54: Our World in Data with Dr Hannah Ritchie
Are there reasons to be cheerful about climate change? What are the most data-driven changes we can make to really move the dial on carbon emissions? Dr Hannah Ritchie is Head of Research at Our World In Data, an online platform hosted by Oxford University which aims to 'make progress against the world’s largest problems'. Matt speaks with Hannah about how the data she sees and collates tells a surprisingly optimistic story - and how numbers can be a powerful tool to hold governments and policy-makers to account.
Essential Reading:
EPISODE TRANSCRIPT
[Music flourish]
Matt: Hello and welcome to Local Zero pod. It’s just me today, Matt, but we’ve got a fantastic episode lined up with Hannah Ritchie.
Hannah is a senior researcher and Head of Research at Our World in Data. If you don’t know Our World in Data, you really ought to log on and it will help provide the data to answer many of the questions you’ve always wanted answering. She is located at the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford, so we’re absolutely thrilled to have her along.
She’s going to talk a little bit about why data is so important in framing and answering some of the key issues around climate change and what we ought to do about it, but also the importance of trying to communicate and engage with people around these issues using data. So I’m thrilled to have her along. Actually, shortly after we recorded the chat with Hannah, she was awarded Scotland’s Youth Climate Champion Award, so huge congratulations to you, Hannah, for that.
As I said, it’s just me today. It’s been a chaotic few weeks for us all. We’ve got Becky moving house and Fraser knee-deep in solving various climate and just transition crises, so it’s left to me, but I was thrilled just to have a one-on-one and learnt a tremendous amount. So I really hope you enjoy today’s session... so yeah, plug on in.
[Music flourish]
Hannah: I’m Dr Hannah Ritchie. I’m Head of Research at Our World in Data and I’m a senior researcher at the University of Oxford.
Matt: Welcome, Hannah. An absolute pleasure to have you on. Not only am I a big fan of your own work and your communications through Twitter, one of my favourite accounts, but I’m also a big user of Our World in Data and regularly encourage all of our students to head along there and to make use of what is fast becoming the go-to repository for data around global issues. I think I first became aware of it during Covid-19 and since then, realised its power way beyond health issues.
I just wanted you maybe to talk a little bit about what Our World in Data is. What does it do? What is it meant to achieve before maybe we talk a little bit about how you got involved with it?
Hannah: Sure. Our World in Data is an online web platform, so you can go to it at OurWorldInData.org. What we try to do is bridge the gap between academic data and research and then stuff that people can implement, whether that’s the general public, policymakers or journalists. Basically, we sit between academia and the general public to try and translate what research is actually telling us.
I’m from an academic background and I think it’s very easy for research to get stuck in this kind of bubble where it doesn’t actually make its way out into the wider world to have an impact. So we try to translate that into a language that people can understand, data visualisations that people can explore and we do that across a range of topics.
My background is very much environment, so climate change, land use, biodiversity and food but we do it across a broad range of topics. We frame that as the world’s largest problems; so that’s everything from poverty and inequality to health. As you said, during the Covid pandemic, we played a massive role there in basically presenting global data on health. We try and cover all of these really, really big problems and try and translate what the research says into stuff that we can actually put into action.
Matt: Most of our listeners will have a primary interest in climate and the environment and what they can do. You mentioned that’s your area and so if our listeners log onto Our World in Data now, what kind of things might they encounter and what kind of things could they usefully start playing with and understanding?
Hannah: A core part of our website is these interactive data visualisations. Basically, you get a global map where you can hover over countries and it can tell you different values. The data we present there is stuff like how much CO2 emissions is each country producing but not only that, we really try to get to the heart of the different questions that people ask.
So not just like the total amount per country but per person, how much is that? What share of the global total is that? If we look at data since 1750, how much has the UK, for example, contributed over the last two centuries? How does that compare to China, the US or India?
We try to present all of these different comparisons in a really digestible way. That’s the kind of stuff on CO2 emissions but we have a ton on energy, for example. So you can go and see the UK’s energy mix like how much is coal, renewable solar or wind and how that has changed over time. It really gives you this picture of not only where we are today but how this has changed over the last, sometimes, 200-odd years. We try to present not just the output and what we’re actually producing in terms of CO2 emissions or climate changes but also the inputs like how we can transform our energy systems or food systems.
Matt: As a researcher, I’m always playing with these data sets and you and your colleagues have made my life a lot easier because it’s kind of a one-stop shop for a lot of this data; otherwise, I’m taking something here or there and having to synthesise this.
I wanted to bring it back to the public and their use of this. Since you’ve set this up, have you found, particularly with some of the major challenges that have happened over the last few years with Covid, the energy crisis, worsening climate crisis, an economic slump and rampant inflation, who were the users of this platform because as I understand it, it’s open source? It’s open access unlike a lot of these other platforms. So who are your bread-and-butter customers?
Hannah: It’s very, very broad. We have over 100 million users in a year and that ranges from researchers such as yourself. We don’t want you to be wasting time constantly looking up different data sets and random different sources. If you think of all the people that are doing research like you, that’s such a waste of time when we could just put it in one place and everyone uses that. That ranges from journalists who want accurate figures in their newspaper articles or policymakers who want to understand how their country compares to another country but also just the general public.
A lot of the stuff that we do often, somewhat, tries to address dinner-table chat where people will go back and forward on arguments like the per capita stuff, for example. The UK doesn’t emit a lot of CO2 as a total but when you break down differences per capita, how does that compares to other countries?
From a general public perspective, it also lets us hold governments to account and policy to account. We can quite easily see whether our country is pulling its weight or are they lying to us in terms of overstating emission reductions or are we doing well? Are we actually really doing well in reducing greenhouse gas emissions or increasing solar or wind? We’ve just got a really, really broad user base.
Matt: That’s so important, isn’t it? It’s to provide a baseline understanding of what the situation is and also from a position of authority. In this age of misinformation and fake news... as we speak, we’re moving through US midterms and all the issues around what is trusted information. Is that something that you’ve had to encounter in order to ensure that your users believe the information that you’re presenting to them?
Hannah: Yeah, for sure. Our whole thing is grounded on trust. If people don’t trust the data that we provide, then our whole reputation just crumbles. We take that stuff really seriously. One thing that helps that or helps potential biases that we could put into the way we present the data... people think that data is just data but there is a way to present data that can tell a particular story.
For example, during the Covid pandemic, it was very easy for global leaders to paint their country in a good light by presenting data only next to countries that were doing really, really badly. There are different ways of presenting the data that tell the story you want to tell. I think one check that we have on that is that we have a very diverse team in terms of disciplines even. I do the environmental stuff but we have researchers on economics, health and other dimensions that might be a little bit in conflict with some of the story I would maybe tell, so I think that’s one check.
I think another big one that we really like to see is actually seeing people argue back and forward but using our data. People will be entrenched in an argument but they’ll always be coming back to our source of data to have this back-and-forward argument. We like to hold this kind of very non-partisan position where we actually have people on the left and the right having an argument but they’re using the same data grounded in the middle. I think, for us, that’s quite positive and although they might have very different opinions, they’re at least trying to come at it from the point of view of empirical, evidence-based facts which is maybe not the end point but is maybe a starting point.
Matt: Yeah, I find that interesting. Exactly, what narrative are we going to explore is almost, in itself, a kind of political decision, or at least what’s a priority? I find that fascinating; this notion of having a non-partisan or at least a political spectrum represented there, but also a disciplinary spectrum.
So as a fellow researcher, interdisciplinary research is often at the forefront of tackling these wicked global problems, not least climate change. I wanted to ask about your own background and how you arrived here. You’ve mentioned the environment a few times but how did you get into this? You’re a well-renowned researcher in your own right at Oxford as well. How did you arrive here?
Hannah: I did all of my training at Edinburgh. I love the university there. My bachelor's was very much in environmental geoscience. That was very broad actually, which is part of why I liked it. Climate was one part of it but there was also oceanography, meteorology and earth systems, so really, really broad across all the kind of environmental disciplines which I really enjoyed. But then I went on to do a Masters in Carbon Management. I think you’ve had Dave Reay on this show previously.
Matt: Yes, we certainly have.
Hannah: He was my professor on that programme. Why I wanted to do that masters is because I felt I had the scientific background in climate change but what was really good about that programme was that it was a mix of the sciences but also the business school and the economics department. It was a very nice interdisciplinary course where I had the science background already but I didn’t have any business background or any economics background and I felt like having that whole package to understand these problems would be much more useful. That’s kind of why I chose that and then I went on to my PhD and actually Dave Reay was my supervisor.
There, I very much looked at food systems and environmental impacts but not just looking at the environmental end but trying to bring in the nutritional health lens of it; not only how we could reduce the environmental impacts of food but how we could feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet without wrecking the planet at the same time. That was the broad question of my PhD.
Matt: This begs the question what are some of the answers around that? I follow your Twitter account and I think in the last few days, in fact, you were responding to some media coverage around food to eat and what are the best foods to eat or not eat with respect to emissions. Maybe looking at some of the data you’ve drawn out and spotlighted with Our World in Data and thinking of our listeners very keen to know what might be some of the good or bad decisions around food and climate, is there anything you might be able to share there like top tips?
Hannah: For sure. I could talk on this topic all day [laughter]. The food stuff is just always really politically charged because we feel really passionately about the food that we eat. It’s what we put in our bodies. It’s really, really crucial to health and so I get why people are really charged by it and the debates get very fiery around it definitely from an individual choice point of view. I actually think food is probably where we can have the biggest difference individually. You could argue we have some impacts in terms of energy, for example, but we’re making these food choices three or four times a day and you really can just pick whatever you want to eat. I know there are price considerations but for a lot of us, we can really pick whatever we want.
My top tip, and by far the biggest one, is just to eat less meat overall but specifically beef and lamb. That’s just what emerges from the research time and time again. It’s not even like there are tiny differences. It’s 50% higher. We’re literally talking ten times higher or something. So even really small substitutions, like substituting out beef, is by far the biggest change that you could make to your diet.
Matt: On the substitutions thing, this is a topic of discussion that comes up time and time again within my family and friends who say, ‘We’re going to swap this out and that’s bad...’ - okay, whatever that decision is based on but hopefully some meaningful data such as what you’re profiling – ‘...and we’re going to bring this in.’ With this notion of substituting, it’s at the forefront of decarbonising our food and the environmental impact of that food but are there any substitutes that you’ve come across in terms of the data that actually may be the wrong call and the data that you’ve spotlighted makes that argument?
Hannah: I think when it comes to beef and lamb, just because they’re such large outliers, you could basically substitute anything and it would be a positive change. Some of the substitutions which actually don’t make a big difference are, for example... I think the organic one is big. We assume automatically that organic food substitution would really lower your carbon footprint and environmental footprint when actually, that’s just not true. It could actually potentially increase it.
I think the other big one that I see a lot is always eating local food. People assume that if they substitute something coming from the other side of the world for something produced locally, then automatically they will just reduce their carbon footprint. I see this argument a lot, for example, with local beef. People recognise that beef might have a high carbon footprint but if I’m buying my local beef, then that must surely be better than shipping or flying soy or avocados in from South America but when you actually crunch the numbers... most food is not transported by plane as that’s just really inefficiently and costly and most comes by ship and shipping is very carbon efficient. So actually, it does not make a large difference to the footprint of your food in terms of how far it’s travelling. With soy and avocado, shipping that from South America is just not going to increase your carbon footprint enough for it to be worse than local beef.
Matt: Obviously, Our World in Data covers the world and its data relating to these global challenges and if we just keep the focus on climate here, are there any other really counterintuitive findings that have popped out of this data that you’ve actually stopped in your tracks and thought, ‘Wow!’ You’re a very informed researcher dealing with this all the time. Did you ever think, ‘I wasn’t expecting that’ and there has been much greater interest as a result from the media, public or otherwise?
Hannah: I think a lot of my work comes from questions I had myself or wasn’t clear on. For example, the travel distance one is important. I think I probably massively overestimated how much emissions come from transport and where it’s coming from. A concern I had going more vegetarian or vegan was this link between soy and Amazon deforestation and are our substitutions of these products really destroying the Amazon and, therefore, really, really bad for the climate. When you look at the data, more than 75% of soy is going to animal feed and in the UK and the EU, because most of the soy grown in Brazil is genetically modified and EU regulations basically mean that we can’t consume that directly, the soy that we’d be eating here is just not the soy that’s destroying the Amazon. Most of that is going into animal feed.
Matt: It gets very complicated very quickly in terms of the land use implications from all of this but a lot of the data that I end up surfing on your website and others, at the end of the day, boils down to what decisions do we make on the basis of what the data is telling us. Are these decisions I, as an individual, can take or are they decisions that ultimately fall to somebody else like maybe a much bigger entity like government, industry or maybe somebody, as a consumer, I can apply pressure to or as a voter?
Yeah, in terms of tackling climate change, what is the relative importance of individual decisions versus societal or broader government or industry decisions where you’re talking about a conglomeration of decision-makers having to move en masse, as a herd, towards the same goal?
Hannah: I think there’s one thing to caveat there. Going back to what we talked about earlier, Our World in Data’s position is presenting data and information largely in a way that people can digest. I think there we walk a very fine line between presenting the data and also almost forcing decisions on people. We never tell people, ‘This is what you should do,’ or ‘This is what you have to do.’ We kind of walk this fine line of presenting the data and letting people use that data to inform their decisions. I would never tell someone to eat less beef. I would say if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, then you could eat less beef [laughter].
Matt: Yeah, I understand.
Hannah: Actually, some people come back and say, ‘I’m not that bothered about the climate.’ Okay, that’s fine and I’m not going to force that on them. To get back to the question in terms of what role individuals play, I think there are a couple of really, really massive changes that you can make in terms of your personal carbon footprint and that take you maybe 80% of the way there. We’re used to these books or articles that suggest 100 ways to save the planet or sometimes even more. I think some of the problems with that is that it completely overwhelms us where our heads are spinning all day trying to make decisions that really stress us out. We worry we’ve made that wrong decision about whether we use the hand dryer or a paper towel.
When it comes down to it, most of those decisions just don’t make a big difference. It’s fine if you want to do them but I think some of my concern there is that we almost reach this level of fatigue where we feel like we’re constantly making these decisions all the time and actually, nothing is really moving. Some can come back and say, ‘Why am I even doing this? Nothing is changing. I’m massively changing my whole life because I’m constantly making decisions.’ I think we need to get clear on what the big things are that we can do that really shift the needle.
Matt: You mentioned food. What else?
Hannah: In terms of food, the big things you can do are eat less meat, specifically beef and lamb, even if that’s substituting for chicken or pork is actually massive for your carbon footprint; reducing dairy intake, so plant-based substitutes are very good there; reducing food waste is the other big massive one. There’s one that we don’t really talk about but is important which is overconsumption in general. A lot of us just eat too much above our requirements which, in some ways, is the same as food waste.
Matt: If we’re moving outside of food, what are the other big-ticket items? I like this idea of focusing on the things that shift the dial. Is it transport or are we having to look at energy efficiency in the home? Am I way off?
Hannah: No, that’s correct. Food is a big one. In terms of energy, there are just a couple of massive things you can do. At home, by far the biggest one is insulation. Heating, especially in the UK, is just massive in terms of our energy footprint; so insulation in the home, which is not doable for everyone. I rent a flat and so it’s out of my control but if you can do that, great. Transport is also massive, so flying is obviously really big but then also driving. So that’s either getting rid of your car or another big one is if you can’t get rid of your car, then switch to an electric vehicle. There’s always this debate or I get loads of pushback that driving an EV is just as bad as driving petrol which is just completely false.
Matt: From a carbon perspective, for sure.
Hannah: From a carbon perspective, yes. Especially in the UK, we get a lot of our electricity from low-carbon sources now but even for countries where most of their electricity comes from coal like China, for example... even in China, an electric vehicle is better than a petrol one. That myth is completely false.
Matt: I’m really fascinated by how you take those key lessons... the data which anybody can access on your website, I’m assuming, will point you in the right direction. It won’t tell you to do these things but it will say, ‘If you want to achieve these ends, these are the actions you need to take.’ From your experience of Our World in Data but also your own experiences as a researcher and increasingly, I think all academics are having to do much more around public engagement and trying to translate, as you say, these research findings into something that makes sense to the everyday person.
What are the big lessons you’ve learnt about getting that data out there? What’s the bridge there between the data and actually getting individuals to take these actions?
Hannah: I think one of the big ones is identifying what questions people have. I think a core part of my job is looking at what questions people have and saying, ‘Has the research already answered this?’ And 99% of the time, the research has already answered it.
You asked me earlier how I got into this and I think that’s kind of the reason why I like this bridging role between academia rather than being right in academia. A core part of what Our World in Data does relies on the fact that the research already has most of the answers to the questions that people have. It’s just that it’s not getting out there, so it’s my job to get it out there. I think it’s about addressing people’s questions or preparing people for that dinner-table chat where they get pushback and equipping them with evidence that refutes what Uncle Tom says about beef or renewables using so much land. It’s answering the core questions and pushback that people have.
Matt: I find that really interesting and if I may flag another website which I think tries to do a similar thing with the Carbon Brief and some of the excellent work that comes through that with Simon Evans and colleagues which I think probably doing it in a slightly different way but trying to identify these questions.
This is a question that a lot of people are asking at the moment. What is the answer? A bit of a fact-checking exercise. Is that enough? Ultimately, is the work that you’re doing through Our World in Data and maybe colleagues at Carbon Brief reaching the people, the Uncle Toms that you’ve just mentioned, who have a completely alternative reality view of the role of beef or flying? How do we reach them and what’s the role of data and the bridging exercise that you’re undertaking? How do you reach these individuals?
Hannah: I think with some individuals, you won’t reach them by using data on climate. I think for some people, it’s just not in line with their values, or they just don’t care a lot about climate, or they don’t believe that climate change is real. Just shoving data about climate down their necks is not going to do that and I’m very aware that it’s not going to do that.
How you reach those people is to make the incentive such that it doesn’t matter whether they believe in climate change or not. It just makes sense for them to make those changes. I think energy is a really core example there where even if you don’t believe that climate change is real, it just makes economic sense to switch to solar, wind or nuclear because that’s just the cheap option. You just need to make the sustainable option the cheap option. I think economics just plays a massive, massive role there.
You’ve seen, for example, when Trump came into office, he was very dead set on saying, ‘We’re going to get coal up and running again.’ If you look at what happened to coal consumption in the US during his term, it fell and it fell because economically, it just doesn’t make sense for the US. He didn’t do that because he was really passionate about climate change. That happened because that’s just how the economics worked out.
I think for the people that are not directly engaged in the climate or environmental discussions, you need to meet them where they are and find out what incentives would push them to the sustainable choice anyway and a lot of that just comes down to economics.
Matt: So then that’s about potentially a different audience and so if you’re trying to ensure that the most environmentally sustainable choice is the most economic choice, then clearly the data that you’re curating and bridging needs to speak to those that can make those policy and investment decisions and that they crucially have a vested interest in delivering a more environmentally sustainable planet.
At the same time, assuming that those changes are made, then your role, I guess, is presenting the economic implications of these actions. As you say, the data you’re presenting is not the carbon emissions reduction of insulating your home but how much you might save per annum...
Hannah: Exactly.
Matt: ... and that would bring in a different audience who would then maybe be more meaningfully engaged in the data.
Hannah: Exactly. Yeah, you could use that for energy sources, so like solar is now way cheaper than coal but you can obviously use that from a transport perspective. Look how much money your electric vehicle is going to save you. I think when it comes back to personal responsibility and what role we play, that’s often where people really engaged in climate are like the early movers that move it for the rest of the world. The way that the sustainable options have become the cheapest is basically through scale and build-up of these sources over time. That only happened because people bought them early when they were more expensive.
For example, if you go back ten years, solar was almost ten times as expensive as it is now. It’s now way cheaper than coal but previously, it was way, way more expensive than coal. The only reason we’ve achieved that is that we’ve deployed more and more solar because people have adopted it early.
It’s the same with, for example, meat substitutes. If you buy meat substitutes in the supermarket, what you’re doing there is basically pushing the price down. The hope is that we will be able to push the price down quickly enough and that it will just be much, much cheaper than meat. We could roll it out globally as this really cheap but high-quality protein source. So as a consumer, when you’re buying these products or making these decisions, you’re not just doing it for your personal carbon footprint. You’re basically pushing down the price for everyone else and making it their default option as well.
Matt: That’s fascinating. I’m thinking maybe retrospectively and your years working on this is what kind of key data do you think really needs to be transmitted and translated to not just the general public but our politicians in order to make that progress? What are the key points we need to be landing with the data, year in and year out, to keep climate progress on track?
Hannah: For me, the biggest one is how quickly things have changed in only a few years. I was at Paris in 2015 and just the mood and the optimism that I have now is wildly different from seven years ago. I think that’s just because if you look at data from 2015 in terms of the growth in energy sources and the policies that were on the table, it was really, really not looking good.
Based on current targets, we’re still going to be above 2 degrees, but it’s come down massively since 2015 and I’m way more optimistic about it. I think what’s key to that is the rapid change that’s only happened in the last few years. If you’re looking at data from 2018, you’re just wildly out of date. To keep up with this stuff, you need to be looking at the most recent data because a lot of the trends are going up and up incredibly quickly. I think it’s about trying to keep up with the last few years.
Matt: Being a bit more specific, what gives you the greatest hope and positivity with some of these trends? When you wake up in the morning, what gives you a little spring in your step and you think, ‘Actually, you know what, maybe we have cracked this’?
Hannah: I think, for me, it’s the plunging costs of low-carbon technologies. Because we’re not going to get absolutely everyone on board and people have other priorities... I mean I’m obsessed with climate change but not everyone is obsessed with climate change and maybe I think they should be but in reality, people really care about prices, economics, global poverty and inequality. I think what’s key to it is the economics of it and if you look at the economics over the last few years, low-carbon technologies have just absolutely plunged.
Matt: Good. I mean we ought to chat more often because [laughter] you’re giving me a lot of reasons to be positive. Actually, as COPs roll around, invariably, I think it’s fair to say that a lot of the coverage tends to be quite pessimistic, and this is a personal opinion now, and almost on purpose because I think it’s about... we need to do more, we need to do more. Is your general sense that actually, maybe we can avoid the worst of this? In the current direction of travel, economically and politically, do you genuinely have hope?
Hannah: Yeah, I do. That’s not a complacent hope. It’s not just going to happen itself and it’s going to be quite difficult but I am optimistic. One of the things that makes me optimistic, beyond plunging costs, is that I’ve been making this chart for years updating where globally we might end up based on, for example, the pledges that every country has made or the targets that they’ve set.
Basically, every year, I bring that further and further down because we were heading to a world that was maybe 3 degrees warmer and I think people still have in their head that we’re heading for 3 degrees or 4 degrees, but actually when you look at the pledges that are on the table, we’re going to end up just above 2 degrees, like 2.1 degrees or something. Targets are a little bit higher because we haven’t brought our policies in line with our pledges but the fact that it’s coming down and down and very close to 20 makes me very optimistic. That means that governments think that that’s achievable and it actually gives us something to hold them to account.
Matt: That’s a really important point because I think apathy is one of the most dangerous emotions that we can have in reaction to this. If there’s demonstrable evidence-based progress that is being made, that then almost drives further action... that notion of momentum. I agree... I was in Paris and it was really on a knife edge. It felt like the beginning of something and moving into that, so I completely agree, Hannah.
Maybe just to finish, trying to bring this back to the local and the individual and just thinking a little bit more personally about your life, where you live and your background, is there anything in particular or any advice you’d give to our listeners about what they can do to try and shift the dial? You’ve mentioned some of the big lifestyle changes but is there anything you’ve learnt over the years that gives you that sense of optimism on a personal level, so things that you do that you think really matter?
Hannah: Yeah, I think for many years, I was quite despondent after my degrees. Being like almost hit in the face every day with the realities of climate change made me very despondent because I did feel like nothing was happening but I think the reality is, especially in the last few years, things really are happening and I definitely use that momentum to make these changes.
So beyond the big lifestyle changes that I mentioned previously, an underrated concept is the handprint. We focus a lot on how we reduce our personal footprint and that’s basically trying to cause as little damage as we possibly can which is fair and reasonable but I think we need to be a bit more ambitious on that.
By that, I mean what I would frame as the handprint which is not just about your personal impact but the impact you have on people around you and the impact you could have on policies and innovations. That’s how you vote, that’s how you communicate with other people and that is the products you buy in the supermarket, as I mentioned earlier, that will drive down the prices and make sustainable options available for everyone in the world.
I think we focus so much on this personal reduction of harm which is a good start but it’s not enough. I think we can do way more by extending our contributions beyond ourselves.
Matt: Hannah, it’s been an absolute pleasure to speak to you. In terms of your handprint with more than a million readers, your stat every month, and I think you said even 100 million over the year, your handprint will be huge. Congratulations on all the fantastic work you’re doing. Thank you very much and you’re welcome back anytime.
Hannah: Thank you very much for having me.
Matt: Huge thanks to Dr Hannah Ritchie of Our World in Data, hosted at the University of Oxford. What a fantastic chat and incredibly inspiring. I’m really thrilled to have her along. Our usual reminder to please follow us @LocalZeroPod on Twitter whilst it still exists. We haven’t abandoned the sinking ship just yet [laughter]. I saw a tweet earlier from Chris in Edinburgh saying he’s moved over to Mastadon. God speed. Maybe we’ll follow soon.
Also if you have anything longer to share with us, please, please email us at LocalZeroPod@gmail.com if you want to share those thoughts.
Finally, it would massively help us out if you could just take 15 seconds of your day to rate and review Local Zero on Apple Podcasts. It gives us a massive boost and it also helps us to get the word out there to more people about Local Zero. But until then and until the next show, bye-bye.