Latest news with #HannahRitchie
The Guardian
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Andrew Hunter Murray: ‘Every time I read Pride and Prejudice I find more jokes'
My earliest reading memoryAt a secondhand book sale at school, a kind teacher recommended my mum buy Brian Jacques's Redwall. Noble monastic mice battle thuggish rats: catnip for a seven-year-old. My favourite book growing upThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. The mad robots and two-headed aliens are great for the teenage brain, but beneath all that is the sadness, and the questions about why life has to be like this, all filtered through poor Arthur Dent. I sometimes pull it off the shelf to read half a page, just to remind myself how comedy writing is done. The book that changed me as a teenagerI tried One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest a bit young, was baffled and thrown back by it, and then had another go, and couldn't believe how bracing Ken Kesey's writing was. It's pure psychedelia and probably hasn't aged tremendously well, but in terms of the way you could write, it really freed my mind (man). The writer who changed my mindI was a full-on doomer about humanity's future until last year, when I read statistician and climate scientist Hannah Ritchie's excellent Not the End of the World. I'm now a fraction more optimistic, which makes me a fraction more fun at parties. The book that made me want to be a writerI don't remember not wanting to be one, which is obviously insufferable. But I didn't seriously think about how to go about doing it until my mid-20s, when I read John Wyndham's The Kraken Wakes. It's great sci-fi, but rooted in complex characters doing their best in an extraordinary situation, and it sparked the idea that became my first novel. The book or author I came back toI used to think Charles Dickens was very boring and stuffy, but the more I read him now, the more I think he's the absolute nuts. Slightly embarrassingly, I welled up reading bits of Bleak House last year on a crowded commuter train. I had to pretend I had something in my eye. The book I rereadI've been reading Pride and Prejudice every few years for two decades now. I studied Austen at university, spent 10 years in a Jane Austen-themed improvised comedy group called Austentatious, and P&P only gets better. Just when you think you've got everything out of it, you find more jokes, more wisdom, more understanding. It's stunning. Plus, everyone fancies Lizzie. The book I could never read againThe Art of the Deal, by Donald Trump and Tony Schwartz. Such beautiful prose, and Trump's ruined it for everyone now. The book I discovered later in lifeA few years ago I discovered the publisher Persephone, which specialises in mid-20th-century books, mostly by women. The pitch is that these authors are all undeservedly forgotten. I was given a subscription by some comedian friends several years ago and am now about 50 books in. They are comfort reading, but high-quality, like a wholemeal pizza. Actually, that sounds horrible. The book I am currently readingI'm regretfully coming to the end of Mick Herron's Slough House series, which has been a perfect, very British, very depressing, very funny pick-me-up. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion My comfort readAnything by PG Wodehouse. No matter how grim the path Bertie Wooster treads, no matter how strait the gate or charged with punishments the scroll, you know sunshine will eventually win the day. A Beginner's Guide to Breaking and Entering by Andrew Hunter Murray is published by Penguin. To support the Guardian order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
Daily News Egypt
15-05-2025
- Business
- Daily News Egypt
Oxford Research Highlights Role of Sustainable Palm Oil in Securing Egypt's Food Supply and Forests
As Egypt continues to rely heavily on imported edible oils, new research from Oxford University warns that shifting away from sustainable palm oil could raise global environmental risks and food production costs. Egypt currently imports around 98% of its edible oil needs, making food security a pressing national concern. Palm oil accounts for roughly 67% of the Egyptian market, valued at $1.3 billion in 2023. Replacing it with alternatives such as soybean or sunflower oil could significantly increase pressure on global forests and raise prices, according to leading data scientist Hannah Ritchie. In her new book, Not the End of the World, Ritchie notes that palm oil is the most land-efficient vegetable oil crop, producing 2.8 tonnes per hectare—nearly 10 times more than olive oil. Substituting palm oil with less efficient crops would require up to 148 million additional hectares of land globally, driving deforestation and pushing food costs higher. Malaysia, which supplied nearly 27% of Egypt's palm oil imports in 2023, has emerged as a global leader in sustainable palm oil production. Through the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) certification, over 96% of the country's production is now certified as sustainable. These practices help limit deforestation, protect biodiversity, and ensure responsible land management—critical factors in addressing climate change and ensuring long-term food stability. The global narrative around palm oil is also shifting. While often blamed for forest loss, recent studies show that beef production now accounts for over 40% of global deforestation, while palm oil's impact has declined due to improved sustainability standards. With Egypt's vegetable oil consumption expected to rise by 15% by 2030, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), maintaining a stable and sustainable supply will be essential. Strengthening international partnerships in sustainable palm oil can support Egypt's Vision 2030 goals, delivering both environmental protection and affordable nutrition to Egyptian families. As food prices rise and environmental concerns grow, the message is clear: sustainable palm oil is not just a global issue—it's a national priority.
Newsroom
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
Our plan for the planet can't be the lesser of two evils
Opinion: The vexed issue of the mining and material requirements for a renewable energy transition has been making the news. The well-known green growth and clean energy champion Hannah Ritchie claimed that clean energy requires substantially less mining and material use than our existing fossil fuel energy systems. This made the news globally and was picked up in New Zealand with similar claims appearing in LinkedIn posts, blogs and social media posts from Rewiring Aotearoa. This is one of these messy lesser-of-two-evils arguments I usually try to steer clear of because I can see that 'less harm' (and I will argue here that the 'less harm' claim is far from settled) is turned into a 'better for the planet' meme on social media. This lesser-of-two-evils meme is often used by companies as a greenwashing tactic. The point missed when this argument is used is that growth, regardless of its colour (green, black, or purple) requires taking ever more from a stressed finite planet and this is no longer an option. The historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt nailed my thoughts when she said: 'Those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil.' The reason I don't want to get into a clean vs dirty energy debate is that it's not an either/or choice, and it isn't just about the climate crisis. The life-supporting capacity of the planet is already teetering on collapse with multiple existential threats reaching tipping points and any more extraction, no matter how well intentioned, is not viable. Biophysical limits are real and non-negotiable – they simply cannot be compromised, regardless of whether the extraction is for 'carbon-free energy' or anything else. The goal of electrification to address climate change is laudable. The problem is that it's being seen in isolation, ignoring the reality that climate change is just one of a raft of crises, all symptoms of ecological overshoot. Even the New York Times pointed out on Earth Day that: 'Climate change is a symptom of a larger issue: ecological overshoot, the fact that humans are consuming resources faster than they can regenerate and producing more waste and pollution than nature can absorb.' Now to the specifics of the materials/mining argument. The Rewiring Aotearoa claim that low-carbon energy uses 1500 times less material than fossil fuels is based on the fact that in 2022 the world used 15 billion tonnes of materials for coal, oil, and gas and only 10 million tonnes for low-carbon energy. At face value, this sounds convincing but dig a little deeper and it is far from established. To reiterate, I think it's a moot point comparing replacing fossil fuels with 'clean energy' because neither option is feasible for a living planet. First, it's not a fair comparison given the low-carbon energy input in 2022 was a fraction of the energy consumed by humans on the planet: in that year 91 percent of global primary energy came from fossil fuels (just 2.5 percent from wind and solar). Second, the 10 million tonnes quoted for low-carbon energy is just counting the weight of the minerals themselves and misses the crucial reality that the harm is how much material was mined and processed to get the final product. Not just how much mineral was mined, but also how many forests were cut down, roads built, rivers and soil and air polluted to extract those minerals. To say nothing about the social costs to poor and indigenous communities. Most of these minerals are at very low concentrations in rocks, meaning that when the waste rock or overburden mining required (measured as the rock-to-metal ratio) is taken into account the 10 million tonnes quoted by Rewiring Aotearoa then becomes billions of tonnes. This point was conceded by Hannah Ritchie in a follow-up article to one she originally wrote in January 2023. Finally, and I think the most crucial point – and one that almost never makes its way into energy transition discussions or modelling – is that the amount of material mined per unit of metal (the rock-to-metal ratio) isn't a constant: it has always, and will always, keep rising. This is a result of the simple fact that we start off mining all the easy-to-get metal and minerals and then over time must move to ever lower ore concentrations. An example is copper. It is vital to an energy transition and the average ore grade globally has decreased approximately by 25 percent in just 10 years. In that same period, the total energy consumption for mining copper increased by 46 percent. Chile, the world's leading copper producer, increased fossil fuel and electricity consumption per unit between 2001 and 2017 by 130 percent and 32 percent respectively. This means even without the huge increases required to replace all the fossil-fuel powered infrastructure and energy consumption growth, more and more material must be mined every year using more and more energy just to maintain metal production. If that wasn't sobering enough, the fossil fuels used for almost all the mining, processing, and transport of the materials is undergoing the same conundrum of decline. The fossil fuel energy return on energy invested is declining fast, thus ever more and more fossil fuels are burnt to supply the same amount of energy. These two enigmas act on each other, meaning exponentially more harm is done just to meet current demand, let alone growth. Behind the whole debate around materials is the all-pervasive assumption that we must do everything and anything – no matter the risk – to maintain status quo, which is ever-increasing consumption. So are we going to dig up what's left of the planet and threaten the very life supporting systems we can't live without to power ever more gadgets? Will we jeopardise our futures for the sake of artificial intelligence and data centres to hold our pet and family holiday pictures? When will we shape our lives around what the planet can support rather than try to make it give us the lifestyles we have become accustomed to? Instead of trying to keep up supply, surely we must look at the energy and material demand side and reduce consumption to a level that the planet can support. The fossil fuel-powered lives of excess we in the wealthy world see as normal are not. The reduction in consumption required in the wealthy world is radical – but also necessary to meet biophysical limits. This will not be convenient, but we must realise that how we in the wealthy world live is radical. I acknowledge the distinct perspectives present in energy transition discussions. Mine emphasises the fundamental ecological view that immediate radical action is critical for us to have a liveable planet. Others take a more political 'art of the possible' position, focusing on currently achievable steps and public consensus. Despite these differing approaches, there is an underlying alignment in the intention and that is to navigate the challenges of a civilisation in crisis.
Newsroom
02-05-2025
- Science
- Newsroom
Gas-guzzling tourists are loving our whales to death
The idea that whales will help us overcome the challenges of climate change is explored by Hannah Ritchie, in her book Not the End of the World. There are two possible mechanisms. When whales die they can sink to the bottom of deep trenches and the carbon in their large bodies gets trapped in sea sediments. The other mechanism is through their feeding and excretion cycles, they help generate rich ocean environments that absorb carbon. Sadly, Hannah concludes that whales will not save the world. Instead, we need to quickly and dramatically reduce emissions.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
China Allows New Coal Plants, but With More Limited Role
China will allow the construction of new coal power plants through at least 2027 but with restrictions aimed at limiting emissions and boosting renewables, according to a newly released action plan. The plan clears the way to build new plants where needed to shore up the supply of power or to balance solar and wind, Bloomberg reports. To that end, new coal plants must be able to ramp up and ramp down quickly. The plan also directs new plants to burn coal more efficiently than the existing fleet, and it will require some new power stations to run less than 20 percent of the time. Chinese president Xi Jinping has called for curbing the consumption of coal starting in 2026, and despite a recent surge in the construction of coal generators, China permitted fewer new plants last year than the year before. The average plant is also burning less coal. While in the early 2000s, Chinese coal plants were running roughly 70 percent of the time, today they are running only around 50 percent of the time. In competition with cheap solar and wind, a large share of coal plants are operating at a loss. As renewables continue to grow in China, writes Oxford data scientist Hannah Ritchie, coal generators will increasingly serve as 'peaker' plants, meeting spikes in demand or gaps in supply. 'Most of the world is used to gas playing that role. But China has never embraced gas,' she writes. 'So, coal is the 'flexible' or 'peaker' fuel of choice.' Why Taiwan and Its Tech Industry Are Facing an Energy Crisis
