More or Less (BBC Radio 4)

Episode: How close is Greenland to the United States?
Host: Tim Harford
Guests: Jay Foreman, Dr. Kat Phillips, Neil Hudson, Tom Coles
Date: January 21, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode of More or Less dives into misleading statistics and persistent myths across news, politics, and everyday life. The main segment tackles the oft-repeated claim that Greenland is “just 300 miles from the US”—scrutinizing the numbers behind this assertion and how our conventional world maps can warp our perceptions. The episode then moves on to dissect inflated figures on the cost of reaching net zero in the UK, unspools myths about ever-rising house prices, and even applies mathematical reasoning to the strategies of TV game show The Traitors.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. How Close is Greenland to the United States?

[02:27 – 06:52]

• The show parodies the “Map Man” theme to introduce Jay Foreman, co-creator of Map Men, for expert map-based fact-checking.

• Jay Foreman, referencing both physical globes and Google Earth, disputes the idea that “Greenland is 300 miles away” from the US.

  "Greenland is roughly 1,200 miles from the nearest US coast, which is Maine. And... it's 1,300 miles from Alaska."
  — Jay Foreman [03:23]

• Greenland is closer to the US than to Denmark (1,300 miles away), but the difference isn’t huge.

• The widespread misconception likely comes from the way Greenland is depicted on flat Mercator projection maps, which enlarge landmasses near the poles and skew distances.

  • On such maps, Greenland looks huge and close to North America.
  • In reality, maps distort both size and location at higher latitudes.

  "If you've ever looked at a flat rectangular map of the world. I have a hard hitting truth for you. That map was a lie."
  — Tim Harford [05:00]

• Africa, 14 times the size of Greenland, appears similarly large on the Mercator projection.

• The map myth might feed into political obsessions, such as Donald Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland.

  "There is a popular theory that the reason Donald Trump is so keen on Greenland is because he's been looking at the Mercator projection. And it looks like by acquiring [Greenland] he would enormously increase the size of the USA."
  — Jay Foreman [06:13]

Key Segment Timestamps:

• [02:27] Jay Foreman gives initial source and methods
• [03:23] True distances revealed
• [05:00] The “map was a lie”—how Mercator projection misleads
• [05:38] Greenland vs. Africa, India comparisons
• [06:13] The “Trump globe” theory and strategic value

2. Fact-Checking Net Zero Costs

[08:21 – 14:11]

• The press regularly cites a gross cost of £7.6 trillion for the UK's net zero transition by 2050—a figure that surfaces in multiple media outlets and a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).

• Tom Coles investigates: Is this number as terrifying as it sounds?

• The £7.6 trillion is not the extra cost of decarbonizing, but rather the total cash outlay for running the entire energy system through 2050 in a scenario where net zero is achieved.

  "It's the cost of running the entire energy system for the next 25 years in one scenario where the net zero target is hit...If net zero policies were abandoned tomorrow, that would also be trillions of pounds."
  — Tom Coles [11:21]

• The more useful figure is the difference between the net zero scenario and a “do nothing” scenario. NISO (National Energy System Operator) finds the cost difference is only £400 bn (7.6 – 7.2 trillion) over 25 years (about 0.4% of GDP per year).

• No one seems to have modeled the true cost of running the system with all net zero policies abandoned.

  "It feels like that might be a useful exercise."
  — Tom Coles [14:04]

Key Segment Timestamps:

• [08:29] The £7.6 trillion figure explained
• [10:03] What the figure actually means versus media interpretation
• [12:05] The cost difference between net zero and “less ambitious” scenarios

3. Can House Prices Defy Gravity?

[15:31 – 21:55]

• Tim Harford interviews housing analyst Neil Hudson about the trajectory of UK house prices.

• The conventional wisdom—house prices only go up—is undermined by recent history:

  • After the global financial crisis (2009), prices fell 20% in nominal terms.
  • The pandemic disrupted the market, but prices rebounded, hitting new highs until mid-2022.

  "For the last three years house prices have not continued to rise inexorably."
  — Tim Harford [15:31]

• The notorious "mini-budget" under Liz Truss in autumn 2022 caused a sharp spike in mortgage rates and a 6% nominal fall.

• Regional variation: Since late 2022,

  • London: Down ~4%
  • South of England: Down ~2.5%
  • Midlands: Up ~2%
  • North of England/Northern Ireland: Up ~4.5–5%

• Fluctuations are linked more to demand (affordability) than excess supply.

  "Where house prices are falling, that's not because of a glut of supply. Rather it's a dearth of demand. With mortgage rates and house prices where they are, people can't afford to buy houses, especially in London and the south."
  — Tim Harford [19:45]

• Annual growth rates differ for houses vs. flats, with flats lagging post-Grenfell safety concerns.

• Real, inflation-adjusted house prices are down 14% from the 2022 peak; relative to earnings, they are down 17%.

  "House prices have fallen by around about 17% relative to earnings over the period."
  — Neil Hudson [21:40]

Key Segment Timestamps:

• [16:38] House price trends over 20 years
• [17:46] Impact of the Liz Truss mini-budget
• [19:21] Regional house price variation
• [21:40] House prices vs. earnings

4. The Maths Behind TV’s “The Traitors”

[23:59 – 29:10]

• Dr. Kat Phillips (University of Warwick; Instagram: @katdoesmaths) joins Tim to explore the mathematical strategies possible in The Traitors game show.

• The faithful have numbers, but traitors have critical information—knowing who they are while the faithful guess.

• Bayesian probability can theoretically be applied: players update their assessment of who is a traitor based on accumulating evidence.

  "Mathematically, you should be collecting evidence...and use that evidence to try and update probability of everyone being a faithful or being a traitor."
  — Dr. Kat Phillips [25:38]

• Shannon Entropy (information theory) discussed: faithfuls want to minimize uncertainty, traitors can thrive by maximizing uncertainty and sowing suspicion broadly.

  "For the traitor's perspective, you have this wonderful opportunity to sort of increase the uncertainty by throwing aspersions on people who otherwise would have been classed as, oh, they're definitely a faithful."
  — Dr. Kat Phillips [28:25]

• Human nature often foils mathematical logic; players act on hunches and emotions, making the game less predictable.

  "Adding in that human noise and human error, logical gameplay does tend to go out the window."
  — Dr. Kat Phillips [27:20]

Key Segment Timestamps:

• [23:59] Role descriptions and information asymmetry
• [25:38] Bayesian updating in gameplay
• [27:48] Entropy and maximizing confusion
• [29:08] Human error and emotion in decision-making

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Mercator Maps:
  “If you've ever looked at a flat rectangular map of the world. I have a hard hitting truth for you. That map was a lie.” – Tim Harford [05:00]

• On Africa vs. Greenland:
  “On the Mercator projection, Greenland and Africa look more or less the same size, but in real life, Africa is 14 times bigger than Greenland.” – Jay Foreman [05:38]

• On Net Zero Numbers:
  “The gross cash outlay is not the cost of the big change. It's the cost of running the entire energy system for the next 25 years in one scenario where the net zero target is hit.” – Tom Coles [11:21]

• On House Prices:
  “House prices can indeed go down, but it looks like it's just a blip. They may have dropped, but they're coming back up again. Right? Well, it depends where you live.” – Tim Harford [18:44]

• On Game Theory in The Traitors:
  “There is also a mathematical approach to the problem. So how does a mathematician think about this game?” – Tim Harford [25:08]

  “Bayesian probability, and this is actually a type of Bayesian coordination game, basically says that... you actually have the odds of someone being traitor given an amount of evidence.” – Dr. Kat Phillips [25:58]

Episode Structure (Reference Timestamps)

• [02:27] Greenland–US distance: myth-busting with Jay Foreman
• [08:21] Net zero costs: examining headline statistics
• [15:31] House prices: historical perspective and current realities
• [23:59] The Traitors: applying probability and game theory

Tone and Style

The episode is lively, wry, and educational, balancing serious statistical myth-busting with gentle humor. The host, Tim Harford, keeps things approachable with playful analogies (e.g., comparing house price analysts to Galileo) and whimsical asides (the “Map Man” theme, jokes about Trump and globes). The guests are factual but tongue-in-cheek, breaking down technical concepts for a broad audience.

Bottom Line

If you’ve ever been misled by a map, a newspaper’s scary-sounding number, real estate cliché, or a reality TV strategy, this episode is your guide to seeing through the distortion, with a mix of sharp analysis and good-natured fun.