The great Manitoulin wind farm debate seems to be winding down, but the truly crucial issue behind that whole debate is still very much with us. It's a global issue, which may explain why it has attracted very little attention in the local debate. But the problem is crucial because it is likely to kill us in the long run, by destroying our life support system, if we don't face it now. Even supposing that wind turbines really do affect some people's health as claimed by the anti-wind groups, how do those effects compare with the massive devastation to be wrought by unchecked global warming? If the answer isn't obvious, it's because we haven't given climate change the attention it deserves.
For all the attention we have lavished on possible negative effects of wind farms, the issue remains unsettled because neither the studies cited by the wind industry nor those cited by its opponents afford reliable predictions of how Island life will be changed by turbine installation. Obviously each side is looking only at the evidence that will support its own position. The anti-wind lobby, by calling for more studies, is tacitly admitting that scientific study of the issue up to now has been inadequate. But ironically, they have ignored the already-published results of far more reliable, extensive and scientifically sound studies that have overwhelming implications for everyone on earth, including Manitoulin Islanders. I am of course referring to the science of climate change.
No honest scientist claims absolute certainty, but the consensus of almost all climate scientists is clear enough: either we humans will drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases within 10 years, or the global warming trend will become irreversible. Some have estimated that if we haven't begun to reverse the increase in emissions by 2015, it will already be too late. Emissions are still rising, and if they continue, many of the planet's ecosystems will collapse as the cascading effects take hold, and much of civilization as we know it will collapse along with them—very likely within the lifetime of some readers of this page. Yet we seem incapable of taking concerted action, probably because we don't see immediate results. Tragically, it will take more than 10 years for the predictable results of our fossil fuel addiction to become fully obvious to us—and by that time it will be too late to avert those results.
This is not exactly news to most people; it's just, as Al Gore put it, an inconvenient truth. And yet, despite the soundness and thoroughness of the science behind it, we humans choose not to believe it. This is obvious, because if we really did believe it, reversing climate change would be THE priority at every level of policy-making, and we would recognize it as the primary context of all human efforts to shape the immediate future. Instead, all we get is a string of gatherings like the recent G8/G20 here in Ontario, which merely passed the buck on climate change to the UN. The more urgently positive action is needed, the more we are treated instead to the usual posturing and obstruction of climate justice by vested interests in the status quo—this time tarted up with a fake lake and protected from the public by billion-dollar "security" systems, while the real world outside the opulent meeting room grows more insecure every day.
What can we do about this situation? I would love to believe that humans and industries all over the planet would voluntarily cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, and especially that the more affluent communities of the world (including ours) would voluntarily cut fossil fuel consumption down to about 10 percent of 1990 levels. We know how this could be done: by cutting wasteful or unnecessary consumption, AND shifting to renewable energy sources—neither of those alone will do. But nobody really believes that's going to happen within five or 10 years—not without large-scale government intervention.
Needless to say, there are few signs that the political will or leadership exists for that kind of government intervention—especially in Canada, where we continue to welcome and subsidize the world's most obscenely wasteful megaproject in the tar sands of Alberta, while neglecting to develop a Canadian renewable energy industry or adopt any practical plan for reducing carbon consumption. One of the few exceptions to this national foot-dragging is Ontario's plan to replace coal-burning power plants with wind and solar sources. This plan is less than adequate, because it works by making renewable energy profitable without making wasteful consumption punishable; but at least it's a small step in the right direction. This—all under the looming shadow of climate change—is the real context of the controversy about wind turbines on Manitoulin Island. Yet that context is almost totally ignored in the local debate.
A case in point is Dr. Roy Jeffery's letter of June 2 to the Expositor. It is clear from this letter, and other statements from the Manitoulin Coalition for Safe Energy Alternatives (MCSEA) and the Society for Wind Vigilance, that the opponents of wind energy are sincere, determined, persistent and well-intentioned. It's equally clear that they are in a state of denial about the facts of climate change. Dr. Jeffery doesn't even mention it in his letter, vaguely referring instead to an "energy crisis." But there is no energy crisis; everyone who is not in denial can see that climate change is the overriding context of any concern with "safe energy alternatives," on Manitoulin or anywhere else.
MCSEA members used to give at least lip service to the need for renewable energy sources, even for wind power, as long as it didn't include big turbines in our backyard. Now they seem to have abandoned even that local concession to global common sense. Dr. Jeffery writes that energy conservation is "the only solution" to the crisis. But surely not even he believes that conservation alone is going to reverse climate change within 10 years, let alone five. That can only be done by using every means at our disposal; to rely on one to the exclusion of all others is suicidal. Dr. Jeffery writes that there is "no evidence that wind-generated power will be able to replace coal plants or nuclear plants." What kind of "evidence" would it take? And where is the "evidence" that conservation alone can avert the climate change disaster?
Opponents of wind power try to justify their opposition by claiming that wind energy contributes nothing toward meeting the challenge of climate change, because it is "inefficient"—because of "the 20 percent lost in the lines," as Dr. Jeffery puts it. Well, no system is 100-percent efficient, and in the current context, comparing the emissions generated by various systems is more to the point than comparing their levels of "efficiency." The difference in greenhouse gas emissions between wind-generated energy and fossil fuel burning is so obvious that opponents of wind power do their best to ignore it. As for efficiency, if it is a concern, then we should consider it fairly and without prejudice. It's true that part of the power generated by a wind farm is lost to waste heat, because it is tied into the provincial power grid. But the same goes for any power source—including those in southern Ontario that currently supply Manitoulin Island. If this inefficiency of the grid is a problem, then it has been so for almost a century. Why the sudden concern about it now that Manitoulin is about to begin exporting more energy to distant users than it receives from distant sources?
And what should we do about this "inefficiency" problem—abandon the grid? What alternative do we have? It's true that a decentralized, small-scale, community-based, renewable energy supply would be ideal—if we had the time, the will and the resources to develop it. But nobody honestly believes that we can do this, on a global or even a provincial scale, in the few years we have—even if we could magically cut our power consumption in half overnight. Yet the opponents of wind energy imply that if we need an energy supply at all—which they seem to doubt—we should throw out the existing infrastructure and replace it with a brand new one, where each household or neighbourhood has its own. This is obviously unaffordable for most of us, to say nothing of the energy and resources that would have to be poured into producing these new off-grid systems. Even if Manitoulin achieved this miracle, it would be too little, too late, to avert the worst effects of climate change, unless the miracle was duplicated everywhere in the so-called developed world.
Dr. Jeffery asks rhetorically: "What is there about an industrial wind turbine that is green? The steel tower from China? The epoxy blades from the sweat shop halfway around the world?" This would be a good argument for developing a made-in-Canada wind industry, but it falls flat as an argument against renewable energy. The same goes for the concern about "dead birds." It could well be that some birds, bats and other wildlife will suffer or die because of wind farms in their habitat. But how does that compare with the total devastation of that habitat through the predictable effects of climate change? Does anyone seriously think we can save the birds by delaying the shift to renewable resources with a moratorium? Or save wildlife by moving the turbines into somebody else's habitat? To be consistent, opponents of wind power would also have to oppose all road traffic on the Island, as that certainly kills more wildlife every year than wind turbines ever will.
As for the argument that wind turbines will spoil the view, it's not even worth mentioning, except to demonstrate how debased and trivialized our values have become. Has anyone considered what runaway global warming will do to the view, or to the tourist industry? Not to mention the far worse effects it is already having on the Far North, and on the people of the "majority world," who don't share our lucky situation of living in a temperate zone—though our luck will run out even here if current climate trends continue. Wishful thinking is not going to reverse the trend, and denying that the crisis is real will not make it go away. Every choice we make while ignoring the context of climate change is a virtual denial of this reality, no matter what we profess to believe. If we could unite to tackle the real crisis with the kind of energy we put into fighting relatively minor disturbances (such as gas prices, the HST, and possible noise from wind turbines), we might have a chance to reverse climate change. But instead, when a provincial government takes climate change seriously enough to actually address it (even with half-measures), we fight tooth and nail against its encroachment on our local lifestyle.
Perhaps this shortsightedness is only human; maybe we simply lack the imagination to take on a challenge as big as climate change, and are already doomed to suffer the unintended consequences of our own actions. That remains to be seen—for a few years, anyway. But in any case, ignoring the real context of our collective actions robs us of what little chance we still have to realize, nurture and celebrate the relationships connecting us all with the web of life on our planet. Even if it's the last thing we do, respecting the real context of our lives has to be healthier than denial. And who knows, it might even give us the humility and the courage we need to change our destructive ways—so that our grandchildren, instead of fighting a losing battle just to stay alive, might have a chance to carry on the human adventure.
Gary Fuhrman is a retired teacher who lives near Honora Bay (about one kilometre from the proposed Northland Power wind farm). His articles published in scientific journals, and some work in progress, can be viewed at his website, www.gnusystems.ca. He and his wife Pam Jackson are also active in the Resilient Manitoulin movement (see resilientmanitoulin.com).
| Next > |
|---|
