Trudeau Set To Impose Carbon Taxes….Just say NO!

 
LORNE GUNTER - Trudeau's carbon tax will hurt Canada's economy

LIBERAL LEADER JUSTIN TRUDEAU

Credits: REUTERS/Todd Korol

 

LORNE GUNTER | EDMONTON SUN

“Carbon pricing” is simply a euphemism for “carbon tax.”

When a politician talks about establishing a price on carbon in the name of stopping global warming (as federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau frequently does), what he really means is he wants to tax oil production, manufacturing and private vehicle use in the hope that by punishing energy companies, manufacturers and drivers he can force them to reduce their emissions.

However, no market exists for carbon emissions except where governments force companies to buy or sell “carbon credits.” Therefore, there is no such thing as a natural “carbon price.” The concept is entirely artificial.

Admittedly, Europe has a carbon exchange, but it’s not a real marketplace like a stock exchange. It wouldn’t exist if the EU’s commissioners hadn’t dictated that companies put a price on their emissions and pay extra for emissions above their mandated limits.

Even after all of that, the price for a tonne of carbon on the European exchange is a fraction of what EU planners projected it would be. The only people who make money consistently are clever profiteers who have learned how to apply for “green” subsidies. And the whole thing is prone to corruption.

That is what Justin Trudeau wants for Canada.

But Trudeau’s idea gets worse. He wants Canada to be a role model for the world by adopting a price on carbon even if our major competitors don’t do the same.

The Americans don’t have a price on carbon. Nor do the Chinese, or the Australians or the Russians.

On energy and mineral exports, the Europeans aren’t really our competitors. So the fact they have a fake price on their carbon doesn’t really matter.

Trudeau’s thinking on most issues is strained when it gets past Twitter’s limit of 140 characters. But it seems especially shallow on this matter.

Why in heaven’s name would Trudeau the Younger want to add any burdens to Canada’s sluggish economy, especially a burden that would stutter the economy’s one strong sector – oil production?

Part of the answer is that Trudeau is a post-industrial urbanite. Like so many modern city dwellers, the former substitute drama teacher doesn’t have a clue about how jobs are created or money is made.

Because no one in his social circle has to soil his or her hands to make a living – no one he knows has to mine the earth or harvest crops or cut timber – Trudeau imagines an economy where everyone is a computer programmer, retirement planner, social worker, barista, CBC journalist or advocate for the homeless.

He is driven by unreal thinking about the environment and ignorance about economics.

There is a regional element to Trudeau’s admission last week at the Calgary Stampede that he would tax carbon even if no other countries do. In a candid moment, Trudeau admitted he especially had problems with “certain industries,” which everyone assumed meant oilsands.

But while carbon taxing – especially taxes that single out the oilsands – would punish Alberta and the west more than the rest of the country (an old Trudeau family habit), what Young Master Trudeau is proposing would hurt the whole country.

A Canada-only tax on carbon would make it more expensive to do business in Canada. Jobs, investments and new plants would move elsewhere.

The national effects would be similar to the outcome of Ontario’s push for green-energy alternatives since 2009.

More than $10 billion in subsidies for wind, solar and bio fuel alternatives have led to no new electricity in Ontario, but have driven electricity prices up 40% or more and contributed to jobs leaving the province.

Heaven help us if Trudeau gets to spread that destruction nationwide.

 

This is how Windweasels Roll…with Bribes, to Silence Their Critics!

Perthshire turbines “bribes” claim

A windfarm developer has again been accused of handing out “bribes” to hush up potential critics of its plans in Perthshire

 
Plans for Perthshire’s biggest ever windfarm are causing controversy

A windfarm developer has again been accused of handing out “bribes” to hush up potential critics of its plans in Perthshire.

Banks Renewables, the company behind a bid to build the biggest turbines the Big County has ever seen on the Bandirran Estate near Balbeggie, recently gave Burrelton Bowling and Tennis Club £4,500 in cash so it could pay to resurface its outdoor courts.

Development director Colin Anderson said Banks were “proud” to support the club and that many more local organisations could benefit from their “community fund” – should their planning application to construct six 132m high turbines be approved.

But anti-windfarm campaign group Scotland Against Spin panned the developer over the payment, claiming the donation had been made to “buy support or silence objections” to its windfarm proposals.

A community councillor also raised his concerns about Banks promising cash to local groups before their planning application has been considered by Perth and Kinross Council, describing it as a “corruption of the planning process”.

Banks came under fire for a similar reason last year after it emerged they had written to residents offering them up to £90,000 “not to object to nor support any objection to any application for planning permission in respect of the wind farm”.

Scotland Against Spin spokeswoman Linda Holt told the PA the cash donation to Burrelton Bowling and Tennis Club was not “technically illegal”, but described such payments as “unethical” and claimed they had the potential to “split communities”.

“Banks has plenty of form when it comes to giving individuals and groups money,” she said.

“The reason is always the same: to buy support, or silence objections, for a wind farm which for very good reasons local people don’t want.

“Sometimes such deals are secret; sometimes they are public, like this one, because Banks want to exploit them for maximum positive publicity.

“Although technically not illegal, promising people money before a controversial application is decided is unethical. It splits communities.

“Anyone who might want to oppose the wind farm can be made to feel they are depriving some worthy local group of much-needed cash.

“Bribes like this make it much harder for people to decide on an application on purely planning grounds, which is of course what the developer wants, especially if the planning grounds for a wind farm like this one are so weak.

“There is one reason and one reason only why Banks has given Burrelton Tennis Club money: to discourage local people from objecting.”

Burrelton and District community council chairman Martin Payne told the PA he only found out about Banks offering cash to local groups through village rumours.

He raised the issue with Banks representatives at a steering group meeting held before they put in the planning application, where he argued they should not make any donations until the planning process had concluded.

“I felt what they were doing was fundamentally wrong,” he said.

“Here they were, about to put in an application for a highly contentious windfarm, and secretly making money available to people directly affected by it.

“It is wholly unsatisfactory. It is a corruption of the planning process and it should not be allowed.”

But Mark Dowdall, environment and community director of Banks Group, said: “The Banks Community Fund provides support to community groups, voluntary organisations and environmental projects that are charitable, educational, philanthropic or benevolent in purpose and are located close to a current or proposed Banks Group development and deliver a benefit to their local community.

“The fund is completely independent of and separate from the planning process and applications are fully and properly reviewed by an independent grants panel set up by the Community Foundation that administers the Banks Community Fund.

“Our policy is to ensure that we work in partnership with the local communities that host our developments so that they can also share in the benefits that our business creates.

“We are extremely proud that, since it was established in 1997, the Banks Community Fund has granted £2.7 million in grants and benefited more than 80,000 people.

“Irrespective of what decision Perth & Kinross Council makes on that planning application, we are glad to have made a positive and meaningful contribution to community life in this area during the two years we have been working here to develop our plans.

“The Bandirran scheme has won widespread backing for the many benefits it would deliver to the area, should it be given the go-ahead, which further demonstrate our commitment to enhancing and benefiting communities where we operate.

“Local communities would share the revenues generated to invest in local causes and projects important to them. Funding would also be created for workplace training and job creation schemes and apprenticeships.

“Local businesses will have the opportunity to benefit from a significant amount of all construction-related contracts, delivering a real shot in the arm to the local community.

“Meanwhile the owners of Bandirran Estate say their share of revenues would secure the future of the estate, with money reinvested to create jobs and increase sustainability.”

The Wind Developers should be Jumping at the Chance, to Make Reparations, for What They are Doing to Residents.

3rd time posting due to it being deleted.

Please all victim’s join Victim’s of Industrial Wind here on Facebook.

We would like to thank First Wind and all of their supporters for making our home a living hell. Trying to sit outside on a nice night enjoy a little bonfire, not happening. Hard to enjoy anything while sitting in that obnoxious noise, you just get angrier and angrier as you are pelted by this unnatural sound.

First Wind, kindly do the right thing. Buy us out at a reasonable price so we can find a new home that is not a crap hole. For the pittance you may be willing to part with wouldn’t be enough to get us into much more that a trailer rental. We only asked for $150,000. …….. pocket change to you folks, what is the problem? 
You have already set precedent when you bought out Mary Ellen Jones in New York. You gave her fair market value, moving expenses and she did not have to sign a non disclosure gag order. Just do what is right.

 
  
 

 

Britain Wins Two More Battles Against Wind Developments!

The Battle for Britain: Wind Farm Wins Mount

Dark blue world2

It’s always delightful to report on wind farm developers being seen off by the hard work of dedicated locals.

This time we’ve got twice the reason for jubilation: a High Court judge has dismissed an appeal by a developer hoping to despoil Burnham-On-Sea; while another developer seeing the writing on the wall has pulled the plug on its High Court appeal and, therefore, its project in Cumbria.

Judge throws out appeal for controversial Huntspill wind farm plans
burnham-on-sea.com
28 June 2014

Controversial proposals for a wind farm near Burnham-On-Sea were dealt a further blow by a High Court judge on Friday (June 27th), delighting campaigners fighting the scheme.

Green energy firm Ecotricity wanted to install four wind turbines at West Huntspill, but its scheme was turned down by Sedgemoor District Council and the company appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, which held an inquiry last year.

The inspector concluded that the turbines should be put up, but Secretary of State Eric Pickles over-ruled that recommendation and threw out the plans earlier this year.

However, Ecotricty appealed against the Secretary of State’s decision to over rule the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation and refuse the application.

A hearing was held at the High Court in London on Friday when the judge dismissed Ecotricity’s appeal, saying there was no case to overturn the Secretary of State’s decision.

julie trott

Julie Trott, pictured, who has long campaigned against the plans in her role on the Huntspill Wind Farm Action Group, told Burnham-On-Sea.com she was “delighted” by the judgement.

“I and many residents are absolutely delighted by this decision which is the right decision for our area,” she said.

Sedgemoor district councillor Bob Filmer, who chairs the council’s planning committee, told Burnham-On-Sea.com he too is pleased with the outcome.

“The court’s decision endorses the local view of Sedgemoor District Council and the judgement of Eric Pickles in turning down the scheme. It’s great news for those residents who were concerned by the plans.”

Residents in Rooksbridge are now waiting to see whether the court ruling has any impact on the Planning Inspectorate’s consideraion of the Pilrow Farm wind farm site.

In a letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government, the Secretary of State said earlier this year he was turning down the Black Ditch plans because they would have had a “significant adverse impact on local landscape character, scenic quality and distinctive landscape features”.

He added that while the scheme “offers a considerable benefit” in meeting the need for renewable energy, “the harm that this scheme would cause to the landscape and visual impact” outweighed the benefits.
burnham-on-sea.com

Meanwhile, at Whitehaven in Cumbria, the locals have collected another win. This time, having fought and beaten the developer at the local planning level and beaten off an appeal by the developer to the Secretary of State, the developer (Banks Renewables) pulled the plug on the project. It withdrew – despite its sabre rattling that it would run an appeal in the High Court.

Developer drops windfarm plans after protest campaign
News & Star
Jenny Barwise
26 June 2014

People power has triumphed for hundreds of objectors against a windfarm development, as the company behind the scheme pulled its appeal at the eleventh hour.

Plans for the £17 million Weddicar Rigg windfarm, near Whitehaven, were revealed three years ago.

Since then a fierce battle has raged between protesters and the developers, Banks Renewables.

Six hundred people lodged objections against the scheme, earmarked for land between Moresby Parks and Frizington, and it looked as though they had won as Copeland councillors threw the plans out on the grounds of negative visual impact.

The company lodged an appeal but after a six-day inquiry, the Secretary of State upheld Copeland’s decision.

Banks Renewables carried on its fight saying it would take the case to the High Court in London to appeal the grounds of the process, and a date was set for a hearing this month.

The Durham-based company has now made a U-turn and has withdrawn its challenge with “immediate effect”.

Phil Dyke, development director at Banks Renewables, said he still believed there was a “strong case” to put before the High Court, but that in the present political climate was “unlikely” to get a satisfactory outcome for the project as a whole.

The news has been welcomed by those who resisted the development.

Moresby councillor Geoff Blackwell, said he was pleased that Banks have “at last accepted” that the earmarked land was not the “right location”.

“I would like to thank all those people who had taken the time to respond in writing to the planning department and turn up at the planning panel and planning inquiry to put their views forward,” added Mr Blackwell.

“I feel that the right decision has at last been accepted.”

David Colborn, chair of Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment, said: “The voice of local people has for too long been ignored by the developers of both windfarms and single turbines.

“They have a history of riding roughshod over local opinion and have attempted to justify their schemes with the promise of ‘community funds’.

“The reality is that no amount of money can compensate for the misery that is caused to people living near turbines, let alone the devaluation of their properties.”

Mr Dyke said that Banks Renewables would look at ways in the future to bring the “very well-designed” and “sensibly-located” scheme forward again.
News & Star

There’s nothing quite like victory. Unless we’re talking about two in a row!!

dark_blue_world_by_0greyfox0-d49ncl1

The Horrors of Wind Turbine Noise!

“There is a pressure pulsation emitted into the community once every second” (Wind Turbine Noise Expert)

Jul 8, 2014

facebooktwittergoogle_plusmail

.

Editor’s note:  Rick James is, without doubt, one of North America’s premier experts on wind turbine noise.  Unlike the great majority of noise engineers who have sold their souls and ethics to the wind energy industry, Mr. James can’t be “bought.”  Together with Rob Rand and Steve AmbroseRick has exposed the deceit and mendacity of wind company acoustic consultants — as in their fraudulent use of A-weighted noise measurements, for instance.

We all owe these three gentlemen a huge debt of gratitude.

thump2

.
— Richard James, Noise Engineer (7/8/14).  Click for PDF, with all graphs included.

As the blade passes the tower, the low frequency noise and infrasound is generated at a frequency related to the hub’s rotation and number of blades. These pressure pulsations appear as tones during analysis, but are not heard as tones by most people. Instead, they may feel the pressure changes as pulsations, internal organ vibrations, or as a pain (like ear aches or migraines).

This frequency is called the Blade Pass Frequency, often abbreviated as BPF.

For modern utility-scale wind turbines, this frequency is at 1Hz or lower.  A three-bladed wind turbine with a hub rotation of 20 revolutions per minute (rpm) has a BPF of 1Hz. This means there is a pressure pulsation emitted into the community once every second.  At 15 rpm the BPF is 0.75 Hz; and at 10 rpm, 0.5 Hz.

When wind turbine blades rotate past the tower, a short pressure pulse occurs, producing a burst of infrasound.  When analyzed, the result is a well-defined array of tonal harmonics below 10 Hz.

For impulsive sound of this type, the harmonics are all “phase-correlated.” This means the peaks of each occur at the same time. Thus, the peaks add together in a linear fashion, with their individual maximum sound pressures all coinciding.

Thus, for an impulse having 4 equal amplitude harmonics (BPF, 2nd, 3rd and 4th) each of the same amplitude, the peak level is +12 dB.  Ten equal harmonics would produce a peak level of +20 dB.

Rick James

Wind Developers Always Try to Conceal the Facts!

East Oxford group files FOI for wind farm details

By Jennifer Vandermeer, Norwich Gazette/IngersollTimes

The alliance (EOCA) has filed Freedom of Information requests and asked the Ontario Ombudsman to look into it because of the number of changes that have been made to the project without due process for the public to participate.

Joan Morris, spokesperson for EOCA, said one issue is the “substantive changes” to the project since it was first filed with the MOE and considered complete and accurate.

“A change to the project area was announced to the public only four days before the application was deemed complete by the Ministry on February 7, 2014,” Morris also said in a press release. “Apart from a cover page from the Ministry of Environment, none of the documents for public review and comment were modified to account for the changes.”

Morris said this left hundreds of pages of irrelevant information in the project proposal, with the public left to figure out what information remained relevant.

“It’s impossible for the public to even know what this will look like,” she said in a telephone interview Monday afternoon.

In the EOCA’s letter to the Ontario Ombudsman’s office, the group also points out that it has identified many inaccuracies, deficiencies and out-dated information in the proponent’s documentation.

The ministry deemed the Renewable Energy Approval documentation for the Gunn’s Hill project to be complete despite a change in the project announced only four days before posting it to the Environmental Registry.

“This is unacceptable,” the letter states.

“Our legal advice suggests that it appears the Ministry of Environment has not only allowed this to occur, but has participated in this process by providing the developer with a cover letter absolving the developer of the obligation to revise documents prior to… posting,” the letter further states, before asking the Ombudsman’s office to investigate the process of decision-making the MOE uses regarding renewable energy projects.

This action by EOCA comes at the same time Wind Concerns Ontario sent its own letter asking the Ombudsman to investigate aspects of the approval process for wind power projects that have been deemed complete but do not include all information.

 

I’m Sure Somehow, a Liberal will Benefit from These Transactions, But Not Us.

LCBO? Hydro One? Wynne’s budget relies on $3.15B from asset sales, but offers no specifics on what will be sold

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne briefs the media following the Throne Speech at Queens Park in Toronto on Thursday, July 3, 2014.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young  Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne briefs the media following the Throne Speech at Queens Park in Toronto on Thursday, July 3, 2014.

TORONTO — Ontario’s Liberal government is counting on billions of dollars from the sale of provincial assets so it should be able to say exactly what will be sold to raise that money, the NDP said Tuesday.

“The Liberal Party’s infrastructure program clearly states that the plan is to pocket $3.15 billion from the sale of public assets,” New Democrat Peter Tabuns said during question period.

“If you know you’re going to raise at least $3.15 billion from overall asset sales, you also know how much you’re planning to get from the whole or partial sale of OPG, LCBO and Hydro One.”

The Liberals set up an advisory council, chaired by TD Bank Group CEO Ed Clark, to find ways to “optimize” the value of Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board, which could involve inviting pension funds to invest in the agencies while retaining public ownership.

 

It’s too early to provide details on what could be the subject of a total or partial sale, Premier Kathleen Wynne told the legislature.

“We have asked Ed Clark and his team to look at the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario to make sure that they are working to the very best benefit of the people of Ontario,” said Wynne. “But I don’t have the specific answers at this point because we’ve asked him to do that work.”

The New Democrats are worried about “a fire sale” of provincial assets, and claimed the government plans a whole or partial sale of the LCBO and the hydro utilities, which they warned would drive up electricity bills even higher.

“You don’t burn the furniture to heat the house, so will the premier tell Ontarians what public assets she’s planning to sell off,” asked NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

“They listed LCBO, OPG and Hydro One because they are, let’s say, targets,” added Tabuns.

Interim Progressive Conservative Leader Jim Wilson said it was a good idea for the government to look at ways to squeeze the most value as possible out of its assets, as long as the public remains the majority owner in each case.

“There’s money tied up in those assets that could be used to improve services or to reduce the deficit,” said Wilson. “My preference is no outright sales, no 100 per cent sales. We should hold the majority of shares in these companies.”

 

The government is also looking at sales of the shares it purchased in General Motors during the recession as well as some of real estate including the LCBO and OPG buildings in downtown Toronto, to help trim a $12.5 billion deficit.

The president and CEO of Infrastructure Ontario, the provincial agency that will take the lead on the sale of government assets, is Bert Clark, son of Ed Clark, the man appointed by Wynne to chair the Liberal’s advisory committee on asset sales.

“Obviously, it doesn’t look good,” said Tabuns. “I think the whole process is misguided, top to bottom, and that just adds to it.”

The Tories said they were confident the Liberals implemented checks and balances to make sure “something funny doesn’t happen” with father and son on different sides of the negotiating table while discussing government asset sales.

“I’d give them the benefit of the doubt right now because they’re both very professional people,” said Wilson.

Deputy Premier Deb Matthews said she didn’t see any conflict at all with Ed Clark chairing the government’s advisory committee and Bert Clark heading the provincial agency that would lead the asset sales.

“Anybody who knows Ed Clark, and looks at his history not just in his role as a banker but his personal philanthropy, knows this is a man who is above reproach,” she said. “He wants to help the government maximize our assets.”

Farmer’s Coalition Shares the Truth about Big Wind!

Farmers’ coalition warning us about BigWind !!!

Please share with your neighbors and family members. The $ offered to farmers is very enticing….

The Informed Farmers Coalition IFC was formed five years ago to study the impacts of wind turbines on our agricultural and residential community. The group consists of past or present union iron workers, school teachers, township officials, lawyers, a farm manager, a plumber, a fireman, a mechanic, school board members, county board member, union truck drivers, a dentist, retail workers, construction workers, nurses, union equipment operators, hospital workers, a social worker, bookkeepers, a school administrator, salesmen, an electrical engineer for Com Ed, an EMT, numerous local business owners, large/small landowners, homeowners, and of course, farmers – many of whom are the third and fourth generation on that farm. Many are lifetime residents of this agricultural community.

They have discovered, through sworn testimony throughout the state, that people are suffering from the same health issues, noise disturbances, untruthful wind company promises, property value losses, etc. The ongoing research brings the discovery our local landowners may be responsible for the property taxes and decommissioning of the wind turbine should the wind company walk away from the project. The turbine property tax bill stays in the name of the landowner with the bill being listed c/o of the wind company. So ultimately if the wind company doesn’t pay, it will be sent to the landowner.

IFC became aware some of our local landowners with signed contracts had never seen a map where their turbines were projected to be placed. The map presented with the petition to the county also shows underground transmission lines. Some landowners were not aware transmission lines would go through their property and did not think they had signed up for that. One landowner agreed to a contract but for only 80 acres of his property. But when IFC was researching at the county, they discovered his contract was filed containing all 560 acres of his property.

The real experts about wind turbines are the citizens living among them. IFC has attended numerous county meetings across the state of Illinois only to realize the people testifying under oath all have the same story – homes where they can no longer live or sell due to noise and health issues; wind companies that townships must sue to collect their rightful money; trespassing of heavy equipment on non-participating land that compact the soil for years as well as damage crops and tile; crop dusting problems; GPS systems that no longer get a signal; cell phones and TV reception problems; etc.  IFC is aware that Lifeline helicopters may not choose to land in a turbine area; this was needed this spring for a local farm accident. A letter from a school superintendent states the children in his school district are suffering from the effects of the turbines, since they went online.

IFC also became aware that once a person signs a contract they have agreed to a gag order that restricts them from talking about the wind company…

via Guest Commentary | BCRNews.com.

Lefties Trying to Implement Technological Regression!

“Demand-side management”: Blackouts by another name

..and why “green energy” is economic nonsense

In a recent speech Ed Davey announced that energy intensive companies would be paid to switch off their machinery during times of high demand. As many have noted, this not what happens in healthy energy markets. Although this policy is called ‘demand-side management’, jargon does not disguise what is still a blackout. But simple economics can determine a much better approach to energy policy than the managed decline preferred by the deeply unpopular minority party in the coalition.

The problem of the UK’s diminished capacity is caused by energy policies, (not shortages of fuel), largely but not entirely driven by EU directives to reduce CO2 and other emissions from power stations.  Much of the UK’s generating capacity has been forced to close by the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), followed by the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), both of which are intended to reduce the emissions responsible for pollution. Nobody is against clean air, but the combination of these policies has compounded the UK’s energy problems, leaving an energy gap which threatens wide-spread blackouts.

The LCPD and IED force the operators of coal-fired power stations either to shut down within a given time (17,500 operational hours between 2016 and 2023), or to add systems to comply with the standards they set out.  Retro-fitting older but still serviceable plants may not be economically viable, so the operational lifespan of these plants is reduced by a decade or more.  Somewhat late in the day, the Department for Energy and Climate Change commissioned a report on the feasibility of building new gas and coal-fired capacity and extending the life of the UK’s existing power plants by making them compliant with the IED.

The existence of the report demonstrates that the current and previous governments’ plans for a greener energy sector have not materialised, and cannot now be achieved. No amount of wind turbines and domestic solar PV installations can replace the capacity that has already been lost to the LCPD and will be lost to the IED. So the government is now forced to face the consequences: begging energy companies to keep remaining coal and legacy gas plants operational for as long as possible in order to avert a deeper crisis.

Along the way, the report shows some interesting things about the history of the UK’s fleet of power stations. The following graph shows two main periods of building. Approximately 3.3GW a year of coal plant between 1965-75 and 2.5GW a year between 1990 and 2000, under different economic regimes.

Sherri Lange Talks About the Sensible Decisions Made, Re: Wind Turbines!

UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SB310 PASSAGE BY GOVERNOR KASICH IN OHIO

Intro Letter to Governor Kasich from NAPAW

Time out for OHIO renewables targets, and a breather for turbine victims

Sherri Lange

Ohio’s Governor John Kasich recently made a move on wind.  Not precocious, not inflammatory, though you might think the din from the industry and other uninformed lawmakers says else, but merely a few safe moves that put reasonable limits on decisions and safety for people living near wind factories, or singles,  in the state. (Also passed was the one line protection for residents living near turbines, that the setback will now be measured from the property line, not the residence….a universally welcomed move.)

Senate Bill 310 was shattering in some respects for the wind energy. At the heart was a two year moratorium on increased mandatory mandates for renewables.  Also at risk to the industry was a longer setback, now about 1300 feet, to a property line, not a residence.  Inhibiting factors for an industry on the march in Ohio.

State Rep Mike Foley decried the Bill, called it adverse to the “current” understanding of global warming, manmade, of course, and reminding us that Ohio is already the 5th largest producer of greenhouse gases in the US, but there was obviously enough “reason” in the big room of Ohio, to sway the bill to passage. (Representative Foley called it, irrational, and embarrassing, and why would Ohio not want to barrel ahead with “clean” energy”?)

A few facts are missing, Representative Foley.  Greenhouse gases increase with more wind power.  Nothing is clean and green about wind. Now that is embarrassing.  Ontario has had its fill of the nearly hysterical songbook: “we have to clean the air of all this coal smog.”  As Dr Ross McKittrick of the University of Guelph tells us, this “clean air” story in Ontario or Ohio,  is full of holes. Patently false.

See McKittrick’s excellent essay on his view of fossil fuels and other ruminations related to “Earth Hour” hypocrisies.  Continue reading here…..

**************************************************************************

Letter to Governor Kasich

July 7 2014

 

Governor John Kasich

Riffe Center,

30th Floor 77 South High Street

Columbus, OH 43215-6117

Phone: (614) 466-3555

Jessica.Johnson@governor.ohio.gov

whitney.holdrieth@governor.ohio.gov

 

Dear Governor Kasich;

We wanted to be certain you have received our thanks regarding your signing of Senate Bill (SB) 310 and protection of people and wildlife, and livestock, by maintaining a setback to the property line, not residences.  These decisions will do much to settle the OHIO rush to wind, while more facts, long known in Europe, become available to OH public, and policy makers.

NA-PAW represents over 350 member groups and thousands of individuals from Aruba, Mexico to Alaska, and every part in-between. We liaise with EPAW, with over 650 member groups.  Many of our most active North American members are from Ohio, or are interested parties for Ohio. We are concerned about safe, reasonable, and effective energy platforms, not those that put billions in the pockets of a few developers, while gouging State and Federal funds, and of course the pocket books of ordinary Americans and Canadians, without adding effective energy to the mix at all.

The essential facts are without dispute now worldwide.

Wind power KILLS jobs, and creates only a few temporary short term jobs during construction, or due to maintenance needs.  Construction of parts is mostly done overseas, and does not contribute to the American economy. The high cost of power, due to unreasonable and mandated so called “renewables” and unhealthy subsidies that enrich the few, and give energy poverty to the rest, is also killing industry.  While a manufacturing industry, for example, may use 30% of its operating costs for electricity, an uptick to that cost of even 10% or 15% may knock it off its seat. In Ontario, Canada, we have lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs in the last five years, and it is very clear what the direct cause is: untenable subsidies for wind and solar.  Ontario was recently downgraded by Moody’s, again because financial confidence is at an all-time low, again, due to the proliferation of wind and solar at vastly escalated costs to consumers. One can only wonder how such a money making scheme ever became to be so “respectable.”

Wind power does not work. It produces scant little, or as one recent article indicated from the UK, on certain measured days, turbine assemblies are assessed to provide power for from  3 to 29  tea kettles. Even more astonishing, but now well known,  is the fact that wind factories are parasitic, using conventional power to moderate pitch, and move to capture wind, and keep blades from freezing, or shafts from destabilizing, or often to maintain the motion when there is no wind for the simple reason of public relations. Sucking conventional power, to scoop billions from the wind, but for a few developers. Not for the State or public benefit.

Wind power harms people and wildlife. This is so vastly understood, and the implications are so huge, that it would take a treatise to explain the extent of this harm. No other industry has been able to advance so strongly with so few safeguards for the environment and people.

Europe with its 30 plus years experiment in green renewables, is coming to understand, sadly, and grieve, the true costs:  economies in shambles, clawing back subsidies as they can, the harm to pristine landscapes and tourist areas, the

consumers. One can only wonder how such a money making scheme ever became to be so “respectable.”

Wind power does not work. It produces scant little, or as one recent article indicated from the UK, on certain measured days, turbine assemblies are assessed to provide power for 3 to 29  tea kettles. Even more astonishing, but now well known,  is the fact that wind factories are parasitic, using conventional power to moderate pitch, and move to capture wind, and keep blades from freezing, or shafts from destabilizing, or often to maintain the motion when there is no wind for the simple reason of public relations. Sucking conventional power, to scoop billions from the wind, but for a few developers. Not for the State or public benefit.

Wind power harms people and wildlife. This is so vastly understood, and the implications are so huge, that it would take a treatise to explain the extent of this harm. No other industry has been able to advance so strongly with so few safeguards for the environment and people.

Europe with its 30 plus years experiment in green renewables, is coming to understand, sadly, and grieve, the true costs:  economies in shambles, clawing back subsidies as they can, the harm to pristine landscapes and tourist areas, the harm to their environments, and of course social upheaval. There are more than 2000 anti-wind groups worldwide that we know of, and that number escalates as soon as more projects are announced. There is, however, an equal rush to disentangle from the mythologies and harms done.  Continue reading here….

letter-writing