Skip to main content

All over Ontario, giant wind turbines are sprouting up across the rural landscape and ruining people's lives. Ordinary people are trying to fight them off in court, but they don't have a chance. The multinational wind industry has a lot more money than they do. The law is on Big Wind's side. So is Premier Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government, which has pledged to triple the number of wind and solar generators and stick taxpayers with the bill.

But the fundamental problem with Big Wind is much bigger than its cost and unreliability. The problem is that today's renewable energy technologies won't save us from the effects of climate change – and we're wasting our time by trying.

That's the conclusion Google has reached. Google has invested many years and significant resources in tackling the world's climate and energy problems. Its biggest initiative was called RE

Story continues below advertisement

Last week, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, two of the engineers at the heart of the REpublished an article describing what they learned, and why Google threw in the towel. "We had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists," they wrote. "We felt that with steady improvements to today's renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope."

The trouble is, the problem is just too big. Even the best-case scenarios would not achieve anything like the reductions needed to stabilize carbon emissions at a level that many scientists think is necessary to stave off climate change. Nor would they affect the high level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that already exists. "If all power plants and industrial facilities switch over to zero-carbon energy sources right now, we'll still be left with a ruinous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere," they write.

So, are we doomed? They don't think so. They're engineers, and engineers are optimistic and ambitious by nature. What we need, they argue, are new technologies that are truly disruptive. We don't know what they are yet. But our aim should be to deploy significant resources to attain energy innovation at Google speed. "Fortunately, new discoveries are changing the way we think about physics, nanotechnology and biology all the time. While humanity is currently on a trajectory to severe climate change, this disaster can be averted if researchers aim for goals that seem nearly impossible."

Google's engineers are right. No matter what you believe about the potential influence of increased emissions on the planet, the math doesn't lie. Even drastic changes in emissions and human behaviour won't change the math enough to change the climate calculations any time soon.

This point has been made before, most notably by the University of Manitoba's Vaclav Smil, who is Bill Gates's favourite polymath. But it's widely ignored in climate debates. The truth is that unless we develop revolutionary new energy technologies, all the climate pacts and pipeline protests in the world are just so much posturing. And the substantial premium we pay for wind power is just money in the pockets of rich wind developers.

If you believe climate change is a serious threat to humanity, there are only two ways out. One is what you could call the Naomi Klein way – abandon the materialistic way of life, repudiate capitalism and hope that a dawning global consciousness (or, failing that, a global carbon dictatorship) will lead humanity to the light. Alternatively, we could bet on scientists, engineers and human ingenuity.

Which way is more likely to succeed? You be the judge.

Story continues below advertisement

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading…

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.