Posts Tagged ‘Smitherman’

Welcome to Ontario – Monty Python

March 16, 2009

The part about the Lady of the Lake – Think Gaia, Earth Goddess and the environmental movement. Is the toady beside the King, Smitherman or is it Suzuki? I can’t make out the face.

Green Energy Police

March 6, 2009

Editor:  If this does not wake you up to the scam that is the Green Energy Act of Ontario nothing will. The freedom you used to enjoy in your own home is about to be removed under the guise of saving the environment.

Welcome to Fascism in Ontario!

.

Green energy police: Is that a beer fridge in your basement?

Posted: March 05, 2009, 7:24 PM by NP Editor

Green Energy Act Ontario’s Green Energy Act, as proposed by the McGuinty government, would give the province new powers of search and seizure. Under a section dealing with “Mandatory conservation and energy efficiency practices,” the act aims to enforce energy- and water-use efficiency standards. To aid enforcement, a section of the act deals with the methods to be used. Here are some excerpts: Part IV: Inspections, Enforcement and Penalties Inspectors 15.

(1) The Deputy Minister may designate in writing any person as an inspector for the purposes of Parts I and III. Powers, Part III

(3) For the purposes of Part III and the regulations, an inspector designated under subsection (1), (a) at any reasonable time, may enter any place where an appliance or product to which Part III applies is manufactured, offered for sale, sold or leased; (b) may request the production for inspection of documents or things that may be relevant to the carrying out of an inspection or test on an appliance or product to which Part III applies; (c) upon giving a receipt for it, may remove from a place documents or things produced pursuant to a request under clause (b) for the purpose of making copies or extracts and shall promptly return them to the person who produced them; (d) may inspect and test any appliance or product to which

Part III applies to ensure that the appliance or product complies with the Part and the regulations; and (e) may require any person to co-operate in and assist with an inspection or test. Entry of dwelling (4) A person shall not exercise a power of entry conferred by this Part to enter a place that is being used as a dwelling without the consent of the occupier except under the authority of a warrant issued under this section. Search warrant (5) Upon application made without notice by an inspector, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant, if he or she is satisfied on information under oath that there is reasonable ground for believing that, (a) a person has contravened or is contravening Part I or III or the regulations; and (b) there is, (i) in any building, dwelling, receptacle or place anything relating to the contravention of Part I or III or the regulations, or (ii) information or evidence relating to the contravention of Part I or III or the regulations that may be obtained through the use of an investigative technique or procedure or the doing of anything described in the warrant.

Powers under warrant (6) Subject to any conditions contained in it, a warrant obtained under subsection (5) authorizes an inspector, (a) to enter or access the building, dwelling, receptacle or place specified in the warrant and examine and seize anything described in the warrant; (b) to use any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system in order to produce information or evidence described in the warrant, in any form;

Entry of dwelling (7) Despite subsection (6), an inspector shall not exercise the power under a warrant to enter a place, or part of a place, used as a dwelling, unless, (a) the justice of the peace is informed that the warrant is being sought to authorize entry into a dwelling; and (b) the justice of the peace authorizes the entry into the dwelling. Time of execution (10) An entry or access under a warrant issued under this section shall be made between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., unless the warrant specifies otherwise… Penalty 16.

(1) Every person who contravenes any provision of Part I, Part III or this Part or the regulations is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or, if the person is a body corporate, to a fine of not more than $25,000.

(2) Where a body corporate contravenes any provision of Part I, Part III or this Part or the regulations, every director or officer of the body corporate who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the contravention is a party to and guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to the penalty provided for in the offence whether or not the body corporate has been prosecuted or convicted.

National Post

Township puts moratorium on turbines

March 4, 2009

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Township puts Two-year moratorium on turbines; issue will go to referendum

The Township of Madawaska Valley Council has slapped a moratorium on the approval of any wind turbine projects until next year’s municipal elections, at which time voters will have a chance to vote on the wind farm issue in a referendum question attached to their ballots.

The move came after an at-times heated debate on the issue at Monday night’s regular council meeting.

It is not clear just how much direct impact council’s measure will have – Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has warned that he will not let local opposition stand in the way of so-called Green Energy projects, and has said that the province will take responsibility for the approval of such proposals – most notably industrial wind turbine farms – away from municipalities. Indeed, some council members acknowledged that they expect the provincial government will overrule them. Nonetheless, council’s move will likely diffuse much of the ongoing public pressure on council over the wind turbine controversy.

At the moment, the sole project proposed for the Township of Madawaska Valley is for the construction of six of the mammoth turbines on the hills north of the Village of Wilno. But

several other projects, many of them much larger, are planned for the Township of South Algonquin to the west, and in communities to the east and southeast of Madawaska Valley as well.

Up until Monday night, Madawaska Valley Council’s stand had been that, while it had listened to many submissions from opponents of the industrial wind project, it had not yet heard from the wind power company. Mayor John Hildebrandt had stated several times that council wanted to hear the other side of the story before taking a position. This was criticized by some opponents, who wanted council to come out solidly against turbines.

The resolution to put the matter on hold pending a referendum in 2010 was tabled by Councillor Sylvie Yantha, who in doing so was resurrecting a similar motion that he had initially proposed in November. Last night’s version was immediately seconded by Councillor Shelley Maika and the other councillors supported it.

“I think we should give the people a choice as to what they want,” Yantha said in making his motion. “I think that … the voters are waiting for answers. Let’s let the voters decide.”

Monday night’s meeting began with two delegations on the wind issue, which has been in the public eye since a firm named SkyPower first proposed to build six turbines near Wilno early in 2008.

Carl Bromwich of Wilno said he was appearing to ask that a public meeting be convened on the issue “to smooth over some of the rough edges” surrounding the dispute. He praised Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke MPP John Yakabuski for “leading our fight in the Legislature” against the Liberal government’s Green Energy Act bill, saying he was “doing a hell of a good job.” But it is time that MV council spoke out on the matter, too, Bromwich said.

He urged council to “use the powers you have now to make a statement” against the Green Energy Act and wind turbines.

“Your power is our power and if we lose it, we’re going to be answering to (Energy and Infrastructure Minister) George Smitherman and Dalton McGuinty for the rest of our lives.”

Later, Lou Eyamie of SOS, or Save Our Skyline, the lead organization fighting against the Wilno wind farm proposal, also urged council to take a stand on the wind farm proposal.

“I firmly believe that if you people don’t make your position known … you’re going to be too late,” Eyamie said.

Municipal politicians in the townships of South Algonquin, where several turbines are planned for near the eastern border of Algonquin Provincial Park, and in Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards, where no wind projects are currently proposed, have passed moratoriums on any approvals of wind turbines. Those measures, combined with several others approved by municipalities across the province, were followed by the provincial government’s plan to take over the power to set guidelines and approve projects under its Green Energy Act, which is now before the Legislature.

Denise Brotton of Wilno also addressed council. She said she was glad to see that council has taken the initiative “to do something” about the wind farm controversy, but was skeptical of the McGuinty government’s promises that municipalities will receive money from the wind turbines built in their communities.

“I have no faith that they will contribute anything to us,” she said.

She also cited a news release by MPP John Yakabuski that questions Liberal promises that electricity prices will not rise sharply under the Green Energy Act. Smitherman had pegged the increase at one per cent.

In the Feb. 24 release, Yakabuski noted that Smitherman himself put the cost of the bill at $5 billion. Yakabuski suggested that, with 4.2 million electricity consumers in Ontario footing that bill, this would mean each consumer would face an average increase of $1,200 – a 30 per cent increase over three years.

By Douglas Gloin

Barry’s Bay This Week 4 March 2009

think

Bill 150: Is it green? Is it democratic?

March 1, 2009
From: Keith Stelling <stelling@bmts.com>

FRIENDS OF ARRAN LAKE

A member of

W i n d c o n c e r n s O n t a r i o

___________________________________________

Website: http://windconcernsontario.org Email: stelling@bmts.com

____________________________________________________________

Keith Stelling, BA (Hons), MA (McMaster), MNIMH, Dip. Phyt., MCPP (England)

RR1, Southampton, Ontario, N0H 2L0

Could you spare a moment to send an email to as many MPPs as possible to stop bill 150?

Attached is my critique of Bill 150. It will allow them to destroy the Niagara Escarpment and ruin conservation areas. We will have no way of objecting. We need urgently letters to MPPs from people all across ontario. This is serious denial of civil rights. It has already been pushed through second reading without discussion. Thousands of emails are being sent to MPPs. We need urgent action before further House discussion on Monday.

Please help.

Kind regards,

Keith.

Bill 150: Is it green? Is it democratic?

By Keith Stelling

FIRST THE MAIN POINTS:

  1. This bill takes away your civil rights to protest any “energy” or infrastructure project.

  1. It strips the rights of your municipality to control local planning of where such developments will be sited.

  1. It promotes the installation of hundreds of industrial wind turbines across rural Ontario and requires you to pay in your electricity bill the 5 billion dollars needed to connect them all to the grid. (Many observers are calculating a 30% increase in electricity bills just for this).

  1. Because the wind turbines are inconsistent and intermittent in their electricity production, new gas plants will have to be built and run inefficiently to “shadow” the wind. You will be required to pay for the construction and operation of these too.

  1. In Germany and Denmark, wind turbines have actually increased fossil fuel consumption, have not decreased CO2 emissions and they have the highest electricity rates in Europe. Germans and Danes are very worried about the effect this has on their industry. When electricity costs rise, manufacturers move out. This has already happened in New York State and California. This means even more lost jobs in Ontario’s already hard hit manufacturing sector.

  1. Our conservation authorities will now be powerless to prevent large electricity developments within their boundaries. The effect on sensitive natural habitats will be devastating.

  1. Our provincial pride, the Niagara Escarpment, a world biosphere will be trashed. It is being opened up to gas and oil pipelines, wind turbines and other “renewable energy projects”, “the generation, transmission and distribution of steam or hot water; telegraph and telephone lines and other cabled services; a public transportation system; licensed broadcasting, receiving and transmitting facilities; or any other similar works or systems necessary to the public interest”. Who’s interest?

NOW LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE DETAILS:

Careful examination required for a bill which nullifies so much existing legislation

When a government proposes a piece of legislation, it is critical that it must be reviewed meticulously in committee to discover all the implications for existing legislation, its conformity to societal values, the probable net effect it will have on communities and the economy. Parliamentarians have also to be on the look out for the claims made by those proposing the legislation and the discrepancies found in the small print.

  • Any act of parliament which nullifies certain functions of already existing legislation should be examined very carefully indeed. This bill tampers with a whole string of them.

With all the fanfare and the well publicized spin that has preceded Bill 150 in an attempt to sell to the public, one would have thought at least this would be a memorable document, eloquently written, outlining ideals and long term objectives, and full of new ideas and practical innovations that would both inspire Ontarians to commit themselves to conservation and environmental custodianship and provide long term direction for cleaning up the planet. Instead, we have been presented with a distorted, scrappy bit of legislation, most of which is left to undisclosed procedural decisions by the Minister at a later date.

  • What is amply clear is that the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure wants to have the final say in anything that affects electricity projects, town planning, conservation and environmental legislation and citizen participation in decision making.

A more cynical observer might even suggest that it is an aggressive move by the Deputy Premier/Minister of Energy/Infrastructure to take over essential aspects of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Municipal Affairs and Housing portfolios.

Danger of this type of piecemeal legislation undoing checks and balances

The danger in this, of course, is that the checks and balances built into our system of governance through these four separate ministries are essential to our democratic values and the practical functioning of government.

Need to verify the purported aim and the foreseeable effects

Any proposed legislation has to be scrutinized to make sure that its purported aim is the same as its foreseeable effect. Self-contradictions can indicate motives that are not in the public interest.

For example, the government seems to have given little thought about the actual ability of wind turbines to allow Ontario to become less reliant upon fossil-fuel generated electricity. The bill states that one of its purposes is “to fund conservation or renewable energy programs aimed at decreasing the consumption of two or more of the following fuels:” and the list includes coal, and natural gas.

The Ministry of Energy is proposing removing all barriers to the rapid and widespread installation of industrial wind turbines across the province.

  • But what has not been discussed is whether the massive installation of commercial wind energy will actually have the claimed effect in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. While the minister never tires of holding up Denmark and Germany as great environmental successes with more wind turbines than anywhere else, there are disturbing reports coming out of both of these countries which are finding that wind turbines don’t lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The facts:

What the public is seldom told is that because of the intermittency and unpredictability of wind, fossil fuel back-up generation is required to maintain grid stability. In effect, this means that electricity consumers pay twice for wind energy. In addition an enormous public subsidy is required to build the new transmission lines from so many widely dispersed wind energy sites.

  • A 2008 study published in the journal Energy Policy by Jim Oswald of Coventry University in the U.K. concluded: “not only is wind power far more expensive and unreliable than previously thought; it cannot avoid using high levels of natural gas, which not only will increase costs but in turn will mean far less of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than has been claimed.

  • Der Spiegel recently reported that despite all the wind turbines in Germany (more than 20,000)German CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram” and even the Green Party has recognized the problem.

  • The Wall Street Journal explained last September: “Germany‘s gas consumption for power generation more than doubled between 1990 and 2007.

  • In the U.K., the newly installed wind technology is also backed up by gas. Figures released in November by the OECD indicate that “in the past year alone, prices for electricity and natural gas in the U.K. have risen twice as fast as the European Union average”.

  • Tony Lodge of the U.K Centre for Policy Studies notes that Denmark, with the most wind turbines in Europe has not closed a single conventional power plant in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed. The “Danes have found that it is not practical for large base load plants to be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises; base load stations have to keep running so that they can ‘shadow’ wind turbines due to their intermittency. So when the wind is blowing perfectly for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price.”

  • “According to the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The increase in the demand for coal, needed to plug the gap left by underperforming wind farms, meant that Danish carbon emissions rose by 36% in 2006. This has undermined the “green” credentials of Danish wind farms Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green.”

  • Now the British Wind Energy Association has been forced by the Advertising Standards Authority to stop exaggerating by double the amount of carbon dioxide emissions eliminated by using wind turbines.

  • The Ontario Legislature Hansard record from Friday 27 February, 2009: “Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are a few things that we know, and I said this yesterday but I think it’s worth repeating. With absolute certainly, oil and gas are going to go up in terms of their costs; we know that for sure. We also know that when we buy oil and gas from Alberta, we don’t create any jobs in Ontario whatsoever, but when we invest in our renewables sector and put up those wind turbines, solar farms and biogas operations, that does create jobs here.” He doesn’t seem to get the concept.

A recent report by the Fraser Institute stated: “the Ontario Power Authority failed to conduct economic analyses to determine the most cost-effective mix of future energy supplies.”

Silencing public criticism

The government has publicly stated that citizens who object to their “policy” must be silenced. This bill certainly achieves that objective. The surprisingly untidy organization of the act— large sections being no more than a series of amendments to existing legislation– appears to be the result of a random search by government lawyers to disable every statute that might be used to oppose government policy. The result is an unacceptable dismantling of real environmental protection in this province.

Municipalities and counties asking for moratoriums and health studies on wind turbines

To refuse public input raises serious questions about the true motivations of the government. Health and safety issues for rural residents living close to wind turbines have arisen in every jurisdiction where they have been installed. Wouldn’t it be expected that a minister overseeing such installations should follow up on the request from a number of Ontario municipalities and county councils for a moratorium on the deployment of industrial wind energy pending proper health studies? The Province of Nova Scotia is now insisting on 1.44 km setbacks from non-participating properties, and 1.2 km for project participants. Why are no similar setbacks mentioned in this bill?

How much detail should be left to ministerial procedural decisions?

One major shortcoming of the bill is that too many essential details are vaguely left to ministerial decisions on procedure. When government claims that it will make adequate setbacks from peoples homes and regulations to avoid placing wind turbines near sensitive natural habitats, we should be insisting on seeing what those regulations are before passing this bill. The current procedure of rubber stamping proponent dictated environmental assessments and denying public requests to escalate environmental reviews for all 19 wind turbine projects in Ontario has led to inept and destructive siting in important international migratory bird corridors and stopovers.

Should costs required for private company profits be passed on to taxpayers?

Nicely buried in the bill is the provision that electricity consumers will be expected to pay for the huge additional transmission lines required for renewable energy projects. These additions will cost billons of dollars, not a modest increase on the monthly hydro bill as the minister claims. Undoubtedly, the priority will be to facilitate the transmission of so-called green energy from the widely dispersed rural settings where it is produced to the cities where it is consumed, not to restore the aging infrastructure to homes and businesses across the province.

In this way, the bill ensures that private and business electricity consumers will be subsidizing the already heavily subsidized for-profit wind energy producers (often huge oil and gas concerns). Given the doubtful likelihood that commercial wind energy will even substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions, this can hardly be in the pubic interest. Many critics have asserted that it also creates an uneven playing field for conventional energy producers.

In fact, pushing reliance on an unpredictable, intermittent, non-base load electricity source will inevitably lead to the same enormous consumer electricity cost increases that have already occurred in other countries which have embarked on such a strategy. Industrialists in Germany are very concerned about their decreasing competitiveness brought about by skyrocketing electricity costs.

Danish business is similarly concerned. Jytte Kaad Jensen, chief economist for ELTRA, Denmark’s biggest electricity distributor laments: “In just a few years we’ve gone from some of the cheapest electricity in Europe to some of the most costly.” And the Danish Member of Parliament, Aase Madsen who chairs energy policy admits: “For our industry it has been a terribly expensive disaster”.

In October 2005, Robert M. MacIntosh, past president of the Canadian Bankers Association, wrote in the Financial Post: “It’s time for reality to replace

ideology in energy policy”. Before parliament passes this bill, it must insist on some realistic cost/benefit accounting. We should also be asking how many more jobs will be lost in Ontario because of non-competitive electricity costs.

The McGuinty government claims that 50,000 jobs will be created by the Green Energy Act. “Wind farm” maintenance requires only 7 permanent jobs per 199.5 MW, according to Enbridge. Skilled installers are normally supplied by the turbine manufacturers and involve temporary workers often from outside Canada. We have no turbine manufacturing facilities. These jobs are jealously guarded by Germans, Danes, Americans and Spanish industries. However, even these long-established capital intensive manufacturers are now experiencing serious financial setbacks with stagnating order books and the banking system reluctant to supply credit to wind energy projects. Of course we could build the steel towers in Ontario and even the blades, but they are useless without the turbine equipment. Once again, it would be helpful to see some realistic details of the government’s optimistic estimates.

Contradictory claims in the bill

But the most serious concerns about Bill 150 relate to duplicitous presentation: it alleges that it is promoting environmental values and postures its concern for the greater good, while in fact, undermining many of the environmental safeguards already in place and removing the right of citizens to have input. It should sound an alarm for everyone interested in maintaining civil rights and anyone genuinely interested in protecting the environment.

For environmentalists, there are some very disturbing aspects. In its present form, the bill disables the Conservation Authorities Act, making it impossible for a conservation authority to refuse permission for a renewable energy project except when it “is necessary to do so to control pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches”; (It scarcely conceivable that this would ever be the case for a wind turbine development). In fact, a conservation authority would no longer be able to impose conditions on the project. This in effect, removes one of our most important safeguards for the protection of Ontario’s sensitive wildlife habitats. Recent long term studies by European biologists have warned of the danger of habitat fragmentation and long term degradation when wind turbine developments are placed near sensitive Natural Heritage Systems and migratory bird and bat corridors. The government makes the vague claim that it will not allow wind turbine developments to be sited near sensitive environmental areas. But their credibility is stretched when Environment Minister Gerretsen’s ministry has already denied citizen requests to escalate environmental reviews for all 19 Ontario wind energy projects—with the result that some of them are already jeopardizing sensitive natural habitat functionality.

­Do we want to dismantle the Niagara Escarpment Plan?

Even more shocking for a bill that claims to protect the environment is the devious redefinition of the term “utility” in Appendix 2 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Not only does it allow for gas and oil pipelines, wind turbines and other “renewable energy projects commercial or otherwise” along with all their associated infrastructure” to deface and degrade this unique world biosphere; it also opens it up for “the generation, transmission and distribution of steam or hot water; telegraph and telephone lines and other cabled services; a public transportation system; licensed broadcasting, receiving and transmitting facilities; or any other similar works or systems necessary to the public interest”. Would any other country even contemplate so hideous a violation? How could the argument ever be made that such irreversible degradation to one of Ontario’s most outstanding natural assets was “necessary to the public interest”?

Threat to civil rights

But by far the most odious section in the bill is the one which removes the rights of local authorities and individual citizens to appeal decisions of the Ministry of Energy when it allows developments in their communities. All residents of this province should be very worried at this aggressive removal of one of our most precious our civil rights—the entitlement of citizens to determine how our local communities will be planned and to challenge the destruction of our natural heritage assets.

Under the new act, an Ontario resident would be entitled to a hearing by the Tribunal with respect to “a decision of the Director under section 139 in relation to a renewable energy approval only on the grounds that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, human health or safety or the natural environment. Excluded from this list are all the other reasonable claims that might be made such as depreciation of property values, loss of marketability of a house, loss of enjoyment of peace and quiet, loss of quality of recreational facilities etc. “In the case of a hearing required under section 142.1, the holder of the renewable energy approval is a party to the hearing.” This stipulation would inevitably mean the presence of a high powered lawyer acting for the developer with the intent to intimidate and trivialize any complaint. (The OMB hearing at Kincardine required citizens to spend $75,000 of their own money on “experts” in a fruitless attempt to defend their homes. They were not able to afford the fees of a lawyer comparable to that hired by the proponent and their testimony was for the most part belittled by the corporate lawyer as well as the chairman).

However, just to make any public criticism impossible, the McGuinty government has added an ominous clause:

“Onus of proof

(3) “The person who required the hearing has the onus of proving that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, human health or safety or the natural environment”.

The irresponsible inclusion of such a principle in an act of parliament would set a totally unacceptable precedent for environmental law in this province. The 1996 Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act (which gives Ontario municipalities the responsibility for protecting natural heritage features and areas within a land use planning context) as amended in 2005 insists on quite the reverse principle. It more wisely stipulates that the proponent must demonstrate that a development will have no negative impact on the ecological functions of the habitat.

“2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.”

But the present bill would make it impossible for an individual citizen or group of citizens to mount any legal defense against a developer who happens to move into their area. Certainly by now the government has been told enough times that badly sited wind turbine developments have a negative impact on human and animal health. But even if a rural resident could afford legal representation, the contest would be lost before it began since it is very difficult (and costly) to prove long term irreversible medical cause and effect as everyone knows from watching years of litigation against the tobacco industry.

Isn’t the place of our government to protect the vulnerability of its citizens?

In its present form, Bill 150 has many other shortcomings. Communities would not even be allowed to learn the proposed location of wind turbines which would be kept “a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information supplied by the proponent to the Facilitator in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization.” (This line sounds as if it were written by CANWEA). And another civil right is denied in the phrase: “In the event of a conflict between this Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this Act prevails. The premier and the deputy premier are undoing even the Freedom of Information Act!

Undeniably the “green dressing” of this bill requiring government facilities to “ensure the efficient use of energy” at government facilities is positive. But could this not have been done more efficiently in an inter-office memo rather than the expense of an act of parliament? Again, the emphasis on conservation of energy is a reasonable enough goal, but such programs are already in place, although judging from our ever growing energy greed, they certainly need more emphasis. And just what will be the functions of yet another costly bureaucratic operation, the “Renewable Energy Facilitation Office”. What exactly will be the duties of the Ministry employee, the “Renewable Energy Facilitator” other than providing more government jobs? Will she (or more likely he) be looking after the needs of citizens or just developers?

­Bill 150 is flawed and would work against the public interest

It is sad to see so seriously flawed a piece of legislation even being presented to the House for approval. Clearly, it was put together in a rush, and the rush to get it passed into law is intended to prevent public scrutiny. Given the current invective of the government against criticism of its wind energy policy and the regular use of derogatory and belittling terms such as NIMBY for those brave citizens who have the courage to speak out, this bill looks a lot like a vengeful act aimed especially at silencing opposition.

When one is aware of the vigorous lobbying that has been done by the wind energy industry explicitly to silence public discussion, and the fact that at least one prominent member of the governing party is himself a wind energy CEO, it is difficult to regard Bill 150 as non-partisan and in the public interest. It should be returned to the government and completely rewritten after wide public consultation, public hearings, health studies on the effects of wind turbines, impact studies on the environment by the turbines themselves and their back up fossil-fuel generation. Information needs to be gathered diligently from the experience of other jurisdictions, especially those in Europe where better protective laws have been passed at the demand of affected citizens. A complete professional cost/benefit analysis on the feasibility of the addition of the proposed amounts of wind energy to the Ontario grid is also a prerequisite before a balanced judgment can be made. The present economic climate requires more than ever, well thought out plans based on more than wind energy proponents’ spin.

Please email as many friends and MPPs as possible and express your concern.

The Act Web Page

The Act

MPP Contact Information

Comment on the Act – Environmental Registry

We urge you to write your local MPP, Minister Smitherman and Premier McGuinty as soon as possible.

Call on them to recognize the need for proper environmental assessments for renewable energy projects, to require setbacks to be set by citizens and experts – not the wind industry, and to remove the anti democratic ‘reverse onus’ clause.

This is about more than just wind turbines.

This is about civil rights and the stewardship of rural Ontario.

We urge you to write your local MPP, Minister Smitherman and Premier McGuinty as soon as possible.

Call on them to recognize the need for proper environmental assessments for renewable energy projects, to require setbacks to be set by citizens and experts – not the wind industry, and to remove the anti democratic ‘reverse onus’ clause.

This is about more than just wind turbines.

This is about civil rights and the stewardship of rural Ontario.

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Not in my Backyard Jane Pepino

February 27, 2009

Not in My Backyard – The Jane Pepino Story


Ron Stephens

February 25, 2009

I met Ms. Pepino during the 2007 OMB hearing in Kincardine Ontario, where she represented Enbridge in their quest to install a large 110 turbine wind farm in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.

Ms. Pepino proved to be a formidable force for the people trying to defend their property and enjoyment thereof.

After a lengthy seven week hearing the OMB ruled in favour of Enbridge who subsequently erected the wind turbines.

Feb. 7th, 2009 Ms. Pepino gave a presentation concerning the proposed Honeywood wind farm in the township of Mulmur. Ms. Pepino owns property near the proposed wind farm.

During the presentation, Ms. Pepino brought forward, many of the same concerns brought forward by the citizens of the Municipality of Kincardine where she represented Enbridge in 2007.

Did Ms. Pepino learn the truth about the Wind Industry and the inadequacies of the MOE guidelines during the seven week OMB hearing?

Or, is Ms. Pepino just another NIMBY trying to do the same thing as the citizens of Kincardine – protect her property and enjoyment thereof.

The Toronto Hamptons

It’s the city’s best-kept secret: Everyone from Andy Barrie to Jane Pepino has a place in Creemore http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030920/CREEMORE20

“Ms. Pepino, who leads the hectic urban life of a prominent lawyer during the week, has been spending weekends at “the farm” since 1990.

She was drawn to her place near the hamlet of Honeywood not just because of the peace and quiet, but for its proximity to the city and because she and her family can use it year-round.”

“I wanted peace and quiet”

Peace and quiet is what rural Ontario is about for most that have chosen to live there.

Is Ms. Pepino more deserving of peace and quiet than other residents of rural Ontario are?

Excerpt from CORE (Conserve our Rural Environment)Newsletter November 9th 2009 http://www.corecares.ca/Resources/CORE_NEWSLETTER_Feb4_09.pdf
CORE is raising outstanding concerns directly with the proponent, and will be requesting an elevation if these are not satisfactorily addressed. However, it is imperative that individuals do the same: Eolectric must understand its proposal has impact on this community, and the Township of Mulmur must understand the details of those concerns in preparing its response as well. A copy of the Notice of Completion, with all necessary information is attached.

Please provide copies of all correspondence to:

CORE

c/o N. Jane Pepino

Aird & Berlis LLP

1800 – 181 Bay Street, Box 754

Toronto, ON M5H 2T9

Email: jpepino@airdberlis.com

All requests for elevation by others to date – Denied

Ms. Pepino is a powerful lawyer with powerful friends. Can Ms. Pepino and Core be the first to have their elevation request accepted?

If the request is granted what does it really say about due process in Ontario?

Excerpt from Minutes of PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE – TOWNSHIP OF MULMUR- September 10, 2008

Jane Pepino (JP). CORE. Bob Duncanson (BD). CORE. Stephen Headford (SH) JP feels that Mulmur Township is the wrong place for this project.

Is Mulmur Township the wrong place for this project? – 5 wind turbines compared to the 110 installed in Kincardine Township- Does the “Toronto Hamptons” and the people who live there feel they and their concerns are more important compared to the rest of the citizens of Ontario.

What are some of the concerns of Jane Pepino and Core?

Excerpt from CORE Presentation Feb 7th, 2009

PROPOSED HONEYWOOD WINDFARM

http://www.corecares.ca/Resources/PowerPointPresentation_Feb07_09.pdf

Noise

Property devaluation

Shadow Flicker Study incomplete, uses distant
data source, not local

Visual Impact Analysis – not prepared in
accordance with Township Guidelines; being

peer reviewed

Insufficient setbacks for safety – ice throw,

blade throw, structure topple

Offers to lease unfair to property owners
If “non participating”- i.e., no turbine, payment estimated
to be $40 per hectare–about $800/ year for 50 acres.
Can be cancelled anytime by Geilectric– right after zoning,

Places a “gag” on owner, yet notice registered on title,

effecting marketability
Binds owner to sign a lease that is not attached-

Who pays taxes? Insurance? Decommissioning?

What if Geilectric goes bankrupt? Sells to another wind company?

Has the potential to bind land beyond 20 years– review of

compensation levels? Planning Act approvals?

Effectively restricts ability to get, or use, severances

These are the same concerns brought forward at the Enbridge/Kincardine OMB hearing in 2007 and every other wind farm proposal in Ontario

Does Ms. Pepino believe her concerns are substantially different from anyone else’s? Does she believe that she has a greater right to retain the enjoyment and valuation of her property over that of others? Alternatively, does she know something the rest of us do not?

If everyone else fighting for his or her rights can be referred to as NIMBY’S doesn’t that make Ms. Pepino one of us?

If so, let me be the first to welcome Ms. Pepino to the growing community of NIMBY’s. (Not in back yard)

I suggest all wind farm applications be put on hold until the Honeywood wind farm has been dealt with.

Ron Stephens

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com

Doctor calls for health study

February 2, 2009

Doctor calls for health studies on windmill farms

By JOHN MINER, SUN MEDIA

When London surgeon Robert McMurtry decided to build a house, he wanted to go green — geothermal heating, solar panels for hot water and a wind turbine for electricity.

But when he started reading about wind turbines, the former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario said he had a change of heart.

“I thought, ‘Holy Toledo, there are some issues here.’ ”

Dozens of wind turbines have already been built or proposed in Southwestern Ontario, as Queen’s Park tries to wean Ontario off dirty coal-fired electricity plants and reduce its reliance on nuclear power.

McMurtry is calling for health studies into the wind turbine farms popping up across Ontario with backing by the provincial government. With towers nearly 100 metres tall, and blades half that long, the turbines can be an imposing sight, even from afar.


fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);
<!– –>

“At minimum, they should be doing a survey of people around wind farms and getting a sense of how many people are complaining of problems,” he said.

“If there is enough evidence, they should mount a formal epidemiological study,” McMurtry said.

In the U.S. and Western Europe especially, where wind farms are more advanced than in Canada, complaints abound about the low-frequency sound the giant windmills generate.

In Canada, Ontario is one of the only provinces with any regulations governing wind farms, requiring a noise-impact assessment for areas up to 1,000 metres from the wind turbine.

McMurtry is concerned about the health complaints he’s heard from people living near wind farms, including sleep disturbance from the noise of the giant turbine blades.

“Once you have sleep disturbance for a few days, you aren’t going to be feeling well,” he said.

Last week, the province announced it’s backing six new wind farm projects, including three in Chatham-Kent, that are expected to create 558 jobs.

Total investment in the new farms is expected to reach $1.32 billion.

McMurtry, who has taken his concerns to Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman, said it’s going to be an uphill battle to convince people to look hard at the health implications because turbines have become closely associated with green energy.

“It has got an iconic, symbolic status that really carries a lot of weight and there is a very powerful, worldwide lobby group behind it,” he said.

McMurtry said turbines smaller than the ones being installed may be better than the monsters now going up.

“Harness the wind safely. Let’s look at other alternatives. There are better, smarter options,” he added.

Monica Elmes, of the Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group, an organization opposed to the wind farms, said the turbines will be an unreliable, intermittent source of electricity and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

“All Ontario residents are truly the losers in this scam,” Elmes said in an e-mail.

For the latest local coverage, read The London Free Press on the web or in print.

Video of the Ripley wind farm

Province to push renewables – Green Energy for Ontario

September 19, 2008

The Ontario Govt. seems to like this story. Maybe if they read it enough times they might just figure out the scam themselves. It’s 4:15 Fri. the 26th of  Sept. The Gov. of Ontario has viewed this page 12 times today.

gov.on.ca Toronto, Ontario 4:06:34 pm 3 24:48 http://windfarms.wordpress.com/agenda-21/

gov.on.ca Toronto, Ontario 4:03:20 pm 7 62:45 http://kincardine.wordpress.com/…09/21/ontario-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca Toronto, Ontario 3:41:46 pm http://kincardine.wordpress.com/…09/21/ontario-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca ? (Canada) Time of Visit Sep 26 2008 3:00:35 pm Last Page View Sep 26 2008 3:37:56 pm Visit Length 37 minutes 21 seconds Page Views 6 Visit Entry Page http://kincardine.wo…o-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca Toronto, Ontario Sep 26 1:50:25 pm
http://kincardine.wordpress.com/…09/21/ontario-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca ? Sep 26 2008 1:16:51 pm

http://kincardine.wo…o-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca ? Sep 26 2008 9:44:51 am
http://kincardine.wo…o-pushes-renewables

As you read through this article from the Toronto Star, you might want to ask yourself. Where are the people and engineers that actually understand our energy system. Then I want you to read the Green Agenda in order to understand what is taking place. This is not about energy, it about control. You might also ask yourself how these people gained such influence over our elected officials.

I try not to cuss, but under the circumstances it seems appropriate.

Global Warming is a complete and total fraud. The sooner you understand it the better off you will be.

Smitherman calls for review of energy plan to speed conservation, and green technologies (Smitherman used to be the Ont. health minister. He’s the guy who wanted our elders to sit in their own dirty diapers until they were 75% full. Go fuck yourself Smitherman.)added

Energy Reporter ( Hamilton says he’s an energy reporter yet he has no idea what he’s talking about. If he did, he would refuse to write this drivel. A shill for CanWEA and the wind industry in general.  Tyler go fuck yourself.) added

NIAGARA FALLS–Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman has directed Ontario’s power authority to review and “fine tune” the province’s 20-year energy plan with the goal of accelerating conservation efforts and adding more renewable energy to the electricity mix.

But Smitherman, also deputy premier, said yesterday in a speech to energy-industry officials that the government is sticking with its target of phasing out coal by 2014 and maintaining the capacity of Ontario’s nuclear power fleet.

Inspired by recent learning expeditions to Spain, Denmark and Germany, considered global leaders in renewable energy adoption, and to California, the energy-conservation capital of North America, Smitherman said he’s convinced that more can be done in Ontario to unlock the potential of conservation and clean energy.

The Wind Energy Scam- Compare the Numbers

(Denmark is a tiny country  with about the same population as Metro Toronto, they are 83% dependent on fossil fuel for their energy. Germany is now fast tracking coal plants because they need energy.  Germany is over 60% dependent on fossil fuel for their energy and it will rise as they add coal plants. Go fuck yourself Smitherman.)added

The review will also look at ways to improve transmission capacity that has limited the development of renewable-energy projects, as well as explore opportunities for pump storage – a way of storing water power in natural geological reservoirs for use during peak times.

“With innovation and strong leadership I know we can raise the bar on the energy system,” said Smitherman, making his first major speech since he took over the “super ministry” in June. “Just because we’re doing well doesn’t mean we can’t do it better.”

(Smitherman, you couldn’t even figure out how to keep our elders in clean diapers and we are to trust you with our electrical system. Go Fuck yourself)added

In an interview, Smitherman said he would work “very closely” with the Ontario Power Authority over the next six months to refine the plan.

Environmental groups appreciated the strengthened commitment to green power and conservation but said Smitherman, by leaving the nuclear file untouched, didn’t go far enough.

“We agree that prioritizing renewable energy and conservation is essential as such economic strategy holds huge potential for job creation and the establishment of new industries to replace job losses in Ontario,” said José Etcheverry from the David Suzuki Foundation.

“However, we also believe that rethinking the commitment to new nuclear and refurbishments should be now top on the agenda to develop a truly innovative, reliable, and competitive green-energy sector in Ontario.”

(David Suzuki and his followers want no coal and no nukes. Think about it! Suzuki go fuck yourself)added

Both the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the Ontario Waterpower Association said they were encouraged by the announcement. “I am particularly pleased with the recognition that enabling transmission is critical to the achievement of our renewable energy targets,” said Paul Norris, president of the water association.

The Ontario Power Authority’s proposal – called the Integrated Power System Plan – is currently in the hands of the Ontario Energy Board. The regulator launched a hearing early last month that will determine if the plan is “economically prudent” and “cost effective.”

Under the current plan, Ontario’s nuclear power capacity is limited to 14,000 megawatts, which will be maintained by building new reactors or refurbishing old ones. Renewable energy has been doubled to 15,700 megawatts, while conservation and demand management efforts are targeting a 6,300-megawatt reduction in peak-time energy consumption by 2025.

Some industry associations, including the Power Workers’ Union, consider the renewable and conservation targets already too aggressive and say coal plants should be cleaned up and kept in the mix.

Smitherman said Ontario hasn’t begun to scratch the surface and the government isn’t going to rest on its laurels. “I’m pretty stoked, really, about the early progress that we’ve made, and the message that sends about the next steps.”

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada, said it’s unclear what will happen at the current energy board hearings. “It is difficult to see how the hearings would proceed while the review is under way.”

(Stewart is not an energy expert anymore than anyone reading this is.(Keith Stewart has a PhD in political science from York University, where he studied environmental politics Gerald Butt’s the ex-principal secretary for McGuinty, is now the head of WWF Canada and a Bilderberger. For working so hard to undermine Ont. and it’s economy, go fuck yourselves.)added

This article is from the Toronto Star one of Ontario’s many propaganda machines

Read the GREEN AGENDA.

get educated

and

WAKE UP!

Wind energy unreliable, says E.On