Can we break the human development-environment trade-off?

Hannah Ritchie · 9 Dec 2025

Others here said this too

Cheap clean energy has broken the old trade-off between raising living standards and cutting environmental harm.

Their wordsThe rapid drop in renewable energy costs in the last decade (alongside huge improvements in battery technologies) has started to break this deadlock.

Also said by Casey Handmer

Read the piece on sustainabilitybynumbers.com ↗

4 korrents from this piece ↓

Hannah Ritchie did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
For the first time in history it is possible to improve human wellbeing and reduce environmental impact at the same time.

Their wordsMy argument is simple: for the first time in history, we can improve human wellbeing while reducing our environmental impact.
Our reading
Humans have never been sustainable: earlier generations had a lower environmental impact and lives that were much worse.

Their wordsBy this broader definition, humans have never been truly sustainable.
Our reading
Cheap clean energy has broken the old trade-off between raising living standards and cutting environmental harm.
Mental modelTrade-offs

Their wordsThe rapid drop in renewable energy costs in the last decade (alongside huge improvements in battery technologies) has started to break this deadlock.
Our reading
Breaking the trade-off between prosperity and the environment is an opportunity rather than something that will happen on its own.
Mental modelTrade-offs

Their wordsHere, I always emphasise that it is an opportunity, not an inevitability. There’s no law that says this will happen.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.