mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
More R&D Please
Google Engineers: Today’s Green Tech Not Good Enough
Features Icon
show comments
  • Gary hemminger

    Does anyone ever question the main assumption that the purpose of all of this is to prevent catastrophic gobal warming (oh sorry I mean climate change)? The history of man predicting global catastrophy is: man’s prediction (A LOT), times it has come true (0). I see no reason that this time will be different.

    How so many have been fooled to believe this mass paranoia is the real story. Historians will be writing about this mass paranoia far into the future…unless the climate change doomsayers get their way and write the history themselves.

    • Andrew Allison

      Whilst agreeing with you that the case for catastrophic climate change as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is far from proven, I think that Google should be congratulated on figuring out that increasing the carbon efficiency of proven methods of delivering energy makes much more sense than investing in pie-in-the-sky “renewable” technology. What’s missing, unfortunately, is recognition that these are incremental improvements and the long-term trend is, albeit at a rate an order of magnitude less that the alarmists prophesize, upward. The rational approach would be, as hominoids have been doing for millennia, to focus on living with it. A word on today’s pseudo-science news: the proposition that the carbon fixed during the crop growing season is released later is ridiculous on its face. First, it’s not just food crops but all plant life that is fixing carbon, and second, most of both remains fixed, whether in people’s bodies or in products such as paper, cardboard, lumber, etc.

    • Josephbleau

      The answer to this problem was found by Adam Smith, invest in things that can be profitably sold to a critical public who demands performance. Success for all will follow.

  • CaliforniaStark

    Here is the interpretion of Google’s obfuscation: They know wind and solar are failed technologies (“simply won’t work”); so they will not invest in research or building either; but they will buy existing wind farm facilities. Why? Because it cost money to research and build; but they earn money from tax credits as a result of buying existing facilities.

    Of course, Google claims buying existing wind farms is a means to set-off its large carbon foot print from data centers, etc, How buying an existing wind farm somehow results in an additional carbon set-off for Google needs to be explained. What magical effect does a transfer of ownership have on an existing wind farms capacity to produce renewable energy?

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Any scientist that was worthy of the name scientist would have started all over when predictions based on the Hypothesis of “Global Warming” proved to be wrong. Since the Globe hasn’t warmed in the last 18 years during the fastest increases in carbon dioxide, it is now safe to say that carbon dioxide has a negligible effect on climate.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service