Hardly surprising, the wind developers’ lobby, the Canadian Wind Energy Association/CanWEA, said it was “disappointed.” Interesting, that: people are losing the value in their homes, communities are being ripped apart by controversy, friendships and even families affected by the greed of a few, and worse, people are being made ill from the environmental noise produced by these huge machines (But CanWEA doesn’t want us to call them “industrial”), and the corporate lobby group is “disappointed.”

From this week’s The Advance, the following editorial comment:

Wind turbines, once touted as the answer to all our energy ills, are spinning in limbo. There was a time when agricultural energy experts saw the wind turbine as not only a source of inexpensive and renewable energy but also as more revenue for the farmer’s bottom line. The turbines could redeem all the usable wetlands on farmers’ properties that cannot be used to produce much in the way of crops.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) has waded in on the controversial topic of wind turbines on agricultural land, despite the temptation to believe that the giant windmills may be the answer to everyone’s energy problems. While urban residents south of Ottawa have been of two minds regarding wind turbines near their homes, farmers and the OFA have been quietly looking at the pro’s and cons of wind turbine use.

These slow economic times may be a blessing in disguise as rural Ontario takes a breath to think over the wind turbine issue.

In a recent note of caution from the OFA the province is asked to pay special attention to the developing tensions between rural residents and community neighbours rergarding this alternative energy source.

The OFA wants issues such as health, pricing, the efficiency of wind power, setback issues and the loss of municipal input about industrial win turbine projects to be placed on the table for discussion. The province is not about to run out of power in the foreseeable future but the OFA’s request for resolution or at least a very loud argument about wind power may be just what the area needs to set the stage for what comes next.

It is time to make a plan.

Well, thank you. But it must be noted that the Auditor General’s Annual Report for 2011 pointed severe criticism at the Ontario Government, not for not having a plan but rather, for having a plan that benefitted  few companies in terms of huge profits while pretending to create jobs (it won’t, said the AG), won’t save the environment (wind needs back-up, most likely natural gas) and won’t create a stable electricity system for Ontario (wind actually destabilizes the system and produces power exactly when it’s not needed). In fact, the AG said, Ontario launched this plan without doing ANY sort of cost-benefit analysis, and without looking at the effects on the economy (every “green” job created comes at a huge cost in subsidies and acually results in job losses) or the environment.

The OFA was being very low-key. The truth is, Ontario’s plan to push wind power onto rural Ontario’s communities is a monstrous “boondoggle” that will wreck our landscape, ruin our economy, tilt our electricity system toward expensive undependability, and make hundreds of people ill, while slashing property values for young families and others.

It needs to stop. Now.

Email us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Member of Wind Concerns Ontario http://www.windconcernsontario.ca

http://www.ofa.on.ca/media/news/OFA-calls-government-suspend-wind-turbine-development-in-Ontario

We say, AT LAST!!!!

Email us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

This past week, Minister of the Environment Jim Bradley appeared on CBC Radio’s Ontario Morning. Interviewer Wei Chen tried her best to get some original thoughts out of the Minister, but here is the result.

CBC RADIO: In principle, most Ontarians support the idea of wind turbines for green energy, but that general acceptance often diminishes with their proximity to you. Many who live near wind turbine developments have concerns about the health impact of low level noise they emit. They’re not comforted by the fact that they can’t be closer than 550 metres from their homes, and they’re angry that the Green Energy Act robs their municipalities of a say in where they can be built.

This morning, we’ll address some of these concerns with the Minister of the Environment. Jim Bradley joins us from Toronto. Good morning.

JIM BRADLEY: Good morning.

CBC RADIO: Now, we have heard time and again on our program that the low level noise and vibration associated with wind power is harming the health of people who live near them. What’s your understanding of those negative health effects?

JIM BRADLEY: Well, we don’t — have not seen evidence that that is the case. Scientists have not found any direct link between wind turbine sound and human health, and we’re certainly reliant upon those scientists. See, wind turbines have been in existence — what? — for more than 40 years in Europe and elsewhere, and there have been a number of studies. It has never been scientifically determined by these scientists that turbines have a direct impact on health.

Ontario, as you know, is taking a cautious approach. We have one of the strictest criteria for sound in North America, including the 550 metre minimum setbacks. This limit is consistent with the World Health Organization’s recommendation for the protection of human health. I know even Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health has said there’s no direct causal link between wind turbine sound and adverse health effects. That’s the same conclusion drawn by another provincial study done by an independent consultant. Even I think the Chief Medical Officer of Health from Chatham-Kent, whom you had on this program, told your listeners there is no direct* link. That said, we’re always open to new information and we have funded a university chair to do even more research.

CBC RADIO: But that Environmental Review Tribunal that was looking at that wind farm in the Chatham area found that there are negative health impacts from the noise created by the turbines.

JIM BRADLEY: Well, in the same case, the Environmental Review Tribunal recognized that Ontario’s standards for wind turbines’ sound limits are consistent with the — well, with what? — the best available science in this issue and with international approaches. Also in the same decision, the Environmental Review Tribunal upheld the Ministry’s approval of a wind farm, and the wind turbines’ opponents lost that particular case. So all scientific data studied to date indicates there is no direct causal link to health impacts. And as I said, the Ministry will continue to study all emerging technologies and all the health studies as they emerge to ensure our setback and noise limits protect human health and the environment.

CBC RADIO: Why not err on the side of caution, though? Why not rethink even that 550 metre setback? Why not place it a bit further?

JIM BRADLEY: I don’t know whether in any case you would find there’s stricter criteria that are applied. Certainly ours is among the strictest there is in North America. And health studies have clearly indicated that there’s no direct causal effect on individuals’ health with the limits that we have now, which we consider to be, as I say, among the strictest that you will find in North America and around the world.

CBC RADIO: The other controversy sparked by the Green Energy Act has been that its taken control away from local governments. What was the justification for that and is there any need to revisit it?

JIM BRADLEY: Well, Ontario’s Renewable Energy Approvals process requires now that developers of all major wind projects consult with the local municipalities and with the public even before they submit an application to the Ministries. They must inform the local municipality about the proposed project, they have to hold at least two public meetings during the planning stages, and they’ve gotta document all municipal feedback received as part of the application process. So the Ministry considers if the developer has met the consultation requirements and how it plans to address the municipal concerns that happen to have been raised.

I should say my colleague, the Minister of Energy, has also conducted a two-year review of what’s known as the Feed-In Tariff or the FIT program, and I can say that local consultation and the Renewable Approvals process are certainly part of that FIT review. The Ministry of Energy has consulted extensively with the public and other stakeholders, and I certainly, as you do, await the release of that FIT review.

CBC RADIO: Now even the architect of the Green Energy Act, former Deputy Premier George Smitherman has expressed some concerns. He’s admitted that the Act has some failings, and that is that municipalities should have some say. He’s actually recommended that they should be able to weigh in on projects of a larger size.

JIM BRADLEY: Certainly they have those powers at the present time. There’s extensive consultation with local municipalities.

CBC RADIO: Can they actually veto a project?

JIM BRADLEY: But I can say this, that my colleague, the Minister of Energy, he’s conducted a two-year review of what’s known as the Feed-In Tariff, and that’s one thing being looked at by the FIT review. I think the Minister’s very interested in the kind of feedback that has come as a result of concerns that have been expressed, and I expect that he has addressed these in that review. In fact, he has addressed them, and I await the presentation of that to the public.

CBC RADIO: But would you actually give municipalities a veto over projects that they don’t agree with?

JIM BRADLEY: I would not want to presume to come in ahead of that particular review. I think we will see what the Minister has been able to conclude from the extensive consultation that’s taken place with all concerned. And that is one of the areas he will look at.

CBC RADIO: What are municipalities to do though if their bylaws are meaningless under the Green Energy Act?

JIM BRADLEY: I have to say that there is a very extensive consultation that takes place at the present time. The municipal information that is provided to the Ministry is very valuable in making the final determination, and certainly we consider that to be important. It’s not something that’s easily dismissed. The local input often through the municipality, but also through the process that the Ministry has established draws certain conclusions from what the public has put forward and what expert opinion has put forward.

But I think the FIT review is going to be very valuable in this regard. I know the Minister was interested in that as one of the aspects of the FIT review, the Feed-In Tariff review, because he did hear from various people, including some municipalities, that they were concerned about that. There are other municipalities who might be happy to have the Ministry make the final decision, but there are some that genuinely would like to have that final ability to veto. But there is an advantage, I guess, to municipalities in that all of the advantages that might come from a proposal are available to the municipality, and ultimately the Minister has to make that decision, not the municipality.

But I think that FIT review is gonna be very valuable, and I look forward, as I think the public does, to the publication of that FIT review.

CBC RADIO: There are also many who are concerned about the costs. Some critics have suggested that the Green Energy Act has created an unsustainable financial advantage for the corporate wind developers at the expense of property owners, electricity rate payers, and taxpayers. What assurance can you give them — give Ontarians that we will benefit in the long run?

JIM BRADLEY: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to know why we’re doing this. We’re doing it because we’re trying to produce cleaner air in the province of Ontario. We’re trying to find ways of producing electricity that are more benign than the coal-fired plants which we’ve relied upon for a number of years. What we are doing in closing the coal-fired generation and replacing it with cleaner sources by 2014, we’re really engaged in the largest single climate change initiative in North America. It’d be similar to taking 7 million cars off the road.

It’s been estimated that replacing coal with clean, renewable energy has resulted in about $4.4 billion in avoided healthcare and environmental costs, and has created over 20,000 jobs. So there’s a lot of benefit to the people of the province of Ontario. I can remember the Ontario Medical Association for years pointed out that air pollution was a major problem, and that the single largest source of that was the coal fired plants in the province of Ontario. They have indicated, for instance, that 1900 premature deaths that were taking place as a result of air pollution, largely from the coal fired plants in the province. And by replacing these with more benign ways of producing electricity will make a major impact in terms of healthcare costs in this province.

CBC RADIO: Can you address the widespread unhappiness with wind turbines? It cost your party seats in rural Ontario. How aware are you of this anger?

JIM BRADLEY: I think there have been both opponents and proponents. There are a number of people in this province who are very pleased to see the province embarking upon an initiative that would ensure that there would be alternative energy available to people in our area for the health reasons that I’ve mentioned, for the benefits that have come to the province of Ontario, for the fact that we won’t be able to rely on coal fired plants or other fossil fuels to produce electricity. Remember that natural gas someday will run out. Oil someday will run out. And this heavy reliance on fossil fuels will put us really behind the eightball in that regard. I understand there have been concerns. I cannot attribute to what they might be as why seats are lost and so on. Remember the federal Liberal party lost a lot of seats in the province of Ontario as well, and there were different factors at play at that particular time. But we are concerned mostly about the health of the people of this province. And you know, if you have to make those tough decisions which result in better health for the people, a better result for the people, that’s the kind of decisions our government wants to be involved in.

CBC RADIO: Jim Bradley, thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us.

JIM BRADLEY: Thank you very much.

* a direct link would be when one of the blades fell on your head or if the turbine noise caused hearing loss. No one is saying that.

We’re sure you have a few thoughts of your own now. Email Minister Bradley at:  jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca and follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind.

News stories are updated daily at http://www.windconcernsontario.ca

Already there are several legal actions ongoing: the Michaud family in Thamesville suing the Suncor Kent-Breeze project because the formerly healthy family of four is now ill; the Drennan family who are battling “gag” clauses in wind turbine project leases; and others.

The latest, announced today.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/907501/wind-company-and-farm-owner-sued-over-proposed-project

What will come as a surprise to many landowners leasing for turbines is that THEY are liable, not the wind power developer. (They also don’t understand that they are leasing their entire property, not just the patches around the turbines and the access roads.)

Email us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Although the community in South Branch had requested an open Question and Answer format for this, the second-last public meeting for the 30-MW project, the day before, Prowind demanded that all questions be submitted in writing (e-mail accepted) by noon the day of the meeting. As it happened, questions were accepted from the floor, but no discussion or rebuttal of Prowind’s answers was permitted. A limited form of “community engagement” to be sure.

Some of Prowind’s answers to the questions.

-Health effects: there won’t be any because Ontario’s regulations are safe. (Environmental Review Tribunal found otherwise and recommended more research, and examination of Ontario’s regulations.)

-Property values: no effect. (Incorrect.)

-”annoyance” is personal. (Incorrect. The medical definition of “annoyance” is stress that can range to the severe, causing indirect health problems.)

-setbacks in other jurisdictions “political” (Incorrect. Australia moved to 2 km after a Senate inquiry into health effects)

The new president has had experience with wind power generation projects in the Chatham-Kent and Essex areas of Ontario, and claimed that people there “love them.” Interesting then that the Environmental Review Tribunal took place in Chatham-Kent, that another legal action is taking place by a family who say they have been made ill by Suncor’s Kent Breeze project there. And that there is a citizens’ group protesting wind power projects http://maynardrehab.com/ckwag.org/

The real problem in all this is that our provincial government is allowing this to continue apace. At the same time as it is crowing about the safety afforded by its new regulations under the Green Energy Act, a project in Grand Valley was allowed to proceed under the old rules, in 2011!

Email us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca and check out http://www.windconcernsontario.net for ongoing news stories and authoritative papers and presentations.

Donations to our efforts welcome.

http://www.theenterprisebulletin.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3428102

The Auditor-General of Ontario made quite a few points about this in his report, released late last year including these very serious facts:

1.the Ontario government rushed into renewable energy without ever doing any “comprehensive business-case evaluation” of the impacts of a billion dollar commitment

2.the government said the Green Energy Act would lead to “modest incremental increases in electricity bills”–the fact is, there will be an increase of more than 56% (actually, when this is done, it will be more like 140%)

3.the Ontario Power Authority’s long-term plan has not been approved by the Ontario Energy Board, and in fact development of the plan was suspended

4.other jurisdictions have much lower feed-in tariff rates than Ontario

5. job creation from renewable energy has been verstated and the jobs will be 75% short-term construction jobs. In fact, job LOSSES have been documented in Germany, Spain and the U.K., as many as FOUR per “green” job, due to higher energy costs

6.renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are intermittent and will require back-up from fossil-fuel power generation. This will require natural gas-fired generation plants.

The A-G’s report is available here:http://www.theenterprisebulletin.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3428102

Every person in Ontario should be furious about this, and especially those communities that are being threatened by wind power projects which will alter our quality of life forever.

Wind: you’re paying for it. Demand a say. Write to

Chris Bentley, Minister of Energy at cbentley.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Other MPP addresses can be found at http://www.windconcernsontario.net under Addresses. PC energy critic is Vic Fedeli.

Email us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca and follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind

We note a recent interview with AbitibiBowater CEO Richard Garneau in the Globe and Mail, in which Mr. Garneau was asked if the “so-called green revolution is over-hyped”?

His answer: “I always like to say that sustainable development is important but there are three pillars: the first one is, protect the environment; the second one is social–the people; and the third is economic, and these have to be balanced.”

By that definition, industrial scale wind power generation fails on all counts: it is not good for the environment —the inputs are tremendous, and the effects on the landscape are irreversible– it’s not good for people due to indirect health effects from the environmental noise and vibration produced by the machines, and last, it make absolutely no economic sense. Well, for Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers, that is. It certainly makes sense for the subsidy-hunting corporations flocking here to whack up wind turbines and quickly begin collecting the exorbitant money paid for power from wind in this province.

The year 2012 is going to be a very busy one: a lawyer’s prediction that there will be a flood of legal actions is now coming true, as property owners are saying to the people leasing land for turbines, you don’t have the right to affect my health and property value. It’s coming.

There is also another Environmental Review Tribunal, this one on the Zephyr project in Middlesex-Lambton. It promises to be a wild ride, with the government lawyer Frederika Rotter already coming out swinging saying that residents’ calling for an environmental review was laughable and an “abuse” of process. Really.

We encourage you to donate to this ERT: it will benefit everyone in Ontario, building on the decision from Kent Breeze earlier this year.

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Anyway, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s new president (we understand there was a bit of a story behind his election as opposed to another candidate) recently released a statement on the OFA website, underscoring the Federation’s support for industrial-scale wind power development. His comments indicate a blind trust in what the wind power consortium is doing and still doing the rah-rah for wind and the Ontario farmer.

The comments, however, are most interesting. Note the comment from Kerwood-area farmer Dan Wrightman, who has a chapter on this subject in the book Dirty Business, the reality of Ontario’s rush to wind power.

We fail to see how paying Ontario farmers $4,000 to $10,000 per turbine a year (in the turbine hot area of Chatham-Kent-Essex, the rents are going over $20,000 per year) to lose almost total control over the rights to your land is worth encouraging when the wind developers are getting half a million or more per turbine per year.

Visit the OFA website here: http://www.ofa.on.ca/media/news/Improving-the-green-energy-fit

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

The Michauds live 1.2 km away from the Kent Breeze project by Suncor, which was also the subject of an environmental review tribunal earlier this year.

Once the project began operation in April (construction proceeded even though there was an appeal) the family of four became ill. Their symptoms included nausea, vertigo, headaches and sleep disturbance.

It is interesting that these same symptoms are reported by people exposed to the environmental noise and the vibration /infrasound/amplitude modulation around the world.

As a parent, it was very affecting to hear young Josh talk about what the turbine project has done to his life: once a runner, he can’t exercise that way anymore, due to lack of balance. He works in construction in the family business, but now his balance is so unreliable, he can no longer work on a roof. “I used to do roofing, I’d walk on beams and that type of work—I can’t now,” he told the audience of more than 100 residents.

This is frankly appalling when a young person’s health and livelihood are affected. The Government of Ontario KNOWS there are problems with industrial wind turbine noise and vibration. They are choosing to ignore the health and safety of our citizens. They are supporting the industrialization of country communities, and they are looking the other way as properties become less valuable…in some cases, no longer inhabitable.

This must stop.

Wherever you are, join your local group, and make as much noise about this issue as possible–we must be heard.

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca  and join Wind Concerns Ontario at http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

The Duke, no stranger to controversy and well known for his frank remarks, will likely be criticized for his comments which are in direct opposition to government policy.

Here is the story. Follow the link to read comments, which include one from a reader in Germany who said that Germany’s wind turbines operate at less than 5% efficiency and are indeed useless and ugly, adding ”I wish we had a Duke.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/8901985/Wind-farms-are-useless-says-Duke.html

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca and follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind