Thank you for actually providing a good rejoinder to what I said.

I think he's an expert on energy and manufacturing, though as a software developer, I myself have also said to many friends I think he's off the mark about AI/ML. In 2019 he argued we were no where near machines that could "think", which I just believe is incorrect.

Having said that the original question was about EVs and their viability and on that front, I think he's on the mark. We simply don't have the materials or the energy grid to completely transition to EVs this decade, and that will likely get harder. The supply chain for petroleum involves roughly 5-8 countries. The supply chain for the batteries for the EVs involves roughly 50-something countries, and that's not even counting how most EVs are made of aluminum for weight considerations, which is 4-5 times more energy intensive to form than steel.

Where do you think he was wrong here?

"The End of The World is Just The Beginning" By Peter Zeihan

Specifically the chapters on energy and manufacturing.

Here's a short clip from JRE if you want a quick summary:

https://youtube.com/shorts/y-3srraCGUA?feature=share

I am a professional software developer. The Web3 space is full of scammers and sleezy car-salesmen-like crypto bros who think nothing of scamming the fuck out of the average individual through their bullshit marketing.

Consider that the designations "Web 1.0" and "Web 2.0" are RETROSPECTIVE. They describe the web as it has already been. These assholes are talking about "Web3" as though it's some technological inevitability.

Social media is fairly simple on a conceptual level and that didn't even become widespread until two decades into the intro of the web, and these assholes want to try to talking about entirely unproved architectures taking over perfectly functional systems that we already have in place.

I won't buy into Web3 until the entire space is cleansed of these greedy frat-bro fucks and replaced with autistic sysadmins who see daylight twice a week.

No we haven’t, the USA is one of the least involved developed economies in terms of its trade with the rest of the world. Much of our reductions come from the phasing out of coal fired plants and the increase in the use of much cleaner (albeit it not entirely emissions free) natural gas.

I stated that we are trending down over the last 20 years. You’re the one with “wrong facts” who said we are at an all time high.

Why did you describe a 20% reduction from the ATH in the 1980s as " the total emissions are almost at an all-time high."?

I was talking about total emissions, which are down, not at an all-time high.

Did you just say oil and gas interests are responsible for the drastic decrease in USA's emissions?

"You can drive an electric car"

"Emissions need to go to zero."

You don't know how electric cars are made, do you?

As I say below the comment you're replying to, your response is unscientific catastrophizing that needs data to back it up. We've already seen massive carbon reductions in the USA without taxing energy prices such that they would harm or kill poor people.

That's not true, the USA has had drastic decreases in carbon emissions over the last two decades in spite of not having these kinds of policies that would specifically harm the poorest in our society. How is someone supposed to warm their home in the winter or fill their car with gas for work when you've taxed energy so drastically?

I am sick and tired of the unscientific catastrophizing around this topic.

Policy proposals like this would harm the poorest in our society and likely kill millions of people if implemented globally.