Chart debunks claim in ‘stunningly ignorant’ Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson climate crisis discussion

Sign up to the Independent Climate email for the latest advice on saving the planet

Get our free Climate email

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

During a recent meeting of the minds on Joe Rogan's podcast, Dr Jordan Peterson – a former professor beloved on the right for telling adult men to clean their rooms and complaining about trans issues, feminism, and cancel culture – claimed that there was "no such thing as climate”.

Mr Peterson’s comments – and Mr Rogan’s lack of pushback back on them – resulted in a flood of climate scientists calling the discussion “stunningly ignorant” and “whackadoo.”

Dressed in a tuxedo, Mr Peterson croaked out a cascade of other questionable claims, such as the inability for scientists to produce a reliable climate model, which is false, and that more people die of solar power than nuclear due to falling off roofs.

On Twitter, Carbon Brief climate reporter Josh Gabbatiss checked Mr Peterson's claims, curious if deaths by solar truly were higher than those in nuclear.

"Jordan Peterson told Joe Rogan that more people die from falling off roofs installing solar panels than from nuclear power and I thought ya know what, he might actually be right about something. But then I checked and no, he is indeed wrong, according to @OurWorldInData," Mr Gabbatiss wrote.

Our World In Data's graphic suggests that there are more deaths from accidents and air pollution per terawatt-hour in the nuclear industry – 0.07 deaths per TWh versus .02 deaths per TWh in solar.

This would appear to undermine Mr Peterson's claim that roofers were raining from the skies, but there is some data to back the academic's claims.

First, though the data at Our World In Data was republished in 2016, its sources are from 2007 and it is unclear if further updates have been added to the chart. The solar industry is significantly more prevalent today than it was in 2007.

Second, a 2012 analysis conducted by a Forbes opinion columnist pulling from several data sets found that nuclear truly was less dangerous than solar. According to that table, rooftop solar experienced 440 deaths per trillion kilowatt hours of energy produced, while nuclear only saw 90 deaths per Kwhrs.

A quick search also shows that as the solar industry continues to grow, so do workplace injuries, including falls from roofs, some of which are fatal.

Maybe, with the latest data – adjusted for industry growth – it would reveal that nuclear is safer than solar power. Maybe it wouldn’t. Either way, the differences between the two industries in terms of safety is negligible when compared to the fossil fuel industry.

Every single source of fossil fuel dwarfs nuclear and solar when it comes to deaths by accident and air pollution. Obviously those are larger industries with more workers, but they also actively produce air pollution - solar, wind, and hydropower do not - which drives up the number of deaths.

Oil, coal, and "brown" coal represent 18.43, 24.62 and 32.72 deaths per TWh. Biomass - which is a popular wood-based fuel used across the EU that is ostensibly carbon neutral but not really - experiences 4.63 deaths per TWh, putting it above gas power, which represents 2.82 deaths per TWh.

While Mr Peterson runs in semantic circles on Mr Rogan's podcast and picks fights between alternative energy sources with razor-thin differences in accident rates, the data shows that the most culpable drivers of climate change- the fossil fuel industry - also are the most dangerous for workers and for anyone who breaths air.