Archive for the ‘Government subsidization’ Category

Germany's Green Energy Plan – Not so Good

July 20, 2008
July 10, 2008 •
Germany


Leader at E.ON urges Germany to keep nuclear plants

With Germany committed to reducing global warming gases while
struggling to deal with soaring fuel costs, one of the giant energy
companies in the country said Thursday that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s
coalition could only deal with both issues by extending the working
life of the country’s nuclear plants.
Wulf Bernotat, chairman of the European energy powerhouse E.ON, said
during an interview here that it was “questionable” whether Merkel’s
government of conservatives and Social Democrats could realize . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »


July 7, 2008 •
Germany


Germany wants to build 30 windfarms

The German government wants to build up to 30 offshore windfarms
in a bid to meet its renewable energy targets, Transport Minister
Wolfgang Tiefensee said in an interview published Sunday.
Tiefensee told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that the windfarms would
be built in the Baltic and North seas and said some 2,000 windmills
should soon be producing 11,000 megawatts of electricity.
The government is aiming to obtain “25,000 megawatts of energy from windfarms by 2030″, Tiefensee . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »


June 30, 2008 •
Germany, India


No need of subsidies for wind energy cos: Tanti

The billionaire Chairman of Suzlon Energy Mr Tulsi Tanti has
said wind energy firms does not require subsidies, as the prices of
fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal are becoming more expensive.
Quoting Mr Tanti, the German business weekly WirtschaftsWoche said that
wind energy does not need subsidies as the fossil fuels are turning
more costly. Fossil energy fuels such as oil, gas and coal are turning
more expensive,… therefore the wind ener gy needs . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »


May 17, 2008 •
Germany


Germany’s Windwarts Energie to build 20 MW wind park

Germany’s Windwarts Energie plans to build a 20 MW wind park in Buren, in
the German state of Northrhine-Westphalia, the company said Friday.
The park is to consist of 10 turbines of 2 MW capacity each and is due to
take up operations in the first half of 2009, Windwarts Energie said.
According to the company, annual production is to amount to about 50 GWh,
equaling the supply for about 16,500 households.
Windwarts Energie said the location Buren–with an average wind . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »


April 15, 2008 •
Germany


German utilities, wind power industry dismiss govt’s 2020 wind power target

German utilities and wind turbine makers have dismissed the
government’s goal of boosting off-shore wind power capacity to 15,000
megawatts by 2020, citing a lack of resources and transmission lines,
Financial Times Deutschland said.
The goal, which is equivalent to 3,000 high-capacity wind turbines, is
‘not viable, neither from an economic nor a technological point of
view,’ the paper quoted a spokesman from German utility E.ON AG as
saying.
The construction of off-shore wind parks is slowed . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »


January 31, 2008 •
Germany


German utilities warn of power bottlenecks due to wind integration — report

German utilities are warning the government of bottlenecks in
power transmission grids due to the difficulties of integrating higher
shares of wind energy, Handelsblatt reported.
The paper cited reports on the state of transmission networks German
utilities are required to submit to the German grid regulator by
tomorrow.
The number of incidents has risen significantly over the past two
years, the report said. Vattenfall Europe AG’s transmission unit
recorded 155 days where the situation was critical on . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »

Advertisements

Junk Science: the wind cries ‘bailout!’

July 10, 2008

Editor: Enron pulled the same scam.

Google-Enron,Al Gore,Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton to appreciate the origins of the wind scam

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens launched a media blitz this week to
announce his plan for us “to escape the grip of foreign oil.” Now he’s
got himself stuck between a crock and a wind farm.

Announced via TV commercials, media interviews, a July 9 Wall Street
Journal op-ed and a Web site, Pickens wants to substitute wind power
for the natural gas used to produce about 22 percent of our electricity
and then to substitute natural gas for the conventional gasoline used
to power vehicles.

Pickens claims this plan can be accomplished within 10 years, reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the cost of transportation,
create thousands of jobs, reduce our carbon footprint and “build a
bridge to the future, giving us time to develop new technologies.”

It sounds great and gets even better, according to Pickens. Don’t
sweat the cost, he says, “It will be accomplished solely through
private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or
government regulation.” What’s not to like?

First, it’s worth noting Pickens’ claim made in the op-ed that his
plan requires no new government regulation. Two sentences later,
however, he calls on Congress to “mandate” wind power and its
subsidies. Next, Pickens relies on a 2008 Department of Energy study
claiming the U.S. could generate 20 percent of its electricity from
wind by 2030.

Setting aside the fact that the report was produced in consultation
with the wind industry, the 20-by-2030 goal is quite fanciful.

Even if wind technology significantly improves, electrical
transmission systems (how electricity gets from the power source to
you) are greatly expanded and environmental obstacles (such as
environmentalists who protest wind turbines as eyesores and
bird-killing machines) can be overcome, the viability of wind power
depends on where, when and how strong the wind blows — none of which is
predictable.

Wind farm-siting depends on the long-term forecasting of wind
patterns, but climate is always changing. When it comes to wind power,
it is not simply “build it and the wind will come.” Even the momentary
loss of wind can be a problem. As Reuters reported on Feb. 27, “Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency.”

The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of
power to customers within 10 minutes. Wind isn’t a standalone power
source. It needs a Plan B for when the wind “just don’t blow.”

This contrasts with coal- or gas-fired electrical power, which can
be produced on demand and as needed. A great benefit of modern
technology is that it liberates us from Mother Nature’s harsh whims.
Pickens wants to re-enslave us with 12th century technology.

Then there’s the cost of the 20-by-2030 goal — $43 billion more than
the cost of non-wind assets, according to the DOE — and this doesn’t
include many billions of dollars more for additional transmission
lines. Could the 20-by-2030 goal even be accomplished?

By Steven Milloy

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He
is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct
scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Fox News

Wind power was useless in blackout

June 1, 2008

Editor:
Another example of the importance of wind energy.

The Ont. govt. is a regular visitor to this site and should have learned something by now. I’ve come to the conclusion they suffer from one of the following.

1) They can’t comprehend what they read.

2) They are stupid and suffer from very low IQs.

3) They are evil traitors and are following the UN – New World Order Agenda.

Which one do you think it is?

With these fools at the helm, it is easy to understand why our Health Care, Education, Agriculture and Manufacturing sectors are in such disarray.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Read Agenda 21
Now!

.

Wind power was useless in blackout

The British Wind Energy Association claims that there are more than 2,000 turbines in the UK with an installed capacity of 2,500 megawatts. Where was all this megawattage when it was needed on Tuesday, when 500,000 homes were blacked out as Sizewell B and eight other power stations shut down?

The answer is simple: the 2,000 turbines were impotent and would have made the situation worse had the grid operators tried to feed in their spurious outputs.

Coincidentally, Government figures describing the CO2 savings achieved in 2007 show no contribution from wind. The wind industry received nearly £320 million during 2007 in subsidies — from us, the consumers.

A letter by Bob Graham, Inchberry, Morayshire to the Telegraph

1 June 2008

CORPORATION HEAD QUITS AS SCANDAL IS REVEALED TO PUBLIC

April 7, 2008

Editor:
Ever wondered why you can’t get anyone in govt. to listen when confronted about the negative affects of wind farms?  T

hey don’t give a damn  about you, your family or your property value. They smell money.

This is the Enron Scam on steroids. Ex-politicians filling their pockets with your tax dollars.

What do you get in return? Higher electrical costs, higher taxes, and if you are unlucky enough to live near a wind farm, a life altering experience.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

‘Unrelated’ ICBC resignation unbelievable

.
CORPORATION HEAD QUITS AS SCANDAL IS REVEALED TO PUBLIC

Michael Smyth
The Province

Trying to figure out Paul Taylor’s “coincidental” resignation as boss of ICBC is sort of like kicking the tires on one of their chop-shop write-offs — or attending one of the insurance monopoly’s rigged auctions.

There’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye of the average sucker.

{Snip} …

But if you still think Taylor’s departure is “completely unrelated” to ICBC’s little chop shop of horrors out in Burnaby — well, I know an ICBC insider who can get you a heckuva deal on a rebuilt Yugo (as long as you’re not picky about things like working air bags).

Completely unrelated? Give me a freaking break. The public has been ripped off. ICBC insiders have benefitted from a shabby scheme usually reserved for grifters and sharpies.

Most disturbing of all is the possibility illegally rebuilt vehicles have been hustled to unsuspecting B.C. drivers without the proper safety checks.

There’s more than a monopoly’s corporate reputation on the line here. People’s lives were possibly put at risk so ICBC insiders could line their own pockets.

And now the CEO is strapping on his parachute and hitting the silks during the crisis? Very impressive.

They can call it “completely unrelated” if they want. I call it an abdication of duty. Taylor should be promising the public that he’ll get to the bottom of this extremely disturbing scandal and take his lumps if he’s found ultimately responsible.

Instead, he’s running away. And his corporate and political masters have nothing but praise.

Source The Province

Mr. Taylor, President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), will join NaiKun Wind Group as President and Director. Steven Eckert, a former consultant to BC Hydro

Ex-AECL boss’ firm could make Millions

Tory insider’s involvement in project ‘doesn’t pass the smell test’:

Ottawa Citizen Saturday, December 22, 2007
Michael Burns, the B.C. businessman and backroom Conservative who recently resigned as chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is also chairman of a Vancouver wind power firm the federal government approved for up to $10 million in alternate energy funding while Mr. Burns was AECL chairman. The offshore wind power company, NaiKun Wind Energy Group, has two former assistants to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as senior officers and also has other well-connected Conservatives on its board of directors. NaiKun received approval for wind.
Mr. Taylor, President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), will join NaiKun Wind Group as President and Director. Steven Eckert, a former consultant to BC Hydro
Ventus Energy Inc. – The Toronto-based company, whose flagship wind projects are in PEI. . Former Ontario premier David Peterson is a board member of privately held Ventus.

If you know of any other Canadian ex-politicians involved in the energy scam please let me know.

Taxpayers To Fund Climate Change Junket VANCOUVER

March 14, 2008

Taxpayers To Fund Climate Change Junket VANCOUVER: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) brought to light today a B.C. government e-mail, that appears to have gone to all B.C. government employees, inviting them to submit written or video entries for a taxpayer-funded trip to Montreal for a climate change workshop with Al Gore.

“Sending bureaucrats for so-called training to Montreal with climate change guru Al Gore shows the government has fallen completely under the spell of its unelected climate change advisors,” said Maureen Bader, B.C. Director of the CTF. “Certainly, there must be a better use for tax dollars than competing for trips to ‘education camps’ and helping line Al Gore’s pockets even further. The government’s ideological zeal in this issue knows no bounds.”

In October 2007, the British High Court ruled that showing Mr. Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” in UK schools, and misleading students into believing it accurately represented climate science, was in violation of the political indoctrination section of the country’s Education Act of 1996.

Bureaucrats have until March 17 to write a 300 word essay or 2-minute video that explains why they should be selected to attend this training. The email highlights that this training will help attendees develop as public speakers.

Canadian Taxpayers Foundation

 

I wonder if this video will earn me a trip to Montreal

Climate change czar aims to paint province green

March 7, 2008
Editor

Welcome to the Old East Block.
Health care sucks in Ont. McGunity can’t figure it out
Education Sucks in Ont. McGunity can’t figure it out
Agriculture Sucks in Ont. McGunity can’t figure it out

But

This DUMB F@#K thinks he and his communist rabble can control the climate.
If this doesn’t wake up the fluoride drinking brain dead masses nothing will.

As went the Jews so do we follow: with nary a whimper

Please do not take my reference to the Jews in a negative light.
The fact is, they did not fight and neither do we.

Hitler would be proud

McGuitny – Bring on your Czar

 

March 29 I will have ever light on in my house. I might just go buy more and turn them on as well.

I have always had the greatest respect for the environment but this has nothing with the environment. This has to do with you giving up your rights as human beings.

Join me on the 29th. Protest this bullshit by turning on, not off, your lights. Send a message to McGuinty and his Czar.

The
GLOBAL GREEN AGENDA

Climate change czar aims to paint province green

Earth Hour initiative will see ‘guerrilla outfit’ set up to ensure Ontario government keeps its promises

Mar 07, 2008 04:30 AM


Queen’s Park Bureau
Premier Dalton McGuinty has appointed a climate change czar to lead Ontario’s fight against global warming.

Toronto Star Home paper of the CLIMATE CZAR

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

February 10, 2008

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

By Tom Deweese 

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead America away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.” The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.

Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.

In fact, a recent study reported that elected city councils and commissioners have lost approximately 10% of their legislative power during the past 10 years, while, through the consensus process, the power of private groups called Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has increased by as much as 300%. It is a wrenching transformation, indeed.

The Three Es

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.

The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.

The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).

Social Equity

Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called “social justice.” It should be noted that the first person to coin the phrase “social justice” was Karl Marx. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.” How does this differ from Communism?

This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”

Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker/person will be a direct capital owner.” Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community.”

Economic Prosperity

Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.

In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses – particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vice versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.

Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.

As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.

Ecological Integrity

“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”

from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.

This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man reacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. In fact, the report from the 1976 UN Habitat I conference said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”

The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.

Source CFP 

Liberals would set up billion-dollar fund to help manufacturing: Dion

January 18, 2008
Editor:
There will be a Federal Election in the not to distant future and there’s no one to vote for. Sad times ahead for Canada. The Liberals want to give up our sovereignty to the UN and the Conservatives want to give up our sovereignty through the Trilateral agreement-combining Canada,the USA and Mexico into one nation. The other parties are just variations of the two main parties. All seem hell bent for leather to destroy Canada.
Dion wants you to believe that investing your tax dollars in “Green Technologies” will resurrect the ailing manufacturing industry in Ontario. The exact opposite will be the result. In order for our manufacturing industry to survive and thrive, it must be competitive. We need cost effective energy sources, to hang on to the industry we have and encourage new industry to come to Ont.
Mr. Dion what do you have in mind for us.
Should we invest in bio fuels? Decision-makers in the climate change field have little faith in biofuels as a low-carbon technology, the World Conservation Union (IUCN)
How about wind-According to Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable”
Solar-Premier, Dalton McGuinty says-When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”
“Drive up the price of energy and drive industry from Ontario”.
Is that your election platform Mr. Dion?
I will always be an environmentalist but I will never be “Green”
You won’t be getting my vote Mr. Dion. I won’t vote for a carbon tax con man

Liberals would set up billion-dollar fund to help manufacturing: Dion

HAMILTON, Ont. – A Liberal government would establish a $1-billion fund to help manufacturers move into green technologies, Stephane Dion pledged Friday.

The Liberal leader said his proposed Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund would help pay for research and development projects aimed at boosting the hard-pressed manufacturing sector.

He told a Hamilton Chamber of Commerce meeting he has met business and union leaders, premiers and environmentalists over the last year to discuss the troubled manufacturing sector.

“They all bring different viewpoints to the table, but there is consensus on one thing: they all want to see Canada’s manufacturing sector become a world leader in green technologies,” he said. “The . . . fund is designed to help accomplish precisely that”.

Thousands of factory jobs have disappeared in recent years and Dion says it’s time to go beyond simple tax corporate breaks.

“Tax cuts alone are not enough,” he said. “The federal government must partner with the manufacturing sector as it adjusts to recent economic shocks. That requires strategic investment”.

In addition to the prosperity fund, the Liberals would provide tax credits to support private research which doesn’t translate into immediate profits.

“Innovation is essential to the survival of our industries, but it can be an expensive undertaking,” he said. “We want every company that puts money into R and D to be rewarded for innovating.

“By offering incentives for companies to continue investing in R and D, the Liberal party will encourage all companies to innovate, even if that innovation does not lead to immediate profitability.”

He said this will encourage more private funding for research and development and help Canadian companies become leaders in green technologies.

Dion took a swipe at Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, saying it’s not willing to build a greener economy.

“If he plans to watch the manufacturing sector crumble instead of helping it to evolve, then he will not live up to anybody’s conception of good leadership.”

CBC

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE GROUPS CHARGE INDUSTRY BIAS

January 17, 2008

Editor:
The same thing is going on here in Ont. Both gov., and industry get away with too much.  Where is the media?  Before you buy your next newspaper, magazine or turn on the TV news, ask yourself a question, who is your media working for?
If you don’t think you are getting honest, even, two-sided information from your media, then stop supporting that media, both with your dollars and your eyes.

PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

http://www.windaction.org/releases/13645

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE GROUPS CHARGE INDUSTRY BIAS IN KEMPTHORNE’S SELECTION OF MEMBERS FOR HIGH-LEVEL COMMITTEE ON WIND POWER AND WILDLIFE

Membership of Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee violates FACA

WASHINGTON D.C. (January 17, 2008) – In a letter submitted today (http://www.windaction.org/documents/13651), environmental and wildlife groups [1] called on Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne to revamp the membership of the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The current membership violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs the establishment of federal advisory committees.

“Secretary Kempthorne has clearly skewed the composition of the committee in favor of the industry representatives while ignoring leading experts on critical wildlife impacts,” said Eric R. Glitzenstein of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, the law firm representing the groups. “This is precisely the kind of committee composition that the Federal Advisory Committee Act was designed to prohibit,” he added.

he Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee was formed to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in developing effective measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities (see Fed. Reg. 72:11373 (March 13, 2007)). Secretary Kempthorne announced the appointment of 22 people to the committee on October 24, 2007.

Under FACA the committee must have balanced points of view represented and the functions to be performed, and will not be inappropriately influenced by any special interest. In their letter, the groups assert that the committee’s overall composition clearly violates FACA in several ways.

* No committee members possess research expertise or publication record regarding bats, nor direct knowledge or experience involving bat interactions with wind turbines.

This is a glaring omission in light of recent reports[2] and Congressional testimony [3] on the issue of massive bat mortality at wind energy facilities. For example, a recent study estimated that up to 111,000 bats may be killed [4] every year should only 3,868 MW of wind turbines be constructed within the Mid-Atlantic Highlands regions of VA, WV, MD, and PA. As of today, in those states, there are over 6,300 MW of wind turbines under study for interconnection to the regional electricity grid.

* The committee lacks the requisite expertise regarding bird impacts, especially with respect to effects on migratory birds using the Appalachian mountain ridges in the eastern U.S., despite the fact that dozens of planned wind projects are slated for this part of the country.

* No committee members have significant research, scientific, or regulatory experience with wind energy development and associated wildlife impacts resulting from onshore wind projects in the eastern U.S.

According to the letter, these scientific and technical omissions are especially troubling in light of the many individuals on the committee who either expressly represent or are clearly aligned with the interests of the wind industry.

The groups call on Secretary Kempthorne to appoint appropriate experts to the committee who are experienced in wind energy development in the eastern U.S., where thousands of industrial wind turbines are proposed, and many are already in operation. Several highly-qualified candidates who applied for committee membership but were not appointed are listed in the letter. Their expertise includes both bats and birds and extensive knowledge of nocturnal migration. In addition, the groups encourage the appointment of experts with research experience in forest fragmentation impacts, particularly in the eastern forest region.

CONTACT:

Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 275-5960

Eric Glitzenstein, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, (202) 588-5206

Lisa Linowes, Industrial Wind Action Group, (603) 838-6588 (llinowes@windaction.org)

###

[1] Center for Biological Diversity; The Humane Society of the United States; Hawk Migration Association of North America; Industrial Wind Action Group; D. Daniel Boone; Maryland Conservation Council; Save Our Allegheny Ridges; Friends of Blackwater Canyon; Protect the Flint Hills; Chautauqua County Citizens for Responsible Wind Power; Green Berkshires, Inc.; Juniata Valley Audubon; Ripley Hawk Watch; Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound; and Wildlife Advocacy Project.

[2] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11935

[3] http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=32&extmode=view&extid=47

[4] http://www.windaction.org/documents/11179

Tories oppose carbon tax

January 7, 2008

Editor:
Why the big push from the advisory committee? The scam that is global warming is starting to fall apart. Talk of global cooling is starting to appear. Carbon tax has nothing to do with global warming. Never did. It’s about control and cash.
That’s what it should be called, “Control and Cash” not “Cap and Trade”.

I’m not a big fan of Stephen Harper or his govt, I am however, a big fan of Canada and it’s people. Carbon trading will have adverse affects on the economy and the jobs people depend on and therefore it should not be implemented. I am therefore asking that you encourage Mr. Harper to base his policy on up to date science.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Tories oppose carbon tax

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has flatly opposed the idea of a carbon tax in the past, as has Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

On Monday, the federal Liberals seemed to be more receptive to the idea.

At a press conference in Ottawa, long-time Liberal and environmental activist John Godfrey said his party currently favours a carbon trading system, but will keep an open mind about carbon taxes and is waiting to see what research emerges on the topic.

The Conservatives, however, stuck to their position.

Environment Minister John Baird said Monday that he welcomes the report’s call for fixing a price on carbon, but would not consider a carbon tax. He said his government is instead working to regulate industry emissions by pushing for major polluters to significantly reduce their emissions by 2010 and encouraging an eventual carbon trading system in North America.

“What we’re not going to do is be like Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who constantly change their position and their policy,” Baird told reporters outside the House of Commons, referring to the Liberal’s apparent softening stance on a carbon tax.

“I understand the Liberals are now entertaining dumping their current policy — policy No. 8 by my count — and adopting a completely new policy. Every time a report comes out, you can’t change your mind.”

Murray said he is optimistic that Parliament will support carbon prices and measures like carbon taxes and carbon trading.

“It’s time to move the discussion forward because there isn’t a realistic case that we have seen yet where we can achieve reductions without a price [on carbon],” Murray said.

“You’ll now quietly hear people talking very seriously about cap and trade systems,” he added. “Our job [as an advisory panel] is to push government, not just the governing party, but Parliament and Canadians.”

‘Significant’ impact on Ontario, Alberta

Murray noted that the costs of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system could particularly be “significant” on Alberta’s oil producers and Ontario’s manufacturing sector.

But he stressed that in the development of any new policy, there would be investments in green technologies that would ultimately benefit both provinces significantly.

He said any policy would have to be created to ensure all regions are treated fairly, and that Canada’s industry as a whole doesn’t suddenly find itself on an “unlevel playing field” with the rest of the world.

Murray said the development of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system must include industry officials, environmentalists and representatives from all regions of the country.

Representatives from all sectors were already involved in the creation of the panel’s report, he said, noting that 65 groups were consulted and extensive economic modelling was done.

GDP wouldn’t be seriously affected

David McLaughlin, CEO of the advisory panel, said the report has concluded that Canada can feasibly reach its 2050 target of a 65 per cent emissions reduction, and that reaching this target will not be detrimental to the Canadian economy as a whole.

Canada has enough green technology in place to meet the goals, although the development of more technology would be encouraged, according to the panel’s findings.

“Our findings suggest in the long run the overall effect on Canada’s gross domestic product will not be significant, amounting to the equivalent of approximately one to two years of lost growth of GDP between now and 2050,” McLaughlin said at the press conference with Murray.

While the Liberals applauded parts of the report, they accused the Conservatives of putting constraints on the advisory panel, giving it a mandate to work with the Conservative government’s environmental targets, instead of the targets proposed under the international Kyoto Protocol.

“The report reminded us once again that this Conservative government has unilaterally abandoned Canada’s international legal obligations,” Godfrey said.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Canada signed under a Liberal government in 1998, requires that the country reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

The Conservative government created new environmental goals in April 2007 that see Canada meeting its Kyoto commitments years behind schedule. Under the new plan, Canada’s overall emissions will be cut by up to 65 per cent by 2050 and 20 per cent cut by 2020, all based on 2006 levels.

McLaughlin said the panel used the new targets because they are feasible and focused on the long-term, giving Canada enough time to make necessary changes.

Kyoto’s targets are too focused on the short-term, McLaughlin said.

CBC