AI can help fight climate change, but what will it cost in power and water?

Embracing new technologies also means asking questions about how they are built and powered, and if they are strengthening our ability to understand and solve problems or making it easier not to.

We tend to think of AI as a mainstream meme generator or deepfake machine. And it is that, but it is also helping drive breakthroughs in medicine, climate science, and energy systems, with real-world benefits and consequences that many people do not see.

For me personally, I used to spend hours buried in government reports, academic papers, and energy datasets, squinting at charts and manually cross-checking information from one source to another. Now, with Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, I can fact-check climate claims and find relevant studies in a fraction of the time.

It is like having a research assistant who never needs a coffee break, does not complain about your messy workspace or pyjamas, and occasionally reminds me that yes, wind energy really could work off the Great Lakes, or that making Vaughan, Brampton, and Downsview larger transit hubs instead of building the proposed Highway 413 could reduce emissions and congestion while improving connectivity. The information is there if you know where and how to look.

The ability to find out what is possible, plus the pace of discovery, coupled with the increasing daily demand for these tools, makes me realize just how powerful AI is, and not just for climate science, advocacy, keeping decision-makers accountable, and helping the public navigate a world full of misinformation.

At the same time, as AI becomes better at finding information, summarizing reports, generating ideas, and answering questions, it raises another question: are these tools strengthening our understanding, or are we beginning to rely on them for thinking we once did ourselves?

Companies are investing billions of dollars into systems that can analyze huge amounts of data, identify patterns, and generate insights at speeds humans alone cannot match. A 2025 study by the Grantham Research Institute found that AI applications across electricity, transportation, and food systems could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 3.2 to 5.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year by 2035 through better management of electricity grids, cleaner energy systems, and more accurate predictions of future energy needs. That is roughly the same as taking 700 million to 1.2 billion cars off the road. These potential reductions could outweigh AI's own energy use, showing its potential as a climate tool.

In practice, AI is already improving wind-power forecasting and helping predict extreme weather. It is also helping reduce reliance on fossil-fuel backup systems. In medicine, it has sped up disease research and helped identify promising new antibiotics to fight drug-resistant bacteria. These advances point to real potential for both climate action and human well-being.

Yet these benefits come with growing demands for energy and water. In Ontario, the reported proposed 720 MW data-centre development in Milton shows the scale of the resources AI infrastructure may require. If built, it could use as much electricity as a large city and require millions of litres of water each day for cooling.

Globally, AI infrastructure could require billions to trillions of litres of water every year. New technologies are helping improve efficiency, including machine-learning systems that optimize cooling. However, the overall water footprint extends beyond the walls of a data centre through the electricity systems needed to power it.

This challenge is not unique to AI. Ontario is also moving forward with gravel and stone extraction, critical mineral mining, population growth, housing construction, and major nuclear-energy expansion.

Recent legislative and regulatory changes have focused on speeding up approvals and streamlining development. While these changes may help projects move ahead more quickly, they have also reduced some of the checks and balances around who is responsible for assessing the combined impact of growing water demand on underground water supplies, watersheds, and drinking-water sources.

Water experts have long warned that groundwater does not always replenish as quickly as it is used, especially when gravel extraction, urban growth, and land-use changes interfere with nature's ability to filter and store water. Groundwater can only provide so much. It does not follow project boundaries, ministry mandates, or industry sectors. It does not distinguish between mines, municipalities, highways, AI data centres, or energy projects. All of them draw from the same shared resource.

Climate change adds another layer of pressure. Ontario as a whole is unlikely to run out of freshwater, but a warming climate is expected to bring greater swings in water availability, more frequent droughts, higher evaporation rates, and added stress on groundwater systems. The question is no longer whether individual projects can be supported today.

The question is whether Ontario's water systems will remain resilient under the combined pressures of development and climate change, and whether some areas, including Waterloo Region and parts of southwestern Ontario that are already facing challenges, could put their future water security at risk.

At both the federal and provincial levels, AI oversight, including Canada's new "AI for All" national artificial intelligence strategy, remains focused on how AI is used rather than on the infrastructure that supports it or the impact on local communities. "AI for All" and Ontario's emerging frameworks emphasize transparency, accountability, bias prevention, and human oversight. These safeguards are important. However, they leave a gap in how large-scale AI centres are considered overall.

In practice, safeguards are often applied one project at a time, while the bigger picture of combined impacts on water and energy systems receives far less attention.

This broader question is beginning to emerge across Canada. In Manitoba, Premier Wab Kinew recently questioned whether large-scale AI infrastructure that requires significant new energy generation delivers enough public benefit to justify its environmental footprint. Regardless of where one stands on that debate, it points to a larger issue that goes far beyond any single project. AI has the potential to deliver tremendous benefits, from medical breakthroughs to climate solutions. But if meeting growing demand requires greater reliance on fossil-fuel generation, those gains could be undermined.

The challenge is not only managing the impacts of individual projects, but also understanding how growing demands from AI, housing, transportation, industry, mining, and energy production interact within the same limited water and electricity systems. The goal should not be to slow innovation. It should be to ensure AI is powered by clean energy and developed in ways that provide broad public benefit while remaining consistent with long-term climate and sustainability goals.

When I asked AI what the solution is to find compromise between those who support it and those who oppose, this was the response for humans to ponder: What level of AI development delivers meaningful public benefit while remaining within environmental limits, supporting climate goals, protecting water resources, and preserving the human skills that technology is meant to enhance rather than replace.

As I finish writing this piece, the irony isn’t lost on me. I used AI to fact-check my research for this column while reflecting on the environmental footprint of the very tools I have come to rely on to save valuable time. Even as I have made considerable efforts to reduce my personal emissions, the convenience and speed of AI come with their own costs.

It is a small but important reminder that embracing powerful new technologies also means asking hard questions about how they are built, how they are powered, and whether they are strengthening our ability to understand and solve problems or simply making it easier not to. Balancing the benefits with the impacts remains a responsibility that belongs to all of us.

Read this article on Newmarket Today.

How ‘public interest’ is being used to justify power grabs in Canada and Ontario

'Public interest' is meant to be democracy’s guardrail, but critics argue federal and Ontario legislation is turning that phrase into political cover for faster approvals, weaker oversight and decisions that tilt toward corporate priorities

The concept of "public interest" is supposed to be democracy's guardrail, our governments’ commitment to act for the benefit of all citizens, not the privileged few. Yet recent legislation in Canada and Ontario reveals how this foundational principle can be weaponized as cover for decisions that prioritize corporate interests, ministerial power, and partisan advantage over genuine public welfare.

What "public interest" actually means

The public interest is fundamentally different from private interests, personal preferences, parochial concerns, or partisan political goals. It represents a collective dedication to outcomes that benefit society’s values like clean water, healthy ecosystems, livable communities, and sustainable livelihoods for all people.

When governments claim to act "in the public interest," they assume a specific obligation: to follow processes that are themselves rooted in public interest principles.

This means:

• Transparent decision-making where the public can see how choices are made

• Evidence-based advice from experts and affected communities

• Proper accountability so officials answer for their decisions

• Public access to information so citizens can evaluate whether government kept its word

• Genuine, instead of performative consultations; ones that actually incorporate community input

As The Public Interest Revisited notes, these procedural safeguards matter as much as the outcomes themselves. Without them, "public interest" becomes a rhetorical mask for decisions made behind closed doors.

Contested Bills dismantling democratic process

Canada's Bill C-5 and Ontario's Bill 5 run roughshod over public interest principles. Both laws accelerate development approvals by concentrating power in the hands of individual ministers, bypassing established protections, and weakening the very legislation designed to safeguard human health, water resources, species habitat, and people's homes and livelihoods.

The environmental accountability gap

Ontario's own Auditor General (December 2025) documented systematic failures in environmental oversight: public consultations were bypassed, community input was ignored, and the Environmental Bill of Rights was violated. These aren't administrative hiccups. They're deliberate circumventions of the processes that are supposed to ensure decisions actually serve the public interest.

The Kawana'bi'kag Crisis: mining and climate

Kawana 'bi 'kag reflects the cultural heritage and connection of Indigenous peoples to the land that embraces the Ring of Fire. The proposed intensive mining development in the peatlands there illustrates the contradiction between political purpose versus public interest perfectly. These vast carbon sinks have accumulated carbon over millennia. Road building and mining could transform ecosystems into carbon sources, intensifying Canada's contribution to climate warming. The government has yet to acknowledge, let alone pledge to achieve free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous communities who depend on these lands.

The environmental consequences are cascading:

• Habitat destruction disrupting the wildlife populations that First Nations rely on

• Water contamination from mining pollutants and sediments affecting both ecosystems and communities

• Climate breakdown acceleration as carbon-rich peatlands become emissions sources

By rushing approvals, Bill C-5 and Bill 5 signal that "public interest" is a false flag. The actual objective—fast-tracked corporate profit—is incompatible with genuine public interest, which demands careful environmental stewardship and respect for Indigenous rights.

Corporate welfare: when government picks winners

Corporate welfare: subsidies, tax incentives, financial supports, and other government benefits to private companies—is sold as serving the public interest. The pitch is familiar: attract investment, create jobs, boost the economy. The reality is murkier.

The problem with corporate welfare

Critics point to three persistent failures:

• Dubious effectiveness: Many subsidized projects would have happened anyway, or create fewer jobs than promised. Governments rarely conduct rigorous audits of whether the promised benefits materialized.

• Unfairness: Corporate welfare redistributes public resources to wealthy shareholders and executives while ordinary citizens bear the cost through reduced public services or higher taxes.

• Market manipulation: By picking winners, governments distort markets, protecting inefficient companies from competition and innovation.

The ISDS and FIPA trap: when corporate welfare becomes litigation risk

Here's where corporate welfare becomes genuinely dangerous: trade treaties and bilateral investment contracts often include Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) provisions that allow corporations to sue governments directly.

A company that believes a government policy threatens its profits can demand compensation. Even when Canada wins a dispute, the litigation costs are exorbitant.

And the chill effect is profound. Governments hesitate to strengthen environmental protections, improve labour conditions, or enforce human rights if doing so might trigger investor lawsuits. The threat alone hobbles policy ambition. Public interest gets sacrificed on the altar of investor confidence.

The democracy deficit: power grabs and secrecy

All sides, public, political and the private business sector seem to agree that a clean-economy future is desirable and depends on critical minerals. But the national and Ontario governments choose to override best practices and established law to concentrate power and weaken accountability. Public resistance and law suits launched by Indigenous and civil opponents are predictable.

The pattern

Bill C-5 and Bill 5 both feature:

• Enhanced ministerial discretion: Individual officials can approve projects with minimal oversight

• Weakened environmental protections: Legislation designed to safeguard public health and ecosystems is sidelined

• Defunded public services: While governments court corporate investment, they starve the health care, education, and environmental agencies that actually serve citizens

The perverse logic is transparent: woo investors by demonstrably tipping the balance away from public interest protections.

Secrecy as a feature

Premier Ford's retroactive legislation blocking legal action for past wrongdoings, combined with his refusal to release phone records connected to the Greenbelt scandal, reveals how secrecy sustains this imbalance. Citizens cannot evaluate whether their government acts in their interest because the government refuses to show its work or rushes through pretended obstacle-beating omnibus bills. Clauses hidden extend perks to their well-heeled supporters while eviscerating environmental protections.

Ford’s take-over of Toronto Island Airport move, with plans to bring jet traffic to a small takeoff and landing area, exemplifies the pattern. Business travellers may celebrate the convenience. But the giveaway to elite users means families seeking the fresh air of Centre Island fun and leisure will have to contend with more air traffic and noise pollution topped off with jet fuel emissions.

A flawed democracy in decline

Canada's score on the world democracy index is 8.69, classifying it as a "flawed democracy." The rating reflects weaknesses in the electoral process, functioning government, and political culture—the very areas where Bills C-5 and Bill 5 are making things worse.

When democratic institutions are decimated, public services abandoned, and decision-making hidden from public view, the question becomes: what exactly is being built or strengthened?

PM Carney speaks of nation-building. Premier Ford promises to strengthen Ontario. Yet both are systematically dismantling the democratic institutions and public services that actually make nations and provinces worth living in. They're trading long-term public interest for short-term corporate confidence and betting that citizens won't notice, or do anything about it.

The legitimacy of government projects rests on a single question: Are they acting in the public interest, or merely using that phrase as cover? The evidence, marked by rushed processes, weakened protections, concentrated power, hidden records, defunded services, suggests the latter.

The reader must decide whether that's acceptable. Democracy depends on it.

The Public Interest Revisited

Read this article on Newmarket Today

Municipalities are influential drivers of broader climate action

Towns including Newmarket and Aurora are embedding sustainability into growth plans, events planning, and infrastructure choices

When we think of climate action, our minds often leap to federal governments or massive international agreements. The truth is municipalities — our cities, towns, and local councils — are among the most effective levers for real change, both globally and here in Ontario.

Globally, cities are stepping up. Networks like the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy unite hundreds of cities worldwide that voluntarily commit to cutting emissions and increasing resilience, often going beyond national policies. Cities shape emissions in ways national governments cannot. They control land use, public transit, building codes, waste management, and energy distribution, collectively responsible for a significant share of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite being cornered in by provincial legislation of bills 23, 5, 17, and now Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, in its second reading, municipalities are trying to take bold steps to protect the environment and public health with sustainable solutions. Many towns have joined forces to urge the province to reduce salt pollution in freshwater, a growing threat to drinking water and aquatic life. Local councils have passed resolutions calling for legislative action, demonstrating the power of municipal advocacy to influence provincial policy.

Municipalities are also tackling waste and resource management. York Region’s waste diversion vision sets ambitious targets for reducing landfill use, improving recycling, and creating circular economy opportunities for residents and businesses. It and northern municipalities are pushing back against the inequities of the new provincial blue bin system that could lead to greater waste because of its inefficiencies. This shows local leadership can drive sustainable practices citizens experience in their everyday lives.

Green building standards are another area where municipalities are leading. Many cities now require sustainable design measures for new construction permits, including energy efficiency, stormwater management, and low-carbon materials. By embedding these standards into permitting processes, municipalities like Newmarket and Aurora ensure growth itself contributes to climate solutions.

Tourism can drive economic growth, but without careful management, it can also carry a significant environmental footprint. Around the world, cities are adopting measures to align tourism with climate goals and local quality of life. Venice, Italy, has introduced entry fees and limits on large cruise ships to protect fragile heritage sites; Cannes, France, has restricted large vessel docking to reduce port pollution; and Paris has increased tourist levies to fund sustainable transportation and climate adaptation.

In Canada, municipalities are following suit. Vancouver, Whistler and Tofino, B.C., and Mont-Tremblant, Que., have expanded visitor taxes to ease pressure on infrastructure and ecosystems, while, in 2026, major cities including Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Montreal and Québec City are introducing or increasing accommodation taxes to support infrastructure, services, and climate resilience.

Montreal has developed a sustainable tourism framework aligned with its climate plan and recognized with global sustainability certifications, showing that proactive local strategy can make tourism part of a city’s climate solution rather than its problem. In national parks, communities are also adapting. In Banff National Park, where millions of visitors once overwhelmed roads and services, local and park authorities have introduced timed entry systems, shuttle services, and permit checks to reduce vehicle congestion and preserve sensitive ecosystems. Charlottetown now has a real-time emissions reductions tracker on its website.

Here in Newmarket, as it receives wider awards for special events, the demand for more central parking is carefully weighed against environmental impact. Many events have become pedestrian-only, and the town encourages recycling, water stations, and annual cleanup days to keep highly populated areas clean. Aurora is encouraging these things, too, though less pronounced.

Parks in both municipalities are increasingly being connected by trails, encouraging tourism while protecting natural areas and reducing vehicle emissions through active transportation.

Next steps could include electric shuttle buses from across town for central events to reduce traffic in the core, extending the timeframes for pedestrian-only zones, mandating compostable containers for fast food, and incorporating solar panels or kinetic energy sources with battery storage for lighting. If Coldplay on tour can do it …

These examples demonstrate our municipalities are not just implementers. They are innovators, advocates, and stewards of change. They influence everything from freshwater protection and waste diversion to green building and sustainable tourism, often achieving measurable outcomes national policies cannot. Their collective voice, local action, and experimental projects show climate leadership is as much local as it is global.

Supporting municipalities is essential in the fight against climate change. By empowering cities and towns, we empower communities to lead, innovate, and demonstrate climate solutions can be practical, measurable, and transformative, starting right in our own backyards.

Climate Action Newmarket-Aurora will host a town hall on May 6 called Local Action Brings Hope.

Read this article on Newmarket Today.