Archive for the ‘Ontario consumer protection’ Category

John Gerretsen, M.P

January 13, 2009

By Ron Stephens
Independent candidate for Grey – Bruce

The letter below is from Hugh Christopher Brown of Wolfe Island, Ontario.

He, like many others in this province, is frustrated with the Minister of Environment. From the office of Premier McGuinty to the office of your local MPP, the government has shown absolute disrespect for the citizens of this province.

From the dismantling of Ont. Hydro by Maurice Strong, the father of Kyoto, to the present day, our electrical system has been guided, not by those who understand our electrical systems and the needs of the province, but by the E8, another Maurice Strong product, and Agenda 21 from the UN.

Our electrical system has been sold off, and the citizens and manufacturing sector are being fed to the wolves.

It would not matter which party is in power. They have all bought into the idea of rule by the UN. Sustainability they like to call it. Sustainability means giving up our rights and freedoms to an outside entity.

Treason, if you will.

Every political party in this province will push wind farms to appease the “Green Movement”. Why? Because they are gutless traitors.

The govt. cannot present a case to defend their actions, because other than Green rhetoric, there is no case.

Nowhere in the world has wind energy proven it’s worth. The Danes are fighting against wind farms in Denmark, birthplace of modern day wind energy.

Germany, home to more wind power than any other country is building 26 coal plants. Why? Wind is not doing the job, nor will it ever.

Denmark saw wind as a clean alternative. It is a very small country of 5 million, yet it is heavily dependent on it’s neighbours for it’s power.

Enron discovered they could make a lot of money and gain control of large portions of the American grid by jumping on the “Global Warming” wagon.

Clinton, Gore and Maurice Strong were all involved in helping Enron.

Through subsidies and tax benefits, combined with their natural gas interests, there was billions to be made.

Nothing has changed. The wind industry of today is the ghost of Enron reborn, and it’s just as evil.

Don’t take my word, do your own research.

Please support the people of Wolfe Island and the many other communities threatened by wind farms by sending your thoughts to the Minister of the Environment.

.

April 12, 2008

Mr. John Gerretsen, M.P

Minister of the Environment

135 St. Clair Ave W., 15th Floor

Toronto, Ontario

M4V 1P5
RE: WOLFE ISLAND WIND PROJECT – APPEAL REQUEST FOR EA
Dear Mr. Gerretsen:
I am in absolute disbelief that an individual Environmental

Assessment has been denied for this project.

CREC has obliged itself to deliver a wind plant with nameplate

capacity of 197.8 megawatts, to be operational by October 2008.
In a letter to Shelia Allen, dated January 4 2008, Ontario Projects

Manager Geoff Carnegie refers to financial penalties to be imposed by

the OPA should CREC fail to deliver on this obligation.
In the same letter, Mr Carnegie also comments on the economic

“non-viability” of turbine deactivation or removal, and allows that

CREC will counter adverse effects only by employing “commercially

reasonable” efforts.
So Mr. Gerretsen, am I to understand that a private energy company is

taking money to fulfill a production quota, self site a power plant,

and now declares itself immune to accountability on financial basis?
I do not need to go into great detail about the social and

environmental uniqueness of Wolfe Island. You have been well furnished

with documents to that effect. You know that this island sits at the

head of the biggest estuary on the planet, is on the flight path of a

significant number of migratory species, and is the nesting site for

many endangered species. You also know as a CLASS IV IBA, Wolfe Island

would not even qualify for this development were the proposal made

today.
You are also well aware that not a single turbine has been moved in

response to the

many recommendations of Environment Canada, Ministry of Natural Resources,

Ducks Unlimited and the Kingston Field Naturalists. So what exactly is

going on?
You have attended a conciliatory BBQ with optioned landowners and

told concerned citizens that you “like the look of windmills”.
You are the Minister of The Environment, and you demand nothing more

of corporations than they self regulate their practices as much as is

‘commercially reasonable’ ?
I am well aware of the political risks of criticising wind energy. I

also know that if these projects are done recklessly, it jeopardizes

the future of wind development in our country.
You need look no further than our divided community, or the price of

real estate Melanthon to see where a lack of policy is getting us.

Does your party want to go down as the builders of sustainability,

viable public infrastructure, or the contractors of political

expedience? To choose the later risks not only your legacy, but as I

stated, that of the industry itself.
I like the look of windmills too. I like the clusters of 4-5 you

see outside of Danish villages, or the 20 in Copenhagen’s harbour.

Denmark is the leader in renewable energy, has decades of experience

in wind harnessing, uses minimum setbacks of two kilometres, and

practices the environmentally meaningful method of energy production:

‘use at source’. This is not the paradigm being followed here.
Our constituency is further insulted that we are left to the mercy

of absurd ‘post construction mitigation’, carried out at the

discretion of a company which has lied to us with promises of turbine

deactivation in the event of high avian mortality, noise, ice throw or

other perils. Mr Carnegie’s letter lets us know this form of

mitigation is actually an autopsy. Once our habitats are desecrated,

CREC proposes buying land elsewhere and “creating new sites with

desirable habitat features”. So much for good old conservation. I

would call this level of vanity ‘Biblical’.
If a bump-up is denied , we will take every political and legal

measure to bring this ill-informed green washing to light. As a

musician who travels the world, I have watched communities grow up

quickly in the face of political opportunists. I am no longer asked in

interviews what my problem with wind power is, but where is my

government in all this?
I would like to say that it is working with due diligence to secure

meaningful and sustainable practises. Today those are definitely not

the words I use. Give our island the respect of full environmental

assessment, and let us implement appropriate safeguards to protect the

environment and your constituents. Anything less implicates a

dedicated ignorance or ulterior motive.
Sincerely,
Hugh Christopher Brown

Wolfe Island, Ontario

c.c.
Lynn Moore, Chair

Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment

792 Fairfax Dr., Kingston, Ontario K7M 4V7
c.c.
Dalton McGuinty, Premier

Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1

dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Mr. Robert W. Runciman

Room 436, Main Legislative Building

Toronto ON M7A 1A4

rwrunciman@brockville.com
John Yakabuski

Official Opposition Energy Critic

Queen’s Park

Room 202, N.W., Legislative building

Toronto, Ontario M7A lA8

john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org
Ted Arnott

Tourism Critic PC

181 St. Andrew St E, 2nd Flr

Fergus ON N1M 1P9

ted.arnott@pc.ola.org
Ms. Peggy Smith, Solicitor

160 Johnson St.,

Kingston, Ontario K7L 1Y1

middle@kos.net
Mr. John Tory, PC Leader,

Room 200, NW, Legislative Bldg,

Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario M7A lA8

leader@ontariopc.net
Ms. Elizabeth May, Leader

Green Party of Canada

P.O. Box 997, Station B

Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5R1

leader@greenparty.ca

Advertisements

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

December 10, 2008

poll results

wind turbines towering over farm

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

Yes (198)
No (840)
Don’t Know (83)

Total votes: 1121

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract

Wind Farms – Lake Huron Ontario – Video

May 31, 2008

Editor:

Tried to post a comment on this video by the Windsor Star but it wouldn’t accept comments so I had to bring it here.

These comments will make sense, or not, after you view the video.

The reporter in the video says the wind will power 440,00 homes. According to the ISO – for planning purposes they are rated at 10% of capacity or 44,00 homes. Big difference.

Ernie Marshall, in the blue coveralls, and his wife have moved. Ernie was suffering from health problems he didn’t have before the arrival of the turbines. Ernie says his health is slowly returning and his doctor is happy with his progress since he moved. Both Ernie and his wife say that after two years of living near the turbines,they are finally enjoying uninterrupted sleep. The neighbors Ernie said goodbye to are still suffering from noise, stray voltage and flicker, not to mention the flashing lights on top of the turbines every night.

The gentleman in the brown coveralls has moved as well. After the problems at the Epcor site he didn’t want to be around when the Enbridge site was completed. He is well aware of the problems created by wind turbines and feared he might not find a buyer after the turbines arrived.

Neither of these people wanted to move, but felt they had no choice.

Every wind farm in southern Ont. has impacted families in a negative way.

Bob Simpson, the gentleman from Enbridge says they will respond quickly to solve any problems. Unless Mr. Simpson plans on moving the turbines farther away from peoples homes there is nothing he or his company can do. For the next twenty years people will suffer the consequences of bad planning and greed.

Mr. Simpson mentions reducing emissions. Nowhere on the planet can I find any evidence of emission reductions from the use of wind turbines.

Germany has more wind turbines than anywhere else. They are in the process of building 20 plus coal plants. I would say their emissions are about to take a big jump. Wind doesn’t seem to have done Germany much good.

The number of fossil fuel plants closed as a direct use of wind energy – o – Zero – none – zip

Wind energy has doubled in Ont. Does that mean we are twice as stupid as we should be.

When the govt. the industry and the media are all saying how great wind energy is,it’s hard to accept the reality that is the wind industry – and that’s exactly what they are counting on.

A quote from a person living at the Suncor wind farm Ripley. When asked how it was living near the turbines. “I’ll tell you how it is, our life is shit since the wind farm came.”

Ripley has a 700 meter setback, The Enbridge and Epcor wind farms have a 450 meter setback.

A video of the Ripley wind farm can be found under videos at top of page.

Do some research on your own. Theres nothing on TV anyway.

.

Video by the Windsor Star

.

Bill C 51-Notice of a protest rally on in Richmond

May 21, 2008

Editor
Although our main purpose is to expose the wind industry – this is very important. If you can attend do and if you know someone near Richmond please alert them.

.

*Notice of a protest rally on Bill C 51  in Richmond*
On *Wednesday. May 21*, Health Canada is holding a “stakeholders’
meeting” in *Richmond*, behind closed doors,  on  the New Health
Bill –  Bill C 51.
*We need to show Health Canada how we feel!*
*We need* as many *people *as can make it *to do street picketing*.
We need *your help* – there is strength in numbers ( and as many
people as possible who feel passionately about the draconian
injustices and assaults on health contained in this Bill)    **
*Bring good signs* – we are hoping for some TV news coverage!     When:  *May 21, 2008    –   _ 3 pm_ – 5 pm
*    Where:  *Best Western* Richmond Hotel & Convention Centre
*7551 Westminster Highway*,
Richmond, BC
Even though this is a rather late notice, (since this takes
place this Wednesday) please pass this message on to as many of
your local contacts as possible.  Thank you!
Hope to see you there!

*If you know that you can make it, please let Kurt know at   604
327-5453

*
He has taken the initiative to organize this protest rally because
he is so very concerned about Bill C 51.  I hope you are too.

“When we give government the power to make medical decisions for
us, _ we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies.”_       ~U.S.Representative Ron Paul, MD

What does Bill C 51 do?  It makes it a crime for you to take care of
your health in any  manner  – *unless granted specific government
permission*.  At the present time, 60 -70 % of Natural Health
Product applications have been rejected and have failed to receive
that permission.  *The punishments for non-compliance are those
found in total dictatorships – they are draconian and onerous beyond
description.*
Bill C 51 sells your health decisions to government bagmen,
which are in bed with Big Pharma .  It destroys your right to make
your own health choices, your right to practice self-sufficiency and
independence – and it removes your access to Natural Health Products
that have been shown to be safe for centuries.         *Take back jurisdiction over your own body* – It is your God-given
birthright – protect it!.  It does not belong to the government, and certainly not to industry. (Big Pharma).

A Fight Against Windmills In Denmark

February 18, 2008

Editor:
Wind farms are quiet and cause no problems. That’s what we were told. Yet, in Denmark  people don’t want wind turbines near them because of noise, flicker and other problems. Both the industry and the govt. continue to ignore any and all of the problems associated with the wind industry. Why?

Property values do go down once a wind farm is built near homes.

That’s a fact.  

Local politics could short-circuit a national plan to concentrate wind turbines in the country’s windiest areas

Local councils in the country’s 28 windiest towns are digging in their heels against a national plan that would cluster the next generation of high-efficiency wind turbines within their borders, Politiken newspaper reports.

In order to meet its goal of doubling wind power capacity by 2025 as inexpensively as possible, the government will need to place 90 percent of an estimated 1000 land-based windmills, each standing up to 150m, in the windiest areas.

Facing the prospect of asking their residents to accept an average of 35 giant wind turbines, local councillors are already warning national politicians that they are preparing to put up a fight.

‘I think that the 60,000 people that live here in our town would head straight to Copenhagen to protest,’ said John Christensen, chairman of the planning board of the Frederikshavn council in windy northern Jutland.

A number of other councils have already rejected plans to begin building new land-based turbines, many out of concern about problems related to noise and shadows created by the giant turbines.

‘There aren’t a lot of politicians out there saying, “We just have to have this, and we’re willing to risk our seats for it,” ‘ said Søren Hermansen, head of the Energy Academy on the island of Samsø, which this year marks 10 years of energy independence. ‘They don’t dare. If they force windmill projects on their constituents, they won’t be re-elected.’

Two other models for building new windmills, such as offshore windparks and an even distribution throughout the entire country have been looked at by the national Planning Committee for Land-based Wind Turbines.

Both, however, were found to be less cost-effective than concentrating new windmills in the windiest regions.

Source 

Ontario Boasts 472 MW of Wind Energy

January 27, 2008

We now have 472 MW of  clean renewable wind energy, making us less dependent on those dirty fossil fuels, or are we?

At 300 homes per MW, the wind farms in Ont. should according to  the Govt., wind industry and the media, the 472 MW should be powering 141,600 homes.

At 3pm I checked to see how wind energy was helping meet the needs of the people of Ont.

The wind farms at 3pm today were producing 10 MW, enough to power 3000 homes.

Wonder what the other 138,600 homes are being powered by.

They are being powered by dependable energies like, Hydro, Nuclear and yes folks, fossil fuels.

How does Dalton McGuinty feel about wind energy?

Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

Dalton says “Wind Farms” are expensive and unreliable. He intends to back up the wind farms with Natural Gas, expensive and a significant contributor to global warming.

We should all be P_R_O_U_D to have Dalton McGuinty running the affairs of Ont.

I don’t want to upset anyone, but guess who’s looking after your health care and educational systems.

Dalton McGuinty – the leader of  Ontario’s Puppet Govt.

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

January 14, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Lynne, for sending me the Hansard below. Just what is Premier, Dalton McGuinty up to.

pinn_mcguintyhr370.jpgAccording to our Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

So Mr. Premiere, instead of building a cost effective reliable electrical system for Ont., you have decided to do the exact opposite. Why?

You say, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”.

Building thousands of megawatts of gas plants, will result in a significant, unnecessary cost, with little or no benefit to the environment. Installing the scrubbers on the coal plants would have brought down the emissions very close to that of the, to be built gas plants, at a fraction of the cost. In fact, by not installing the scrubbers on the coal plants you have put the health of the people of Ont. at risk.

You go on to say
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“But we’re not just sitting on our hands as we weigh these important issues before us. Let me tell you about some of the exciting news that we have by way of creating new wind farms in Ontario. We’ve announced three new wind farms in the last month alone. At Erie Shores, there’s a new wind farm with 66 turbines producing 99 megawatts of power for 25,000 homes. The first phase of a new wind farm outside Goderich is now up. That’s 22 turbines producing enough power for 12,000 homes. And the first phase of a new wind farm is now up outside Shelburne, Ontario: 45 turbines producing 67.5 megawatts. That’s enough to power 18,000 homes”.

Your statement above sounds good, but it’s not exactly honest. According to the Independent Electricity System Operator — “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.”
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday 10 April 2006

According to you, the wind farms listed above, produce enough energy to power 55,000 homes, but the IESO says they have a real capacity to power only 5,500 homes.

How long would a auto company get away with advertising “our car gets 60 mpg”, when in reality it only gets 6 mpg. Not long. So why is the govt. allowed to misrepresent in such an overt manner?
You call wind energy, “expensive and not reliable”. Why are you building them?

A new report predicts that energy costs could rise as much as 70 per cent if natural gas generation replaces the four coal plants. But McGuinty said that’s the cost of cleaner air.

“The single greatest contributor to greenhouse gases in the province of Ontario is coal-fired generation so we’re going to do something about that,” he said.

You also said, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”

I had the opportunity to talk with one of your energy advisors about a year ago. He says that the gas plants are more dangerous to health than coal plants with scrubbers installed. Apparently the particulate from the gas plants is much finer and harder for the body to deal with. I was also told gas plants are great emitters of ground level ozone, which is very hard on people with asthma or other breathing problems.

Our manufacturers in Ont. are losing jobs because of the high dollar, while at the same time, Mr. McGuinty, you are doing everything in your power to drive up the cost of electricity. Any significant rise in the cost of power will drive industry out of Ont., and they won’t likely return.

Mr. McGuinty, you recently went to Ottawa looking for Federal Govt. aid to help the manufacturing sector in Ont., while at the same time you are building an electrical system that is sure to drive industry out of the Province or into bankruptcy.

Who are you working for anyway? The people of Ont. or the Maurice Strong agenda. So far, it looks like Strong has your attention. You are obviously not listening to your own energy advisors.

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

Further reading material

T h e E 8 r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s

green-agrenda-quotes

Mr. McGuinty, you already know the devastating affect your “Green” polices are having on people and their property values, and you seem convinced, by your own words, that your energy polices are badly flawed, “expensive and unreliable”.

Yet, you continue down this path of destruction for the Ont. economy. Why?

County commissioners say no to wind farms

December 28, 2007

Editor:
Finally, wind farms are being turned down for reasons brought forward by those fighting the industry. Noise, loss of property value and loss of enjoyment of  property.

The court also acknowledged the efforts of members from the organization Save Our Scenic Hill Country who were on hand for the decision.
It’s refreshing to see the efforts of those working so hard to educate the public about the downside of Industrial Wind Farms being recognized. Most of the people fighting wind farms are “Greener ” than those promoting  their use.
We need to keep the pressure on and get other Govt. bodies to accept the findings of this and other similar decisions. Never forget. You elected these people to serve the people, not big business. What can they say at this point? They can’t plead ignorance any longer. The only defense they might have is that they are truly stupid. Stupid people should step aside. They have no right to be making decisions for you or anyone else.

County commissioners say no to wind farms

Applause filled the Gillespie County Commissioners’ Courtroom Thursday after commissioners passed a resolution opposing wind farms in Gillespie County.

Signed by Gillespie County Judge Mark Stroeher and all four commissioners, the document states the court’s opposition to “the construction and installation of industrial wind farms in Gillespie County and the surrounding Hill Country area.”

Stroeher said that the Llano City Council had recently passed a similar resolution to the one approved during the meeting, which had been moved up from its originally scheduled date on Christmas Eve.

The court’s action comes soon after a similar resolution of principle was adopted by the Fredericksburg City Council at their Dec. 3 meeting and the recent announcement by NRG Energy that they were no longer considering a wind turbine site in Gillespie County.

Commissioner Donnie Schuch said the decision must “consider private property rights of everyone” and take into account what was “best for the total, not for the few.”

A highlight of the resolution, read in open court by Stroeher, was the commissioners’ concern of the “negative impact” economically that the county would see if turbines were constructed in the area.

The document notes the belief of appraisers and realtors “that land values in the area in which industrial wind farms are situated will be substantially decreased.”

The two-page resolution also cites an Electric Reliability Council of Texas report that the area is ranked 20th out of 25 potential wind areas in the state.

In their findings, however, the commissioners did acknowledge “that potential income to participating property owners who sign options for leases for wind turbines to be located on their property could be beneficial to those landowners.”

Other concerns raised in the resolution include wind turbine construction negatively altering views from Enchanted Rock State Natural Area as well as wildlife and environmental impacts that the construction of wind farms would bring to the region.

The court also acknowledged the efforts of members from the organization Save Our Scenic Hill Country who were on hand for the decision.

“We do appreciate what you all are doing out there,” Stroeher said, emphasizing the group’s efforts to educate members of the community about the issue.

Calculating The Real Cost of Industrial Wind Power

December 6, 2007

Friends of Arran Lake Wind Action Group Bruce County, Ontario

AN INFORMATION UPDATE FOR ONTARIO ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS

Compiled by
Keith Stelling, MA (McMaster), MNIMH, Dip. Phyt., MCPP (England)
November, 2007

INTRODUCTION

1.0 The history of human technological innovation is littered with projects that have had to be abandoned because they were based on a narrow theoretical view that failed to take into account the whole picture. The commercial exploitation of wind energy is fast showing signs of such failure.

The last ten years in Europe has provided ample opportunity to evaluate the real costs and claimed benefits of industrial wind turbines based on actual operating statistics.

· Studies by public electricity distributors now challenge the very assumption upon which the ecological value of commercial wind power is based: that it reduces carbon emissions.

· Energy experts report that industrial wind power is proving to be exceptionally expensive to consumers once required backup and additional infrastructure are factored in. The high cost is caused by
(a) the need to maintain backup generating reserve to cover times when the wind does not blow.
(b) The need to stabilize the grid when wind produces power that is not needed by current demand.
(c) Government subsidization and tax benefits for the wind industry.

· New studies show that the perceived benign environmental footprint of the industrial wind turbine does not correspond with the latest field studies of effects are being provoked by wind turbine installations.

In the United States, Senator Lamar Alexander put it bluntly when introducing his Envirnonmentally Responsible Wind Power Act of 2005:

“My studies suggest that at a time when America needs large amounts of low-cost reliable power, wind produces puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power. We need lower prices; wind power raises prices.”

In Ontario, – Tom Adams, formerly of Energy Probe, wrote in the National Post on 20 November, 2007:

“Without radical technological advances, wind power will only burden Ontario consumers.”

Read the full pdf report

Worldwide rush for wind power could result in massive debt

November 30, 2007

Posted November 30, 2007

As told in a recent ad, a Johnsburg farmer who will host wind turbines now has many regrets.

He regrets having been the “lure” to draw in other unsuspecting landowners. He regrets that he has allowed fields to be subdivided, road base to be spread on land once picked bare of rocks, costly tiling to be cut up. He regrets that he’s no longer the person who controls his own land and is now told where to go by security guards. He regrets the divide he has created between friends, between neighbors and between family members.

He regrets not having looked into all the ramifications first. That farmer is now locked in to a binding contract. But there are many landowners who have not yet suffered this fate.

Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy asks that landowners considering a contract first step back and study the issues. As with any financial transaction, don’t put a lot of trust in those who stand to gain financially.

Look for Web sites and information from those experiencing the effects of this worldwide “gold” rush for wind power. People across world are rebelling. They’re finding that they’ve lost control of their land and their lives. And they’re in danger of financial hardship if these companies dissolve.

Our irresponsible government representatives are forcing this “windfall” for wind investors on us. Their knee-jerk reaction to the global climate change alarms will cause billions of dollars to be wasted, lives to be ruined, and environments degraded for what is, in actuality, a very inefficient energy source.

With a declining tax base and state and U.S. legislators driving us further into massive debt, taxpayer subsidies for wind will be impossible to maintain.

And with the subsidies gone, what will you be left hosting?

Don Bangert,

Chilton

postcrescent.com