Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Jim Watson’

12:15 p.m., Ottawa

Ottawa Mission feels the pinch of high power bills

The Ottawa Mission executive director Diane Morrison just told CTV News that the Mission will have to consider cutting programs and services in the New Year, due to increased electricity bills. “We’re way over budget,” she told reporter Karen Solomon. “We serve 1,200 meals here every day…we’re going to have to look at what we can cut back on,” Morrison said.

Solomon pointed out that the Mission, now on time-of-use metering for the power it uses, has no choice about when it uses electricity to provide meals to Ottawa’s poor and homeless. The link to the video is here: http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080205/ott_highlights_noon/20080218/?hub=OttawaHome

Part of the reason for Ontario’s increased electricity bills is the subsidies going for wind and solar; last year, Ontario signed a $6.8-billion contract with Samsung to provide wind energy parts and installations in the province. And, solar energy producers are paid over 80 cents per kilowatt hour while consumers pay a maximum of 9.9 cents per kilowatt hour.

Commentators such as Tom Adams of Energy Probe, Lawrence Solomon and ex-banker Parker Gallant have said this is a completely unsustainable power system.

North Gower Wind Action Group

northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

As we mentioned recently, some people think opposing industrial wind turbine developments is “sensationalizing” the effects, and that the turbine developments can’t be as bad as we’re making out.

Here’s a letter from today’s Orangeville Citizen. Now, with 100+ turbines in the area already working, and 100s more planned, these people know what they’re talking about.

This is why we’re doing what we’re doing: informing the community about what could happen to North Gower and Richmond.

Note that in the letter, the writer talks about some 232 homes within 4.5 km of the turbines… in North Gower that number would be MUCH higher.

Thank you Mark for pointing out to the reporter, Wes Keller, that our home is not the only one to fall under the shadow of the proposed Industrial Wind Turbines. Unfortunately you are making an understatement when you say 30 or more other homes, as there are actually 232 homes in the 4.5 km radius that will be affected. Along with you and the other residents, we formed WCORHE (Whittington Coalition for Our Right to a Healthy Environment) and together we made a map of the 232 homes and their locations in respect to the proposed wind turbines. This map was then submitted by MPP Sylvia Jones to the Ministries of Environment and Energy.

We do sympathize with the local homeowners who have their houses up for sale and can’t sell them due to the turbine proposal, but unlike them we plan to be here for generations to come. Not only will our home fall under this shadow but so will our family spinach farm operation in which all of our family members participate. Our family, as well as the other 232 homes and their residents are all in protest of these pending health hazards and the devaluation of our properties.

Our WCORHE group opposes WPD’s (the wind project developers) misleading information which they gave at their first information meeting held at the Orangeville Fairgrounds Oct 12, 2010.

The information maps at their meeting were so far out of date that they didn’t even show our home or many other recently built residences on them.

We are objecting to WPD’s underhanded tactics which included denial of globally documented health issues and outdated maps that had no correct information as to the number of homes affected or their proximity to the proposed Industrial Turbine sites.

Betsy Collins Mono-Amaranth Townline

northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

Our congratulations to Rideau-Goulbourn’s new councillor, Scott Moffatt.

This is a huge ward, Rideau-Goulbourn,and there are issues of concern to every community. For us in North Gower and south Richmond, the proposed industrial wind turbine project is a highly charged political issue: WHY is the Ontario government chasing industrial wind turbines and wind energy development when it has already proven to be not as advertised in German, Spain and Denmark? And WHY, of all places, North Gower where there is limited wind potential and the proposed gigantic towers will be so close to so many people?

And if wind energy was so full of promise for both the environment and energy production, then why did Ontario have to invoke the Green Energy Act, which removed local land using planning powers and which supercedes 21 pieces of legislation including The Heritage Act?

Loss of local planning powers, the potential for negative economic impact and the possibility of health effects due to the noise produced by industrial wind turbines, these are all reasons why now, 66 municipalities in Ontario have passed resolutions asking the province to change things.

It is our hope that the new City of Ottawa Council will be open to learning about these issues, and that they will stand up for North Gower-south Richmond residents should we need them.

Email the North Gower Wind Action Group at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

North Gower Wind Action Group receives candidates’ responses

Posted Sep 30, 2010 By EMC News


EMC News – Candidates and incumbents running for the upcoming municipal election are ignoring a major environmental issue that is of concern to all Ottawa taxpayers, says a local citizens’ group.

A complex of 190-meter high industrial wind turbines proposed for the south area of Ottawa could have significant environmental impacts, health effects for residents, and a decline in property values for neighbouring homes, says the North Gower Wind Action Group’s chair.

“We received very thoughtful replies from several candidates,” says Jane Wilson, “but most are just ignoring this important issue. That’s a mistake. This turbine development is not going to be good for the environment, it’s not good for our community or for Ottawa as a whole. The city’s tax base could be affected by declining property values if this industrial project is allowed to proceed.”

Ontario’s Green Energy Act removed all municipalities’ planning powers where renewable energy projects are concerned.

Responding to the wind action group’s questionnaire sent out last month, Capital ward candidate and environmentalist David Chernushenko said “The North Gower project appears to be one that is too large, too close to residents, and without sufficient community buy-in.”

Mayoral candidate Mike Maguire said he had been “shocked to learn about the experiences of residents in southern Ontario with industrial wind turbines, the health effects, the reduction in property values, and the negative effects on migratory birds…I object to such developments in principle due to the tremendous cost and their essential inefficiency.”

Rideau-Goulbourn ward candidates Scott Moffatt and Iain J.MacCallum are also skeptical about the development. “It is my belief that North Gower is unlikely to be a suitable location to produce wind energy due to its low potential to produce efficient supply,” said Moffatt.

Sitting councillor Glenn Brooks, who brought a motion to city council last year asking for a moratorium on turbine developments until health studies have been donewhich was defeatedsaid he doesn’t think the Ontario Ministry of Health has enough information on health effects from turbines. “Setbacks ought to be 1.5 km from the nearest house,” he said. “That would likely remove neighbours’ concerns about health and noise.” Current Ontario regulations state that the setback between a turbine and the centre of a neighbouring home can be just 550 meters.

Incumbent Kanata North councillor Marianne Wilkinson thinks the North Gower plan is too close to homes – the separation should be two kilometers.

“I would support a motion to give the City control over planning the location of wind farms with more stringent distances to homes required,” said Wilkinson.

“Industrial wind turbines are supposed to be built only in communities that want them, but nobody asked us,” says Wilson of the wind action group. “Right now, there are 67 Ontario communities objecting to turbine developments for very good reasons. We’re sorry to see that many politicians don’t seem to care about this crucial issue that affects the whole city. The people of North Gower and Richmond need the support of their fellow citizens throughout Ottawa to ensure the province responds to citizens’ concerns on this issue.”

Read Full Post »

In August, the North Gower Wind Action Group sent out a questionnaire with background information and just two questions to candidates for the office of Mayor for the City of Ottawa and all candidates with email addresses running for City council.

The questions were:

1. What are your views on the proposed, large-scale industrial wind turbine project to be situated near the village of North Gower, and south Richmond?

2. If elected, would you put forward a motion to City Council that would ask Ontario to return the planning powers it had prior to the passage of the Green Energy Act (which removed municipalities’ powers to plan for renewable energy developments, and to protect their citizens) and actively work with Council members toward acceptance and passage of the motion?

We admit to being somewhat disappointed in the relative lack of response, but we are happy to report that most of those who did respond provided thoughtful comments, and said they would give this matter more attention in future. Many also provided additional comments.

As our goal is simply to provide information, we offer the comments here as received, and unedited; it is not our intent to endorse individual candidates, but to help voters make their own decisions come municipal Election Day.

Thank you to all who took the concerns of the citizens of North Gower and south Richmond seriously, and who took the time to think about this important issue.

Candidates for Mayor

Larry O’Brien: no response

Jim Watson: no response (Mr Watson’s remarks on the subject may be seen in an earlier post)

Clive Doucet: no response

Andy Haydon: Wind power is a large waste of financial resources and I am unalterably opposed to wind turbines.

Dr Cesar Bello: (1) If there is ample and verifiable scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some residents (specially children) living nearby; specially for those residents where planned turbines will be only 550 meters away from their homes, I am in favour to make an indeep review of The North Gower-Richmond Project that may lead our new Council to cancel it. (2) I would put forward a motion to City Council that would as Ontario to return the planning powers it had prior to passage of the Green Energy Act…and I actively work with Council members toward acceptance and passage of this motion. My strong commitment is to protect our residents safety and health.

Mike Maguire: (1) I am completely opposed to such a development for two reasons. I attended your information session at the North Gower RA and was shocked to learn about the experience of the residents in Southern Ontario with industrial wind turbines, the health concerns, the reduction in property values and the negative effects on migratory birds. Secondly, I object to such developments in principle due to the tremendous cost of these installations and their essential inefficiency. To choose such an expensive mode of power generation and then mandate that the public have to subsidize their operation is terribly regressive public policy and unfairly targets fixed income seniors, low income families and, small businesses. All-in-all, this is a classic bad idea from a group of politicians who are out of touch with reality. (2) Certainly, the so called ‘Green Energy Act’ is going to cause untold economic damage to the residents of Ontario and sets a dangerous precedent in that it allows un-elected bureaucrats to circumvent the Planning Act – this needs to be amended immediately. I think a vocal Mayor could also organize opposition to the costs associated with such a program and this would have an even greater effect on the overall policy of subsidizing industrial wind turbine installations.

Jane Scharf: (1) 

The risks have not been adequately evaluated by the decision makers regarding the effects wind energy devices especially for the households that are only 550 meters from the site of the wind energy devices. As well local residences need to be involved in the decision making process. Ultimately locate residence should be the ones to make the final decision as to whether the devices can be installed in their neighbourhood. (2)  I am committed to running city hall meetings by Roberts Rules of Order which prohibit the chair from discussion on any motion put forward and voting except in the case of a tie. However I do intend to enter into discussion and vote all matter pertaining to the decision making process itself. Therefore I would pass the chair to another council member when this matter is discussed and voted on..  My biggest concern is the decision-making process in matters such as this that impact the health and safety of a community. I support a motion to return the decision making back to the local constituency and preferably to the community directly involved. Therefore, as a citizen of Ottawa and council member I would strongly support a motion by City Council that would reinstate local decision making for energy projects.

 My concern is that this is one of many examples of top down decision making that violates the public interest that is occurring in the city of Ottawa under the current administration and there is very little movement for reform.

Rideau-Goulbourn Ward 21 (3 out of 5 candidates responding)

Glenn Brooks (incumbent): My response has not changed from last year. (1) The controversy around wind turbines will remain on-going. The
Provincial Medical Officer of Health and the City of Ottawa’s MOH are on
record of seeing no medial problems with a 550 m setback from the nearest
house. Last year I put forth a motion that would have resulted in a moratorium on further construction of wind turbines. That motion failed. Due to Council policy that motion cannot rise to council unless there is “new”
information available.  MOH’s claim there is no “new” information that has
not been reviewed. I personally don’t agree!! Solution:
Setbacks ought to be 1.5km from nearest house that would likely remove
neighbours concerns about health and noise. Property values are another
issue that needs to be address. Personally, I think there would be an
impact.

Ian J. MacCallum: I am not a fan of the fan.   We need to stop this wind turbine project it has proven unsuccessful around the world not to mention the health ramifications. Waste to energy is what I think is the answer we have garbage and will always have so lets use it for some good.

Scott Moffatt: (1) Thanks to the NGWAG, I have been informed along every step of the way as to what is going on here in North Gower and around the province.  It is my belief that North Gower is unlikely to be a suitable location to produce wind energy due to its low potential to produce efficient supply.  Health concerns are hard to fight on, as you already know.  There are two distinct sides with each essentially trying to debunk the other at every turn.  This issue will never be won on health concerns.  Those involved in the opposition must turn to the financial framework of the Green Energy Act itself.  So far to date, $8 Billion to produce 1% of energy into the Ontario Hydro grid.  Is this good value?  I have seen my hydro bill continue to rise in the name of Green Energy.  How much can we afford?  The Green Energy Act is not sustainable. (2) As a city councillor, I need to focus on local and city issues that are within my control.  Unfortunately, City Council has already voted down this motion in the past.  Though I do not believe it was pushed very hard, it appears to me that there is little appetite around the current council table to look into this issue.  I will definitely discuss the issue with my peers to get their feelings, explain your side of the argument in a reasonable and cooperative manner and determine a proper course of action.  I cannot and will not make a promise I can’t keep and thus my response to this question.

River Ward 16

Michael Kostiuk: (1) This proposal  needs more study to measure its benefits as well as any potential harmful effects. I am not fully convinced that building these large windmill farms is the right way to generate electricity or to become energy self sufficient.  (2) Yes.

Capital Ward 17

Rob Brocklebank: (1) Until the receipt of your message I had been unaware of the project. My understanding from the material you have provided is that the project in question adheres to the provincial policies with respect to separation of wind generation projects from residences. I question how this project fits with the studies underway with respect to the development of the Village of Richmond. (2) There are many issues in the relationship between the province and the city which need to be considered. In particular a rewriting of the legislation under which the City of Ottawa was established should be reviewed. I have no knowledge of the movement by other municipalities to have provincial law changed but would be interested in learning of such initiatives and the reaction of the province. Wind turbines are not the top priority issue for me in reviewing the relationship with the province but I would be willing to look further into the issue.

I do not accept the idea that all wind generation projects are deleterious to human health. Nevertheless I question the extraordinary premium price which the province proposes to pay for electricity generated by wind turbines.

David Chernushenko: As you may know, I am personally very active in the renewable energy field, having just completed a film (Powerful – Energy for Everyone) which examines, among other issues related to energy, the pros and cons of wind projects. I am glad that you wrote to me, and you can find my responses to your questions below. (1) Although I am generally in favour of wind energy as part of the solution to meeting human energy needs more cleanly and sustainably, I recognize that there are some important impacts that come with large scale wind development, and a number of “potential” impacts, depending on siting, size, scales, etc. In simple terms, I believe that any project must have a significant amount of community ownership if it is to be acceptable to the community, and by insisting on this, the community will be forced to do its homework and come to its own conclusions about (a) what are the real risks/impacts, (b) what are the rumoured risks/impacts, (c) how to mitigate risks/impacts, and (d) whether or not to actually move forward with the project. The North Gower project appears to be one that is too large, too close to residents, and without sufficient community buy-in or actual ownership. All this might be improved without necessarily cancelling the project entirely,but that is your decision, and hard work on all sides lies ahead. (2) Yes, I would definitely put forward that motion and actively work with council to pass it.

 [Comment] Please be skeptical about all the information you are hearing. Be skeptical of industry proponents, and be just as skeptical of opposition groups. Do your own homework, have your own discussions, and make up your own minds. It is too easy to be swayed by highly emotional outsiders. Make this your own process.

Ron LeBlanc: (1).  I would certainly support a low impact, renewable energy developments. 2. yes, if elected I would put forward a motion to City Council that would ask Ontario to return the planning powers it had prior to passage of the Green Energy Act. 

Kanata North Ward 4

Marianne Wilkinson: My view on the North Gower plan is that it’s too close to homes – the separation should be 2 kilometers.
I would support a motion to give the City control over planning the location of wind farms with more stringent distances to homes required.

College Ward 8

Ralph Anderson: (1)  I am sympathetic to the situation of the residents in the shadow of those windmills. I am reminded of my only house buying excursion over twenty years ago when living under power lines was not a good selling point. The Ontario government continues to do heavy handed legislation that is convenient for them and those that they choose to do business with. The people usually hear about things way too late. That’s partly a failure in our democracy. The people don’t know what the government is planning to to do to them. The people should have been out front, setting the agenda. At times, it is easy to feel that our governments never intends for the people to know what’s going to happen until it’s too late. There was some media attention. They reported your predicament, but too late.  When elected, I will be generally supportive of democractic good government. I suspect that the Green Energy Act has the right idea. But implementation, as in other wide ranging legislation, will be rushed and bull doze the unsuspecting public in its path. Would I support a motion to regain the lost powers of our community? All you get from me today is a maybe. In passing the buck sideways, I would support a motion by your councillor to “ask” the province to stop this particular project if your issues have not yet received a full and open airing. I would be nice to find a compromise.

Catherine Gardner: (1) I am opposed to the use of wind turbines!  Not only are they unsightly but I feel that they will do more harm to our communities including to the residents, animals (pets and farm), wildlife (land, sea and air) and the environment. I feel that the cost to consumers to install and run these turbines will be far greater than the proposed benefits. (2) Yes, I am opposed to the wind turbines and will work hard to ensure that they are not installed. I will advocate strongly for the protection of all aspects of any community where the turbines may be proposed.

I feel we need to find other alternatives which will provide higher benefits without causing damage to our communities/environments. We must also work towards finding alternatives where the money put into green energy stays within our Communities and Country!

Rideau-Rockcliffe  Ward 13

Rawlson King: (1) I believe that the City of Ottawa needs to protect and preserve its green spaces and the unique character of its rural communities.  Furthermore, I believe that any type of development should reflect the nature of a community and add to its quality of life.   As a consequence, despite the fact that I support green power generally, I would not support industrial-scale energy projects if they are less than two kilometers away from homes in your community. (2) I would not put forward a motion. I believe that the Councillor in the directly affected Ward should put forward a motion.  However, I would support a motion that sought the restoration of municipalities’ powers to plan for renewable energy developments, if introduced.

Barrhaven Ward 3

Derek Hallworth: Not to mention the nearly 7 billion dollar price tag with Samsung. Thanks Mr. McGuinty. Also, thanks for the extra $400 (about) that I’ll have to come up with for electricity. I’m not an expert or engineer of any kind, but I’ve heard these wind turbines will produce a minimal amount of energy (0.3% is a number that I heard on CFRA). The whole Green Energy Act is a sham as far as I’m concerned, thanks to a few tree huggers. The same thing happened back in 2006 in Nova Scotia. I’ll admit that I was unaware that this was happening, but you’d think the higher-ups we elect would have learned something. http://www.windaction.org/news/3003 I have absolutely no political experience at all, but if this is a project that I would have the ability to stop, I would do my best to stop it.

Beacon Hill-Cyrville

O’Neil Brooke:  There are many issues with wind power. For those that think this form of renewable energy will be a magic bullet for our addiction to hydrocarbons, you need to keep researching; wind energy is not going to do it all. That being said we should still continue to develop our wind resources! While we seek to exploit these resources though we need to keep in mind the environmental impacts. The primary environmental impacts wind energy systems have on people is sound and vibration. Imagine having a squeaky machine that runs 24 hours a day disturbing your sleep, your conversations, your quiet enjoyment of your property! If we allow it, these machines can render property virtually uninhabitable. I don’t know about you, but when I am subjected to a persistent low intensity noise, it disrupts my concentration, my sleep and I get head aches. 

It is entirely appropriate for the City to regulate how wind power is exploited within the city limits. As we look at this issue the city should prioritize the development of this resource while ensuring that it’s development does not interfere with other residents and their use of land. The North Gower Wind Action Group may be interested in the City of Ottawa Noise ByLaw. Specifically section 4 and 5…

 Orleans Ward 1

Jennifer Robitaille.(1) I am concern about health-related issues which have been reported in relation to the industrial wind turbines installed across the world.  I have doubts as to the objectivity of professionals reporting that these units have no affect on local residents and their health.  I support green-energy initiatives which are sustainable and do not affect the health on residents or local wild-life. (2) Yes.

————-

To email the North Gower Wind Action Group, northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

Just days after we have the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association’s Kristopher Stevens ranting against Parker Gallant in The Financial Post, claiming green energy is responsible for jobs and wealth in Ontario, we have the truth: a global picture of wind power development as a “House of Cards.” Here is the article by Steve Goreham. Executive Editor of this publication is Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry, also one of the speakers scheduled for the conference in Picton, October 29-31.

Wind energy’s house of cards

Steve Goreham

The Energy Tribune

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently issued their 2009 Wind Energy Report. Brian Smith, chair of the IEA Wind Executive Committee, states that wind member countries “installed more than 20 gigawatts of new wind capacity” (nameplate capacity). The report was written by representatives of 20 member countries, consisting of 14 European nations, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and the United States.

The report is very optimistic about wind energy’s prospects. Member nations report on “how they have progressed in the deployment of wind energy, how they are benefitting from wind energy deployment, and how they are devising strategies and conducting research to increase wind’s contribution to world energy supply.” But a deeper analysis shows that the wind industry is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

The house of cards is a global industry based entirely on subsidies, price guarantees, and mandates. Wind generation systems are not deployed anywhere in the world without extensive government financial or mandated support. Fourteen of the 20 IEA member nations use feed-in tariffs (FITs) to force utility companies to buy electricity from wind farms at above market rates. Examples are FITs used by Finland, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, which are set in the range of 7.8-12.1 Eurocents per kilowatt-hour, equal to 11.2-17.4 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. These are subsidized wholesale prices, yet significantly above the average U.S. retail price of 9.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nine of the twenty nations mandate that utilities supply a percentage of electricity from renewables. Nations that have provided little government support for wind, such as Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Norway, have seen little growth in installations.

In the U.S., the 2009 Recovery Act authorizes a direct cash grant of 30% of the total value to wind projects. Alternatively, the federal government provides a 30% investment tax credit, or a 2.1 cents per kW-hr production subsidy. State governments add loan guarantees, further investment tax credits, and the forbearance of property and sales taxes. Twenty-nine states have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standards to force utilities to purchase renewable energy, primarily wind. These mandates raise the price of wind energy, a further subsidy to the industry. In total, taxpayers are subsidizing 30-50% of the price U.S. wind energy installations. Wind must be subsidized because it is much more expensive than electricity from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear sources. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind-generated electricity is about 80% more expensive than coal-fired power, and off-shore wind is significantly more expensive. The IEA representatives from Denmark and the United Kingdom estimate costs for offshore wind at roughly double the cost of onshore wind. The planned Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound reportedly will deliver electricity at a whopping 27 cents per kW-hour, compared to the Massachusetts average price of 16 cents per kW-hour and the U.S. average of 9.7 cents.

US Electricity Generating Costs

Advocates claim that subsidies are needed to help wind energy move down the learning curve to become cost competitive with other technologies. But wind turbines have been deployed for more than 20 years. As of 2009, the United States had installed about 33,000 wind turbine towers. World installations have exceeded 140,000 turbines. When will this cost competitiveness be achieved?

Despite the growing number of installations, total wind energy costs are increasing. Wind installation costs per kilowatt-hour decreased from the early 1990s until 2001, but have been rising since. For example, U.S. installations reached a cost low of $1,285 per kw-hr in 2001, but have since risen steadily to $2,080 per kw-hr in 2009, an increase of 62%. It’s unlikely that electricity from wind will ever be competitive with conventional fuel sources.

A close read of the IEA Wind Report reveals issues with actual wind turbine operating lifetimes and maintenance. Wind turbines that were installed in the 1990s are now being replaced in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, and other nations. In the harsh weather environments of high-wind corridors, many of these turbines have not reached the 20-year lifetimes claimed by manufacturers. In comparison, operating lifetimes for coal-fired power plants consistently reach 50 years.

Very costly repairs are often required to maintain wind turbine operation. Japan reports that lightning hits and typhoons have damaged “a considerable number of wind turbines,” finding that on average, each turbine will fail three times over its 20-year life. Denmark reports that each turbine’s gearbox must be replaced on average four times during its lifetime, costing about 20% of the price of a wind turbine.

The story of Denmark is illustrative. Over the last 20 years, Denmark has installed 5,100 wind towers, one for every thousand citizens. A map with a black dot for each wind farm shows that 300-foot-high steel and concrete towers can be seen from almost every field, farm, hill, and seashore of this nation. In 2009, these towers provided only 767 megawatts of electricity, less than the output of a single conventional coal-fired power plant. This single power plant would occupy the space of one black dot on the map.

wind farms in denmark

Wind towers provide only about 10% of Denmark’s electricity, but contribute to electricity rates of 28 Eurocents per kilowatt-hour, the highest in Europe and four times the U.S. price. Yet, Danish government officials are proud of their wind system. Why would they install 5,000 towers instead of one coal plant? It’s because they believe they are reducing global warming.

In fact, the global wind industry is built on a foundation of sand—the hypothesis that man-made global warming is destroying Earth’s climate. The IEA report contains repeated statements about carbon emissions saved by wind installations in each nation. Yet, mounting satellite temperature data, new studies of ocean cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and research on solar activity, show that global warming is due to natural cycles of the Earth,not man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Should global warming alarmism fail in its efforts to promote wind energy, the subsidies will disappear, and the house of cards will collapse. Then the world will be left with 140,000 silent monuments to Climatism.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director for the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.The link is here:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/5131/Wind-Energys-House-of-Cards

To contact the North Gower Wind Action Group, please email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

Mayoralty candidate Jim Watson held a rural town hall in North Gower last evening, and discussed several of his campaign ideas especially his idea for a borough system to deal with local issues.

During the question period following his talk, the subject of the proposed industrial wind turbines for North Gower arose. Mr Watson became very firm, and grim, and implied that one of the questioners was opposed to all green energy if she was opposed to wind power. He then laid out his position which was that if the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario said there are no health effects, then there are no health effects.

That’s it.

Of course, Dr King’s “report” (which was simply another review of selected literature–not one actual person was spoken to or interviewed) has been widely criticized and is the subject of a 55-page analysis (available at http://www.windvigilance.com ).

He did say, if elected Mayor, he would consult with the City solicitor about options re: noise bylaws etc to protect residents from excessive noise.

This is an issue that is very important to the residents of North Gower and south Richmond and is worth discussing with Mr Watson in detail; his campaign slogan is that Ottawa deserves better leadership. Indeed we do, and we also deserve a leader who is open to ideas other than the party line of the Ontario Liberal government.

To contact Mr Watson go to his website at http://www.jimwatson.ca

The North Gower Wind Action Group can be reached at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »