Extreme poverty worldwide is down from 38% to 8.5% since 2000. Global median income has doubled in that period. And yes, that’s adjusted for inflation.
Oh, and renewable energy generation as share of the global energy mix has consistently beaten expectations during that period, too. Solar, specifically.
Bullshit. Global inequality is on a constant rise. The extreme poverty crap is propaganda by the world bank who lowered the poverty line for no other reason than to make capitalism look good.
That stuff about renewaple energy is simple greenwashing. The only year since 2000 when CO2 emissions went down was in 2020 thanks to COVID.
Doesn’t look that way to me, given that the change has been pretty smooth and shows up on specific regions and adjusting for outliers and inflation (and matches the rise in median income).
More importantly, it’s not incompatible with global inequality on the rise. Different stats measure different things.
Renewable energy beating expectations is the opposite of greenwashing, it specifically compares actual generated renewable energy against previous projections. If you want to poke holes into it for the sake of… denying anything good has ever happened, I guess? you should instead point out at how disproportionately that growth is driven by China.
And again, that’s perfectly compatible with CO2 emissions going up. Different stats, different things.
And again, that’s perfectly compatible with CO2 emissions going up. Different stats, different things.
The only reason to care about renewables is if they prevent climate change. Why am I supposed to be happy solar panels exist, if CO2 emissions are increasing?
Because more solar means that the increase in CO2 was much less than it would’ve otherwise been without solar. An ocean liner doesn’t turn on a dime. First emissions increase less than they would’ve, then they increase at rates lower than years past, then they stop increasing, and then finally they can begin decreasing
Because those are two separate parameters. Less solar panels don’t mean less CO emissions, they mean more. You are cutting down on one metric even if you’re not reversing the trend.
That is an absurd question, by the way. Why are you supposed to be unhappy we’re making more solar panels in this scenario? What is the downside?
Bullshit. Global inequality is on a constant rise.
You are one of the many who has equivocated the ‘wealth gap’ with the incidence of poverty, when there is no direct casual relationship between them at all.
All the wealth gap essentially is is just a label of who has the most wealth. But you don’t need to be anywhere close to that to be stable/comfortable.
Fact: if everyone on Earth was poor, the wealth gap would be zero. A small/non-existent wealth gap does not equal things being in good shape.
Fact: The correlation between the size of the gap and the incidence of poverty in world history is negative–in other words, long ago, the gap was smaller, and many more people were desperately poor.
Fact: It is absolutely possible for there to be a wealth gap, even one as large or larger than the one we have presently, while no one is poor. Further, it’s extremely unlikely that the hypothetical total eradication of poverty would shrink the gap at all, or even slow its growth.
Fact: If you waved a magic wand so that everyone in every county of the US, for example, had their income raised to the median, essentially wiping out poverty nationwide, the size of the wealth gap would literally be unchanged–the gap from broke to comfortable is nothing compared to the gap between comfortable and ‘wealthiest on the planet’.
New wealth is created constantly, it is not zero sum and never has been. And there will always be someone who has the most.
P.S. The World Bank’s poverty line has never been lowered that I can see, only raised, most recently in 2022 from $1.90 to $2.15 per day. So no idea what you’re talking about with ‘lowering the poverty line to make capitalism look good’.
Interesting video, thanks. I think the main point is that most (historical) data has a lot of gaps and wrong interpretations / extrapolation. People like Pinker seem to (perhaps just ignorantly) somewhat cherry pick data and use it as an argument for their optimistic statement.
I don’t know too much about the median income, but I’d wager that it was mostly because the really poor country got a bit better off. Also, at least according to Wikipedia, the latest definition of extreme poverty was made in 2015, before the recent inflation spikes.
And “beat expectations” is just a non-statement. What were the expectations? And how does it matter if we’re still on track for a climate catastrophe? We’ve crossed the 1.5°C target.
but I’d wager that it was mostly because the really poor country got a bit better off.
That’s what happened. The bimodal world income distribution has become unimodal as the working class of East Asia has seen a lot of improvement. Inequality in the first world went up since a lot of working class jobs left their countries while the wealthy were able to get richer.
Hey, I’ll take poor countries getting a bit better off before any benefits to any American any day. That’s good news, so point made.
As for “beat expectations”, I was going off a specific study showing multiple official forecasts and how far behind actuals they all were, but unfortunately I don’t have it handy.
I don’t know why people look at this as such a binary. Climate change isn’t an on-off switch. This has to happen regardless. Faster is better than slower. Climate catastrophe or not, we need to figure this out, it’s about how bad things get before we do and how much extra work and impact we have to deal with from going over certain thresholds. Going over 1.5 doesn’t mean we can give up now, we still have to get the renewable transition done, even if now we also have to deal with a bunch of humanitarian crises that wouldn’t have happened had we transitioned sooner.
Cool, but that’s unrelated. We need the energy transition to happen anyway. Energy consumption is still climbing regardless, so we still need to move things over to renewables on top of whatever other actions we take. When it comes to climate stuff people tend to want a silver bullet or claim that anything short of that is useless, which I find kind of infuriatingly counterproductive.
Also, data centre power consumption has been up on aggregate on a very smooth curve since the 2000s. AI or no, those things have been burning through an increasing amount of energy over time. They need to generate that energy from clean sources in any case, which requires a faster energy transition.
Incidentally, I don’t know if AI datacenters have “erased all gains”. I don’t have a direct comparison handy, but the numbers I see around for those two things seem an order of magnitude apart. If you have good sources I’d love to take a look, though.
That’s the best part, though, solar adoption has beaten forecasts consistently over time. Most revisions upwards have still been too conservative.
Now, is that fueled by an energy crisis in turn caused by war, making self-generation and energy independence more appealing? Maaaaybe. But still, sun power!
I don’t accept the premise that “solar is only good because climate change is bad”. Where does that come from? Solar power is the longest-running energy source we have, it’s good for distributed generation, and climate change or not, most people don’t like to suck on a car’s exhaust, so it is cleaner for more reasons than the large scale effects of CO2 emissions.
And on the flipside it’s consistently inconsistent, has lots of challenges for storage and it mostly produces electricity, which then needs to be stored, sent and converted into useful stuff.
Solar adoption is good overall AND solar adoption is better than the alternative regarding climate change, all else being equal.
And since all else is equal, because climate change isn’t stopping to wait for renewable adoption, solar adoption is good regardless of the climate deteriorating faster than expected. Those two things just aren’t dependent on each other. Hell, if anything, faster man-made climate change necessitates faster renewables adoption.
What’s your premise here, even? Take an actual stance. If “fast solar power adoption good” is not a valid statement, what IS a valid statement?
Extreme poverty worldwide is down from 38% to 8.5% since 2000. Global median income has doubled in that period. And yes, that’s adjusted for inflation.
Oh, and renewable energy generation as share of the global energy mix has consistently beaten expectations during that period, too. Solar, specifically.
Bullshit. Global inequality is on a constant rise. The extreme poverty crap is propaganda by the world bank who lowered the poverty line for no other reason than to make capitalism look good.
That stuff about renewaple energy is simple greenwashing. The only year since 2000 when CO2 emissions went down was in 2020 thanks to COVID.
Doesn’t look that way to me, given that the change has been pretty smooth and shows up on specific regions and adjusting for outliers and inflation (and matches the rise in median income).
More importantly, it’s not incompatible with global inequality on the rise. Different stats measure different things.
Renewable energy beating expectations is the opposite of greenwashing, it specifically compares actual generated renewable energy against previous projections. If you want to poke holes into it for the sake of… denying anything good has ever happened, I guess? you should instead point out at how disproportionately that growth is driven by China.
And again, that’s perfectly compatible with CO2 emissions going up. Different stats, different things.
The only reason to care about renewables is if they prevent climate change. Why am I supposed to be happy solar panels exist, if CO2 emissions are increasing?
Because more solar means that the increase in CO2 was much less than it would’ve otherwise been without solar. An ocean liner doesn’t turn on a dime. First emissions increase less than they would’ve, then they increase at rates lower than years past, then they stop increasing, and then finally they can begin decreasing
Because those are two separate parameters. Less solar panels don’t mean less CO emissions, they mean more. You are cutting down on one metric even if you’re not reversing the trend.
That is an absurd question, by the way. Why are you supposed to be unhappy we’re making more solar panels in this scenario? What is the downside?
You are one of the many who has equivocated the ‘wealth gap’ with the incidence of poverty, when there is no direct casual relationship between them at all.
All the wealth gap essentially is is just a label of who has the most wealth. But you don’t need to be anywhere close to that to be stable/comfortable.
Fact: if everyone on Earth was poor, the wealth gap would be zero. A small/non-existent wealth gap does not equal things being in good shape.
Fact: The correlation between the size of the gap and the incidence of poverty in world history is negative–in other words, long ago, the gap was smaller, and many more people were desperately poor.
Fact: It is absolutely possible for there to be a wealth gap, even one as large or larger than the one we have presently, while no one is poor. Further, it’s extremely unlikely that the hypothetical total eradication of poverty would shrink the gap at all, or even slow its growth.
Fact: If you waved a magic wand so that everyone in every county of the US, for example, had their income raised to the median, essentially wiping out poverty nationwide, the size of the wealth gap would literally be unchanged–the gap from broke to comfortable is nothing compared to the gap between comfortable and ‘wealthiest on the planet’.
New wealth is created constantly, it is not zero sum and never has been. And there will always be someone who has the most.
P.S. The World Bank’s poverty line has never been lowered that I can see, only raised, most recently in 2022 from $1.90 to $2.15 per day. So no idea what you’re talking about with ‘lowering the poverty line to make capitalism look good’.
I’m a bit rusty on the details, but further details are discussed in this video.
Interesting video, thanks. I think the main point is that most (historical) data has a lot of gaps and wrong interpretations / extrapolation. People like Pinker seem to (perhaps just ignorantly) somewhat cherry pick data and use it as an argument for their optimistic statement.
More plebs suffering under capital owners = global poverty rate went down
deleted by creator
I guess that’s why America has so many school shootings 🤡
Name another country with the same problem
I don’t know too much about the median income, but I’d wager that it was mostly because the really poor country got a bit better off. Also, at least according to Wikipedia, the latest definition of extreme poverty was made in 2015, before the recent inflation spikes.
And “beat expectations” is just a non-statement. What were the expectations? And how does it matter if we’re still on track for a climate catastrophe? We’ve crossed the 1.5°C target.
That’s what happened. The bimodal world income distribution has become unimodal as the working class of East Asia has seen a lot of improvement. Inequality in the first world went up since a lot of working class jobs left their countries while the wealthy were able to get richer.
Hey, I’ll take poor countries getting a bit better off before any benefits to any American any day. That’s good news, so point made.
As for “beat expectations”, I was going off a specific study showing multiple official forecasts and how far behind actuals they all were, but unfortunately I don’t have it handy.
But the data is the data, so here’s another example from an Australian blog post: https://evcricketenergy.wordpress.com/2025/01/02/2030-renewables-in-australia-forecast-2024-update/
And some data on renewable generation overtaking fossil fuels in the EU: https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2024/09/Report_Wind-and-solar-overtake-EU-fossil-fuels-in-the-first-half-of-2024.pdf
I don’t know why people look at this as such a binary. Climate change isn’t an on-off switch. This has to happen regardless. Faster is better than slower. Climate catastrophe or not, we need to figure this out, it’s about how bad things get before we do and how much extra work and impact we have to deal with from going over certain thresholds. Going over 1.5 doesn’t mean we can give up now, we still have to get the renewable transition done, even if now we also have to deal with a bunch of humanitarian crises that wouldn’t have happened had we transitioned sooner.
But energy use is way up and AI data centers have erased all gains from renewables.
Care to source that statement? What’s the global consumption for AI compared to production by renewables?
Cool, but that’s unrelated. We need the energy transition to happen anyway. Energy consumption is still climbing regardless, so we still need to move things over to renewables on top of whatever other actions we take. When it comes to climate stuff people tend to want a silver bullet or claim that anything short of that is useless, which I find kind of infuriatingly counterproductive.
Also, data centre power consumption has been up on aggregate on a very smooth curve since the 2000s. AI or no, those things have been burning through an increasing amount of energy over time. They need to generate that energy from clean sources in any case, which requires a faster energy transition.
Incidentally, I don’t know if AI datacenters have “erased all gains”. I don’t have a direct comparison handy, but the numbers I see around for those two things seem an order of magnitude apart. If you have good sources I’d love to take a look, though.
I suspect the claim that AI has consumed all gains is hyperbole, given that it used to be applied to crypto.
Regardless, those assholes are still using too much power, privatising the benefits, and socialising the fall out.
Sure? But, again, the question is whether there have been positive changes this century. Separate negative changes are not a counterpoint.
AI power consumption would have been AI power consumption. The unexpectedly fast adoption of solar is there regardless.
Obviously, that depends how you’re counting.
In the year 2,000, if you projected solar adoption, you might now be pleasantly surprised.
However in the year 2,000 if you projected progress on climate change, you’d probably now be horrified.
Solar adoption wouldn’t be a positive if not for climate change.
That’s the best part, though, solar adoption has beaten forecasts consistently over time. Most revisions upwards have still been too conservative.
Now, is that fueled by an energy crisis in turn caused by war, making self-generation and energy independence more appealing? Maaaaybe. But still, sun power!
That doesn’t address my point though.
Solar is only good because climate change is bad.
You can’t say “solar adoption is good” and ignore the climate deteriorating faster than expected.
I don’t accept the premise that “solar is only good because climate change is bad”. Where does that come from? Solar power is the longest-running energy source we have, it’s good for distributed generation, and climate change or not, most people don’t like to suck on a car’s exhaust, so it is cleaner for more reasons than the large scale effects of CO2 emissions.
And on the flipside it’s consistently inconsistent, has lots of challenges for storage and it mostly produces electricity, which then needs to be stored, sent and converted into useful stuff.
Solar adoption is good overall AND solar adoption is better than the alternative regarding climate change, all else being equal.
And since all else is equal, because climate change isn’t stopping to wait for renewable adoption, solar adoption is good regardless of the climate deteriorating faster than expected. Those two things just aren’t dependent on each other. Hell, if anything, faster man-made climate change necessitates faster renewables adoption.
What’s your premise here, even? Take an actual stance. If “fast solar power adoption good” is not a valid statement, what IS a valid statement?