Jordan Peterson recently destroyed the EV agenda and its alleged planet-saving impact. Watch the video below.
The clip is from a recent interview where Peterson was discussing statistics from the UN Climate Panel and U.S. Government related to electric vehicles and climate change.
In light of climate change, Western nations have been in a frenzy to ditch fossil fuels and adopt green energy forms. Jordan Peterson fired back at this movement.
“Just 1.4% of cars globally are electric and battery electric cars will make up less than 10% of total U.S. automobile stock by 2050.”
“Less than one-fifth of all global cars will be battery electric by 2050. We simply do not yet have electric tractors or heavy trucks or airplanes or ships and fossil fuel infrastructure that allows such machinery to operate”
“We’ll have to stay intact for our supply chains. The world would produce 235 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide if we achieve all our ambitious stated transport targets in this decade.”
“The reduction will lower global temperatures by one ten-thousandth of a degree celsius by the end of the century.”
The points made here completely debunk the green energy movement and its purpose. If this data is true, which is allegedly from the UN and the U.S. Government, then it would render the current green activism pointless.
Peterson first points out the issue that EV adoption is currently really low around the world. He alleges that electric vehicles will comprise less than 10% of American automobiles and less than 20% globally by 2050.
This is problematic because carbon emissions goals are often contingent on projections of substantially higher EV adoption.
For example, some forecasts indicate that 90% of American vehicles would need to be electric by 2050 to meet the goal of net-zero carbon emissions.
As Peterson points out, we don’t have the infrastructure to support electric-based vehicles to such a scale. In the United States, the power grid is vulnerable and reports indicate that the mass adoption of electric transportation could further threaten it.
Moreover, Fossil fuels and nuclear are the most reliable components of our energy mix when compared to renewables like wind and solar. Despite this, we are phasing them out in favor of these green energy forms.
Therefore, our grid could become less reliable at a time when electricity demand increases significantly.
Furthermore, Jordan points out that the forms of transportation used in global supply chains currently have no viable EV forms. This includes airplanes, freight trucks, and ships.
It would likely compromise our supply chains and heavily disrupt economic activity if these transportation methods were quickly rushed into electric forms to meet emissions deadlines.
Assuming the data Peterson is citing in his last point is correct, the impact of this green activism would be negligible and have very little impact on the environment.
Going off that assumption, why would we sacrifice fossil fuels?
They provide unparalleled energy reliability, are the backbone of the global economy, and are largely responsible for the vastly improved standard of living in modern times.
"*" indicates required fields