, WE NEED TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO HIGHLIGHT THE OTHER COOL BENEFITS OF THE SOLUTIONS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN GET ON BOARD.

>> YOU WRITE IN THE BOOK THAT CAN BE THE FIRST GENERATION THAT CREATES ENERGY WITHOUT BURNING SOME.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE SPACE WE ARE IN TODAY, ACCORDING TO A 2023 REPORT BY THE ENERGY IN THE TOOTH SAYS, I THINK WE ARE AT 82% OF OUR FUEL SUPPLY STILL IS RELIANT ON FOSSIL FUELS.

HOW DO WE GET FROM THE 80% THAT WE ARE AT, TO HOPEFULLY ZERO IN A GENERATION?

>> WE NEED A MASSIVE BUILDUP OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS .

I THINK THE ECONOMICS OF THESE ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT REALLY ADVANTAGEOUS.

SOLAR, WIND, NUCLEAR, WE NEED THE WHOLE LOT AND WE NEED THEM TO WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE A PORTFOLIO THAT CAN REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT ABOUT THE CURRENT ENERGY SYSTEM WE HAVE, IS BECAUSE WE ARE BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, IT IS ACTUALLY VERY INEFFICIENT ENERGY SYSTEM.

WHEN YOU BURN FOSSIL FUELS, MOST OF THAT ENERGY ACTUALLY GOES TO WASTE.

A SMALL FRACTION ACTUALLY GOES TO WHAT WE CALL ENERGY SERVICES, MOVING YOU FROM A TO B, CARRYING YOUR LAPTOP OR TB.

THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY.

IT CAN BE MOVED TO A DECOLONIZE ENERGY SYSTEM, WOULD ACTUALLY NEED LESS ENERGY.

THAT BIG STACK OF FOSSIL FUELS WE SEE CAN SEEM REALLY, REALLY DAUNTING.

ONCE WE START TO ELECTRIFY MANY OF OUR TRANSPORT AND HEATING SYSTEM, A LOT OF THOSE WILL DISAPPEAR.

WE SHOULD NOT UNDERESTIMATE HOW BIG OF A CHALLENGE IT IS, IT IS A REALLY BIG CHALLENGE.

THERE ARE VARIOUS PARTS OF THAT PUZZLE THAT SHOULD MAKE US A BIT MORE OPTIMISTIC.

>> WHAT DO YOU DO TO TACKLE KIND OF STRUCTURAL INEFFICIENCIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE?

REALLY LOOKING AT UPENDING THE EXISTING SYSTEMS OF HOW UTILITY SYSTEMS WORK, HOW GAS INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS.

HOW DO WE TACKLE THOSE THINGS KIND OF SIMULTANEOUSLY?

>> ENTERTAINMENT IS A BIG ONE.

IN SOME SENSE, A BIG ONE IN THE U.S. OR UK, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE IF WE MOVED AWAY, WE BECOME VERY COMPLACENT OF BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE.

FOR MANY COUNTRIES, THEY ARE DOING MUCH BETTER.

CHINA, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BUILDING, THE ENERGY SYSTEMS, THE BUILDING UPGRADES, MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SOLAR AND WIND.

I THINK IN SOME SENSE, THE U.S. AND UK REALLY NEED TO GET ON BOARD WITH GETTING BACK INTO THIS FEELING OF ACTUALLY BUILDING STUFF.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, I THINK WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE WHAT WE CALL A MESSY METAL TRANSITION, WHERE IT IS ACTUALLY MUCH EASIER IF YOU GO REALLY PETROL, OR FULLY ELECTRIC .

I THINK THERE WILL BE THIS MESSY MID-TRANSITION WHERE YOU GET BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

SOME PEOPLE WILL HAVE GASOLINE CARS, AND SOME PEOPLE WILL HAVE ELECTRIC CARS.

I THINK IT WILL BE A BIG CHALLENGE.

>> YOU ALSO WRITE ABOUT FOOD, AND THE CHOICES WE MAKE WITH WHAT WE EAT HAVING A FAIRLY CONSEQUENTIAL IMPACT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE.

BREAK THAT DOWN FOR US.

>> WHEN PEOPLE THINK OF CLIMATE CHANGE, THEY AUTOMATICALLY THINK OF ENERGY.

THAT IS THREE QUARTERS OF OUR EMISSIONS.

THE FINAL QUARTER COMES FROM FOOD SYSTEMS.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IS NOT JUST RELEVANT FOR CLIMATE, IT IS KIND OF THE LEADING DRIVER OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS.

WATER USE, BEFORE STATION, BIODIVERSITY LAWS, FOOD IS ESSENTIAL TO MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS.

AROUND A QUARTER OF OUR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, FROM FOOD SYSTEMS.

IF YOU LOOK AT A QUARTER OF THE CENTURY, WE DECOLONIZE OUR ENERGY SYSTEMS.

THE AMOUNT OF EMISSIONS FROM FOOD WOULD PROBABLY TAKE US PAST WHAT WE CALL THE CARBON BUDGET, THE AMOUNT OF CARBON WE CAN ADMIT, BETWEEN 1.5 OR TWO DEGREES.

IS ACTUALLY PAST MOST OF THOSE TARGETS.

WE REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS FOOD.

>> IN YOUR SECTION ABOUT FOOD, YOU SAY, IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT EATING LOCAL.

EXPLAINED THAT.

>> I THINK WHEN YOU ASK PEOPLE, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF FOOD, THEY ALL DID SAY, EACH LOCAL --EAT.

THAT IS OFTEN THE ADVICE WE ARE GIVEN.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DATE OF CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF DIFFERENT FOODS, ACTUALLY, THE TRANSPORT COMPONENT, WHAT WE CALL FOOD MILES, GLOBALLY, AROUND 5% OF FOOD SYSTEM EMISSIONS.

MOST EMISSIONS, FROM MISSIONS ON THE FARM, THINGS LIKE FERTILIZERS, MANURE, COWS BURPING, EMITTING WHEN THEY BURP.

MOST OF THOSE COME FROM THAT, NOT TRANSPORT.

WHEN COMPARING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF FOODS, WHAT YOU EAT MATTERS MUCH MORE THAN HOW FAR IT HAS TRAVELED TO REACH YOU.

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT YOUR LOCAL FOOD IS AUTOMATIC FOR THE CLIMATE THAN FOOD SHIPPED IN FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY.

>> YOU WRITE WRITE A BIT ABOUT PLASTICS AS WELL.

YOU DON'T TAKE ISSUE WITH THE WAY THE MIRACLE OF THE PLASTIC IS.

IT IS REALLY ABOUT, WHAT WE DO WITH IT AFTER WE HAVE USED IT?

>> THE PLASTICS, TWO DINESH DIMENSIONS TO IT.

ONE CONCERN IS MICRO PLASTICS AND THE POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS ON HUMANS.

THE ACTUAL HEALTH IMPACTS ARE VERY INCONCLUSIVE AT THE MOMENT.

IF WE WANT TO END PLASTICS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.

A MORE INTRACTABLE PROBLEM IS TACKLING THE WASTE AT THE END OF THE INDUSTRY.

WE ARE PLASTIC FLOWING INTO RIVERS AND THE OCEAN.

THAT IS A VERY PRACTICAL PROBLEM.

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLASTIC WE ARE USING, IT IS HOW WE DISPOSE OF IT.

EVEN IF YOU ARE PUTTING IT IN A LANDFILL, RECYCLING, REGENERATING, IT IS A LOW RISK OF GOING INTO THE RIVERS AND OCEAN.

WE HAVE MOST PLASTIC FLOWING TENDS TO BE IN LOWER INCOME COUNTRIES, WHERE PLASTIC USE HAS INCREASED A LOT, BUT NOT THE WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE TO MANAGE IT AT THE END OF THE CHAIN.

THAT MEANS, THE BASIC SOLUTION TO THIS, NOT FLASHY OR EXCITING, JUST INVESTING IN PROPER WASTE MANAGEMENT.

>> YOU ARE CAREFUL NOT TO PRESCRIBE SPECIFIC THINGS FOR READERS OF THE BOOK.

YOU KIND OF WORRY THAT MAYBE IT TURNS THEM OFF OR COMES OFF PREACHY?

>> I THINK IN THE BOOK, I WANT TO GIVE GOOD INFORMATION.

I LAY OUT ALL THE DATA AND EXAMPLES OF WHAT SOMEONE CAN DO.

I AM VERY SPECIFIC NOT TO PRESCRIBE WILL, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS OR DO THIS.

I DON'T THINK THEY RESPOND VERY WELL TO THAT.

AN EXAMPLE OF MY BROTHER, IF I TOLD HIM, YOU HAVE TO GET AN ELECTRIC CAR TO DO THIS FOR THE CLIMATE AND YOU ARE REALLY BAD IF YOU DON'T.

I DON'T THINK HE WOULD GET THE ELECTRIC CAR.

I THINK IN GENERAL, A COMMUNICATION STRATEGY TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO ALL BACK TIRES.

>> THE HEAD OF THE NONPROFIT OF THE "NEW YORK TIMES" SAYS, I GET THE APPEAL OF EMBRACING OPTIMISM, IT MAKES EVERYTHING SO MUCH EASIER.

PESSIMISM IS SO EXHAUSTING, SO IS PASSION, WHAT YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> I THINK WE DISAGREE ON WHAT MOTIVATES PEOPLE.

I AM VERY CLEAR IN THE I-FRAME OPTIMISM, NOT AS A BLIND OPTIMISM THAT THINGS WILL BE FINE AND WE CAN SIT BACK, BECAUSE THINGS WILL NOT BE FINE IF WE SIT BACK.

THE WAY I-FRAME IT IS CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM, WHICH STATES THAT WE CAN MEET POSITIVE CHANGE, IF WE DRIVE IT.

A VERY ACTIVE FORM OF OPTIMISM, NOT A SITTING BACK AND DOING NOTHING.

FOR ME, THAT JUST SEEMS TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE WAY OF MOTIVATING PEOPLE TO TAKE ACTION , RATHER THAN TELLING THEM, THIS IS A REALLY BAD PROBLEM, AND LEAVING THEM WITH NO SOLUTIONS.

>>> THE BOOK IS CALLED "NOT THE END OF THE WORLD."

HANNAH RITCHIE, THANKS FOR JOINING US.