Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘wind energy’

According to a story in the London Telegraph, HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, gave a blistering summary of Britain’s subsidized wind power business … to a wind power developer executive no less. Saying that wind power developments are useless and the claim that they can replace anything is a “fairy tale,” the Duke went on to castigate the executive for sopping up taxpayer money for no return.

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.”

Wind farms are useless, says Duke

The Duke of Edinburgh has made a fierce attack on wind farms, describing them as “absolutely useless”.

Wind farms are usless, says Duke of Edinburgh

The Duke’s views are politically charged, as they put him at odds with the Government’s policy 
 

<!– remove the whitespace added by escenic before end of tag –>

9:30PM GMT 19 Nov 2011

 

In a withering assault on the onshore wind turbine industry, the Duke said the farms were “a disgrace”.

He also criticised the industry’s reliance on subsidies from electricity customers, claimed wind farms would “never work” and accused people who support them of believing in a “fairy tale”.

The Duke’s comments will be seized upon by the burgeoning lobby who say wind farms are ruining the countryside and forcing up energy bills.

Criticism of their effect on the environment has mounted, with The Sunday Telegraph disclosing today that turbines are being switched off during strong winds following complaints about their noise.

The Duke’s views are politically charged, as they put him at odds with the Government’s policy significantly to increase the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines.

Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, last month called opponents of the plans “curmudgeons and fault-finders” and described turbines as “elegant” and “beautiful”.

The Duke’s attack on the turbines, believed to be the first public insight into his views on the matter, came in a conversation with the managing director of a leading wind farm company.

When Esbjorn Wilmar, of Infinergy, which builds and operates turbines, introduced himself to the Duke at a reception in London, he found himself on the end of an outspoken attack on his industry.

“He said they were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace,” said Mr Wilmar. “I was surprised by his very frank views.”

Mr Wilmar said his attempts to argue that onshore wind farms were one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy received a fierce response from the Duke.

“He said, ‘You don’t believe in fairy tales do you?’” said Mr Wilmar. “He said that they would never work as they need back-up capacity.”

One of the main arguments of the anti-wind farm lobby is that because turbines do not produce electricity without wind, there is still a need for other ways to generate power.

Their proponents argue that it is possible to build “pump storage” schemes, which would use excess energy from wind power to pump water into reservoirs to generate further electricity in times of high demand and low supply.

It emerged last year that electricity customers are paying an average of £90 a year to subsidise wind farms and other forms of renewable energy as part of a government scheme to meet carbon-reduction targets.

Mr Wilmar said one of the main reasons the Duke thought onshore wind farms to be “a very bad idea” was their reliance on such subsidies.

The generous financial incentives being offered to green energy developers have led landowners to look to build wind farms on their estates, including the Duke of Gloucester, the Queen’s cousin.

Prince Philip, however, said he would never consider allowing his land to be used for turbines, which can be up to 410ft tall, and he bemoaned their impact on the countryside.

Mr Wilmar said: “I suggested to him to put them on his estate, and he said, ‘You stay away from my estate young man’.

“He said he thought that they’re not nice at all for the landscape.”

The Duke’s comments echo complaints made by his son, the Prince of Wales, who has refused to have any built on Duchy of Cornwall land.

Yet a turbine will be erected opposite the Castle of Mey in Caithness, where he stays for a week every August, if a farmer succeeds in gaining planning permission from Highland Council.

While they are opposed to onshore wind farms, the Royal family stands to earn millions of pounds from those placed offshore.

Last year, the Crown Estate, the £7billion land and property portfolio, approved an increase in the number of sites around the coast of England. The Crown Estate owns almost all of the seabed off Britain’s 7,700-mile coastline.

Experts predict that the growth in offshore wind farms could be worth £250million a year. Britain has 436 offshore turbines, but within a decade that number will reach nearly 7,000. From 2013, the Royal family’s Civil List payments will be replaced, and instead they will receive 15 per cent of the Crown Estate’s profits, although the Queen, the Duke, the Prince of Wales and other members of the family do not have any say over how the estate makes its money.

Mr Wilmar was at a reception last week in Chelsea, west London, marking the 70th anniversary of the Council of Christians and Jews at which the Queen and Duke were guests of honour.

The Dutch businessman’s company describes itself as committed to preserving the planet. Infinergy, which is a subsidiary of the Dutch firm KDE Energy, is planning to build on a number of sites across the country, from the north of Scotland to Totnes in Devon.

Mr Wilmar claims that onshore turbines are less reliant on subsidies and more cost-effective than those built in the sea. “If you go offshore it costs you twice as much as being on-shore because you have to lay foundations in the sea,” he said. “It’s very expensive for very obvious reasons.”

Two-thirds of the country’s wind turbines are owned by foreign companies, which are estimated to reap £500million a year in subsidies.

A spokesman for the Duke said that Buckingham Palace would not comment about a private conversation.

 

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

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Here from commentator Parker Gallant, an opinion from yesterday’s National Post. We’re not sure anyone sells smelling salts anymore but this might be a good time to find out.

Ontario Power Trip: The $540-million electricity tax

 

  Apr 19, 2011 – 4:58 PM ET

Ontario electricity consumers received the latest whack to their pocketbooks Tuesday. The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) announced that electricity rates will rise anywhere from 8% to 15% beginning May 1. The biggest increases will hit consumers who are part of the province’s brave new world of time of use (TOU) pricing.  For off-peak electricity (between 11 pm to 7 am), the cost of electricity will jump 15% to 5.9 cents a kilowatt hour.  Mid-peak electricity (early morning to 11 am and early evenings) jumps 10% from 8.1 to 8.9 cents per kWh.  Peak use electricity (11 am to 5pm) rises 8% to 10.7 cents a kWh from 9.9 cents.

These rate increases come on top of a 12% increase last May. Note, also, that the increases are greater for off-peak than peak.

The near double-digit boost in  the price of electricity increase (with a total annual value of about $540-million) pretty much wipes out the McGuinty government’s much-vaunted “electricity benefit.” Under the benefit, the government takes 10% off  the electricity bills of consumers. But now the electricity companies will take most if not all of the 10% back.

In a disingenuous news release titled “Helping families, keeping electricity rates down,” Energy Minister Brad Duguid’s office tried to spin the official price increases by touting the 10% benefit without mentioning the near-10% increase in electricity rates just announced by the OEB.  Nor does the government highlight the policy absurdity:  Taxpayers will pay consumers a 10% reduction in their electricity bills to cover rising costs of electricity brought on by the government’s energy policies. Effectively, the government will tax Ontarian (or borrow now and tax later) to cover rising electricity costs.

For electricity users who are still not plugged into the province’s TOU-system, the average increase May 1 will be between 6% and 7%, depending on the tier.  Second tier (over 600 kWh) electricity rates will rise to 7.4 cents a kWh.   Most on the Regulated Price Plan (RPP) will be switched to TOU over the next several months so those still on the RPP will enjoy their lower increases for a short time only.

This year’s rate increases may not end here.  The next OEB price review is schedule to take place Nov. 1.  Will the OEB dodge the issue, since that date precedes by a few days a provincial election expected to have energy policy as a key topic?

With consumption basically flat year over year and hundreds of new high-price wind and solar systems entering the grid, the reality of the McGuinty Green Energy Plan, now nearing its second anniversary, is working its way into consumers bills.   Prices are going up in large part to cover the costs of subsidies to the developers, big and small.

In short, Ontario is seeing the results of paying for rooftop solar installation like those at the IKEA stores, which receive 71.3 cents per kWh under the Feed-in-Tarriff (FIT) program.  Meanwhile, these enterprises pay TOU rates for the actual power they consume. As that “renewable” energy enters the grid, the OEB forecasts the overall effect on the Global Adjustment (GA) account and resets the rates. The GA is a catch-all for all extra costs associated with the McGuinty government’s Green Energy Act. Those extras costs, pooled in the GA, are distributed among all ratepayers, who pick up the estimated costs through semi-annual rate adjustments. Last May it was 12%, although no rate increase was introduced last November.

Mr. Duguid’s press release Tuesday had the temerity to claim that “The Ontario Energy Board released updated electricity rates today showing the average household bill this May compared to May 2010 has remained flat.”  Flat! It was flat only if you start counting time AFTER the 12% increase last May 1, and don’t count the new increases starting this May 1.  No wonder Ontario’s books don’t balance.
As ratepayers we should express our thanks to the taxpayers for picking up the costs of that 10% “electricity benefit.” However, ratepayers are also taxpayers.  Maybe it’s time we stopped shuffling the deck chairs and face the reality that the Liberals have mortgaged Ontario for the next 20 years through their irrational electricity policies created by the Green Energy Act.

Parker Gallant is a former Canadian banker who looked at his Ontario electricity bill and didn’t like what he saw.

Northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca also on Twitter at northgowerwind

Read Full Post »

The war is on: industry is angry about the moratorium on offshore wind projects and about the government’s statement that it can’t hook up hundreds of micr-FiT solar projects to the grid. So, the letters and insults are flying. Here is an interesting letter from last week’s Ontario Farmer.

Here are a few contrary facts about wind energy

Dear editor:

The emotionally charged opposition referred to in Mr. Netherway’s letter [on] the proliferation of large scale industrial wind farms in rural and natural Ontario demonstrates the passion with thich residents object to the industrialization of the rural landscape. And for what, as Mr Netherway points out,a few will benefit financially but to the detriment of others.

Mr. Netherway states that the opposition to industrial wind farms by rural residents is based on fear and misinformation but he does not elaborate. Here are just a few facts:

1. Contrary to what is indicated in Mr. Netherway’s letter, Minister Duguid has indicated that gas-fired peak power plants will be necessary to back up industrial wind turbines. Gas fired power plants use a form of fossil fuel. Each wind turbine requires 500 gallons of oil, another fossil fuel.

2. The province will be blanketed with industrial wind farms–numbers between 7,000 to 10,000 or even more have been bandied about by government officials.

3. There is no grand plan of design where these industrial wind farms should be sited. They will checkerboard and fragment the landscape. They can be placed anywhere and there are plans for projects on the Oak Ridges Moraine, Ostrander Point, Thunder Bay’s Nor’Wester Escarpment, Ouimet Canyon provincial Park, Lake Superior Park, Montreal River Harbour NAture Reserve, Mica Bay Wilderness Park, BayNiche Conservancy, Manitoulin Island, Georgina Island, the Niagara Escarpment, and Point Pelee to name a few; all areas with sensitive eco-systems.

4. Each industrial wind turbine requires a cleared area of approximately 10 acres. In India, 300,000 trees were felled for an access road to accommodate one wind farm. How many trees will be felled in Ontario> Trees are carbon sinks.

5. The generators used in industrial wind turbines each require a half ton of rare earth material called neodymium. The material is mined in China where mining operations have killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy. A horrific truth about how “green” industrial wind turbines are can be found in this report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-wind-power-experiment-Polluion-disastrous-scale.html

6. Ducks Unlimited, Lake Ontario Waterkeepers, Toronto Regional Conservation Authority, Canada Nature [sic–it is Nature Canada] and Ontario Nature are all seeking a moratorium on industrial wind turbines until independent scientific studies have been conducted. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which represents farmers who rent their land to wind farming companies, has called for a moratorium on new turbines until an independent health study can be done.

7. Industrial wind turbines have a lifespan of maybe 20 years. From an interview with Peter Clibbons, CEO of Renewable Energy Resources, March 30th, 2009″ “One thing to remember is that turbines only last 20 years before you have to swap them out. If we invent something much cleverer that wind energy, things can be balanced in a different way.” Q: Was the number 20…just agreed upon as a reasonable number to set because of wear and tear on the towers? Clibbons: “That’s exactly right. It is the fatigue design life of wind turbines. They are basically so rattled apart after 20 years that you have to swap all the major components.”

8.Denmark, often cited as the leader in wind energy, declared a moratorium on further land-based wind turbines in September 2010 due to a massive public outcry.

9. The tonnage for the cement bases at approximately 1,000 tonnes comes fromthe documents issued by various wind companies. Each turbine base required approximately 45 truckloads of cement. Worldwide, the cement industry is the second-largest CO2 emitting industry behind power generation.

In conversation with a wind company project manager, the manager stated that there is no reason why wind farms cannot be built in urban areas…however, he ended by saying that no wind company would even dream of submitting a project for an urban area to the government for approval. Wonder why?

–Janet Zednik, Campbellcroft, Ontario

Read Full Post »

Companies you never heard of are coming to Ontario to take advantage of the fact that the Ontario government is handing out money in baskets for wind and solar projects. Jobs, jobs, jobs? New “green” economy? Not for us: all the profits will be going to companies not based in Ontario.

Here’s a story about one: Fortress Energy based in Calgary is selling off its oil and natural gas assets to come to Ontario, and purchase smaller wind projects that are already assembled, i.e. options and leases have been signed with property owners.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E7DI1TL20110218

Print | Close this window

UPDATE 1-Fortress Energy to become clean power producer

Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:04pm GMT

* Says to focus on renewable energy

* Says identified 10 FIT-eligible projects

* Shares up 12 pct (Adds details)

Feb 18 (Reuters) – Fortress Energy Inc said it plans to convert itself from an oil and gas producer, to an independent producer of clean power, sending its shares up 12 percent.

Fortress, which has been reviewing strategic alternatives since last year, plans to focus on renewable energy and low emissions gas-fired facilities in regions with growing demand for power where government-backed power purchase agreements are available.

In September, the company closed the sale of most of its oil and gas assets to Terra Energy Corp , including the Square Creek assets in Western Canada, for about C$34.6 million ($35.1 million) in a cash-and-stock deal.

Fortress hopes to benefit from the Ontario government’s 20-year energy plan which it unveiled in 2007, promoting the use of natural gas and renewable powers and replacing the use of coal fired generation by 2014.

The Ontario Power Authority introduced the feed-in-tariff (FIT) program in 2009 to encourage power developers to invest in clean energy facilities.

Fortress has identified 10 such projects with power capacity of about 500 megawatts, which it is reviewing for acquisition, it said in a statement.

Shares of the Calgary, Alberta-based company were up 12 percent at 14.5 Canadian cents Friday late afternoon on the Toronto Stock Exchange. ($1 = 0.985 Canadian Dollars) (Reporting by Gowri Jayakumar)

© Thomson Reuters 2011

northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

A statement by Wind Concerns Ontario president, John LaForet:

Sussex Strategy – a Liberal connected PR firm – was quite candid in a leaked document calling for moneyed interests to try to change the channel on the current wind energy debate in Ontario. These guys – a professional public relations firm advised their unnamed clients – basically an orgy of government subsidized energy interests – to ‘confuse’ the issue. That means lie to voters. They made it clear the existing work being done by groups opposed to the government’s plan are creating a real problem on the ground and one Dalton McGuinty can’t win. In fact according to Sussex Strategy – McGuinty has done such a bad job on the energy file he could lose as badly as Ernie Eves did in 2003.

It calls for $300,000 to be spent immediately as seed money trying to fight back for the Liberals, by the same moneyed interests that they’ve rewarded since taking power. It calls for lying to Ontarians about wind energy on a number of fronts, dividing communities and and colluding with government, industry and NGOs.

Perhaps the worst part is the $300,000 is just seed money, and in bold they talk about taking anonymous donations to fund their desperate scramble for more of your hard earned money and defence of the government that shovels it out the door by the billion to these guys.

Read for yourself as the wind industry admits the jobs that were promised never showed up, that bills have spiked and that the environment and health aren’t really the point of this whole exercise. Seriously folks. – This is the wind industry talking.

The reality is, the wind industry is dying world wide. Subsidies are drying up, public opinion is shifting and jurisdictions are now in a race to see who is the last to be conned by this corrupt industry.

Wind Concerns Ontario will continue to fight like hell and stand up to the moneyed interests of the desperate pro-wind forces. We’ll continue to stand with Ontarians facing these projects, fight off the foreign corporations destroying rural Ontario and defeat the politicans that let it happen.

Here is a link to the appalling document (Renewable Energy Matters – Campaign Outline) that outlines how this slimy industry’s ‘hail mary’ pass to your wallet is supposed to work.

As I said to Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA in September 2009 – you can spend all the money you want, we will defeat you, and the political backers you’ve bought because we’ve got the bodies on the ground and money can’t change that.

Over the last month we’ve shown that with rally after rally and it’s going to continue until we’ve reclaimed our rights, can protect our communities and defeat the bought and paid for politicians that let this happen.

http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »

For many of us, it’s been exactly a year since we visited the North Gower Wind Action Group’s display in the community booth at the North Gower Farmers’ Market and discovered that the proposed wind turbine development, long rumoured to be “somewhere” west of North Gower, was in fact right smack beside the village boundaries, and close to hundreds of homes in North Gower and south Richmond.

Most of us were completely uninformed about the industrial turbine installation as it was proposed, and about wind energy in general. Who could blame us? The province of Ontario and the corporate wind lobby have devoted huge sums of money and plenty of marketing expertise to promote wind energy as “clean” and “green” and the province’s salvation in terms of job creation and power generation.

Now, a year out, with the reading and listening and learning we have done, we know what is truth, and what isn’t:

-the province’s setbacks are not based on any science whatsoever and are actually political; if setbacks were 1-2 km as they are in Europe, there would be NO industrial wind turbines in southern Ontario. But they have to be, because that’s where the transmission capacity is, and where the power is being used.

-the Green Energy Act, far from being legislation to encourage environmentally-friendly sources of energy production, is a deft move by corporate interests and the Ontario government to completely remove the planning powers of Ontario municipalities where these projects are concerned. Now, in the City of Ottawa, you can object to your neighbour installing a dormer on his house that will affect your property, but your rural neighbour who wants to erect 626-foot industrial wind turbines that will affect you, your health and your property values, can go ahead. (An example more to the point occurred a few years ago when an Island Park resident wanted to put up a small wind turbine in his back yard but was prevented from doing so for “safety” reasons; now, with the Green Energy Act, he could do it without restriction, but says he doesn’t want to upset his neighbours.)

-the corporate wind industry cries “coal is killing people” when scientific studies have shown that not to be true. Pollution in Ontario is due to industry, pollution from industry south of the border, and from cars. People who take ill in Ontario due to smog are made ill because of the heat and other health problems. Not coal. And yes, we should clean up coal: so let’s use the technologies that exist to do that. Same thing for hydro: gear it up.

-wind doesn’t work. Someone described wind industry as being like a car that’s running out of gas just when you need it the most. In fact, wind turbines NEED fossil fuel back up to function.

-job creation is a myth: studies done in Spain, Germany and Denmark show that their economies have suffered because of wind development, and that jobs are merely taken from other sectors. In Ontario, the only jobs created will be connected to manufacturing sites in southern Ontario (a political move to take the place of the defunct auto plants, but which will never employ those numbers of people)…as for construction of wind turbine sites, any local jobs created will be temporary.

-industrial wind turbines do make noise and cause sleep disturbance for some people. This seems particularly true for people living among arrays of multiple turbines. Health studies have shown that noise that disturbs sleep such as from traffic causes health problems; to pretend that the same isn’t true for wind turbines is deceitful. The corporate wind industry, however, can buy medical opinions apparently. But somehow, while they have $250,000 to fight the people of Arran-Elderslie, they don’t want to spend the $100,000 it would take to do a simple sleep study.

-the corporate wind lobby is very rich and very powerful, and protective of the millions they stand to make from Ontario citizens’ subsidies to this non-viable industry. Who says wind doesn’t work? Dragon’s Den’s Kevin O’Leary; the Globe and Mail’s Marget Wente; the National Post’s Terence Corcoran. One estimate is that every Ontario family will pay approximately $1800 in subsidies to the corporate wind industry.

-it’s a myth that Ontario communities and citizens can do nothing. We can empliy a variety of legal means, one of which is helping out the Ian Hanna legal challenge to the Green Energy Act.

A year of being angry in North Gower, a year of fighting for our community against big business interests that do NOT have the environment in mind, and that are focused only on profits.

The fight continues.

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

Read Full Post »

A new book has just been released that may put pins in so many balloons about environmental actions. The author of Green Gone Wrong, Heather Rogers, was interviewed May 4 on the CBC and said that people think they are doing the right thing but when the market starts demanding a certain trend, in this case “green”, companies will do whatever they have to to sell product. Worse, it can lead to “greenwashing” in which companies will do what they can to appear “green” when in fact, they’re not. (British Petroleum being a case in point.)

Here is a review of the book. You might add it to your list of “must reads” along with The War in the Country by Thomas Pawlick, and Hydro: the decine and fall of Ontario’s electric empire, by Swift and Stewart. (Keith Stewart, not Walter; Walter died too young a few years ago and is he missed now! What would the author of Too Big to Fail think about Ontario today?

Anyway, the review.

Green Gone Wrong

April 4, 2010

Green Gone Wrong

GLOBE-Net April 4, 2010 – Environmental writer Heather Rogers has cut through the marketing buzz associated with the green consumer movement and asks a simple question: Do today’s much-touted “green” products-carbon offsets, organic food, biofuels, and eco-friendly cars and homes-really work?

Implicit in efforts to go green is the promise that global warming can be stopped by swapping out dirty goods for “clean” ones, she asks; but can earth-friendly products really save the planet?

Her soon to be released book – Green Gone Wrong explores how the most readily available solutions to environmental crisis may be disastrously off the mark. Rogers travels the world tracking how the conversion from a “petro” to a “green” society affects the most fundamental aspects of life-food, shelter, and transportation.

Reporting from some of the most remote places on earth, Rogers uncovers shocking results that include massive clear-cutting, destruction of native ecosystems, and grinding poverty. Relying simply on market forces, people with good intentions wanting to just “do something” to help the planet are left feeling confused and powerless.

Writing in the New York Times, book reviewer Devin Leonard notes “Ms. Rogers offers plenty of evidence that consumers who load up their shopping carts with organic food, for instance, may be unwittingly subsidizing big farm companies that are eradicating forests and defiling the soil in some developing countries. She says their governments aren’t as concerned about the environment, and well-intentioned nongovernmental organizations don’t have much clout.”

Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine notes “Heather Rogers reminds us with vivid examples that there’s no way we can just subcontract our environmental conscience to the new breed of green marketers. We have a very narrow window to preserve some version of our planet, and we can’t afford the kind of egregious mistakes this volume identifies with such precision. If it’s too good to be true, it’s not true–even if it comes with a shiny green wrapper.”

Green Gone Wrong reveals a fuller story, taking the reader into forests, fields, factories, and boardrooms around the world to draw out the unintended consequences, inherent obstacles, and successes of eco-friendly consumption. What do the labels “USDA Certified Organic” and “Fair Trade” really mean on a vast South American export-driven organic farm? A superlow-energy “eco-village” in Germany’s Black Forest demonstrates that green homes dramatically shrink energy use, so why aren’t we using this technology in America?

Rogers argues the decisions made in Detroit’s executive suites have kept Americans driving gas-guzzling automobiles for decades, even as U.S. automakers have European models that clock twice the mpg. “Why won’t they sell these cars domestically? And what does carbon offsetting really mean when projects can so easily fail? In one case thousands of trees planted in drought-plagued Southern India withered and died, releasing any CO2 they were meant to neutralize.”

This latter reference relates to her damning criticism of fashionably green rock bands whose members fly around the world and think they can erase their sizable carbon footprints by planting trees in developing countries.

“Around the world, many politicians, the conventional energy sector and manufacturers of all kinds oppose any major reduction in consumption,” Ms. Rogers writes.

“If people start using less, then economies based on consumption – such as that of the United States, where buying goods and services comprises 70 percent of all economic activity – will be forced to undergo a colossal transformation.”

Notes Leonard, “Even if you don’t agree with all of Ms. Rogers’ assertions – and I don’t – they are not so easily dismissed. “Green Gone Wrong” is well-written and exhaustively reported. The author went to places like Uruguay, Borneo and India to show problems she says the green movement has inadvertently created.” Expertly reported, this exposé pieces together a global picture of what’s happening in the name of today’s environmentalism.

Green Gone Wrong speaks to anyone interested in climate change and the future of the natural world, as well as those who want to act but are caught not knowing who, or what, to believe to protect the planet. Rogers casts a sober eye on what’s working and what’s not, fearlessly pushing ahead the debate over how to protect the planet.

‘Green Gone Wrong’: Can Capitalism Save the Planet? is to be released later this month,

Source: books.simonandschuster.com
Source 2: www.nytimes.com

——————-

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

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »