Dear Prime Minister Harper and Hon. MacKay, Attorney General and Minister of Justice,
Re: Convention on the Rights of the Child and Industrial Wind Energy
Ms Correia and I have taken the opportunity to communicate some of the risk factors of exposing fetuses, babies, children, youth and those with special needs to noise and other emissions associated with industrial wind energy facilities. We provided a snapshot of evidence indicating some members of this vulnerable population group with pre-existing medical conditions could also be at risk. In some cases, vulnerable children are expected to be exposed at home, at school or both.
This letter is public and may be shared.
During our correspondence, we cited the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We now note that a recent Supreme Court of Canada Judgment considered the Convention on the Rights of the Child. [Judgment and Reasons, The Hon. Justice MacTavish, Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Daniel Garcia Rodriques, Hanif Ayubi and Justice for Children and Youth v. Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]
Ms Correia has urged that the Government of Canada take immediate measures to ensure health protection from wind energy facilities for her son and Canadian children.
We have requested a meeting with Minister Peter McKay and look forward to the opportunity to share our concerns and provide some of the evidence relating to this complex topic.
Judgment and Reasons, The Hon. Justice MacTavish, Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Daniel Garcia Rodriques, Hanif Ayubi and Justice for Children and Youth v. Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Convention on the Rights of the Child July 12 2014.FINAL.pdf
This is another guest article by one of our regular commenters, Graeme No3. We homo sapiens are a tropical species but for the majority of our estimated 200,000 year existence, we’ve lived on an Earth locked in ice ages, which have always had devastating effects on us. Geologically speaking, we’re still in one but fortunately as of about 10.000 years ago we’re currently enjoying what’s called an interglacial, which in technical terms means a brief interlude when there’s an uptick in global temperatures during an ice age.
Believe it or not, but there have been millions and millions of years in the geological history of the Earth when there was little or no ice around. Life thrived in those intervals. It’s only in ice ages that life around the globe contracts and shrivels.
There is a growing body of opinion that we might be moving out of our interglacial and back into a colder world, perhaps a very much colder one. That’s happened many times before and there’s absolutely nothing to prevent it happening again. Should that turn out to be the case, this article speculates on our total energy unpreparedness for that scenario and the possible geopolitical ramifications of such a global change.
Pointman
—-<0>—
It is a truth rarely acknowledged that a young person with good intentions but no experience will believe in renewable energy. When ignorance thinks it bliss, folly is let run wild.
Among the expensively educated who have passed from school to university and remain there, faith in ‘carbon free’ electricity is paramount. Among the Chattering Classes the same wishful belief, it cannot be called thinking, is almost universal, and reflected in the output from their favorite media provider, paid for by others. Among these self congratulating circles any thought of electricity beyond the nearest switch is of a sort of nebulous big pond of electricity which is always available. It can be replenished from any source at any time, so moving to renewables is considered easy, and resistance has sinister motives. Murmuring base load is enough to get you classified as an expert.
No one appears to know about the electricity grid on which modern life is based. There is no big pond that can be filled or emptied at leisure, it is all split second timing. Introducing unpredictable and variable generation into this environment is a consequence of hysteria based on an unproven scare campaign. Yet these hysterics daydream of a supply based entirely on “renewables”. Verily, I say unto you “Unicorns live!”
Try to imagine life without a continuous supply of electricity; it is not called power for nothing. Power to heat or cool your living space, power for the appliances that handle so many mundane living tasks, power to communicate and to entertain around the globe. No electricity means no refrigerator, no microwave, no TV, no washing machine or dryer. There will be no computer and no telephone; don’t think that because you carry it with you that it will work, as the radios linking the cellular network will need electricity.
Cooling needs electricity, unless you’ve hired a punkawalla. You may think that heating can be replaced by gas, liquid or solid fuels but have a close look at your system; is that an electric fan? an electric circulating pump? And what is the ignition source for your fire or furnace? Is the timing mechanism dependent on signals through the mains connection? Ask yourself, how would you fare in the depths of winter if there was no electricity for 11 days?
And while you’re in a despondent and fearful mood, those of you with children of appropriate age may as well have a talk to them about The Facts of Life. Don’t mention sex; thanks to the internet and those sites you think they don’t know about, they will have explicit, if warped, knowledge.
No, I refer to the real facts, budgets, bills and debts which they will need to know about in the future. Explain that their mobile phone or pad needs electricity to operate the computers that route the signals AND send you the bill. Explain that debts have to be paid and that unicorns do not leave big bags of money at the bottom of the garden, even for plausible politicians. That generous credit means interest has to be paid as well as the amount borrowed, and borrowing to pay the interest only hastens bankruptcy.
Then comes the hard part. Point out that renewable energy is intermittent and expensive, and replacing 20% of cheap electricity with something costing 4 times as much pushes the whole price up, and ordinary consumer has to pay for that. About this time their eyes will glaze over and they cannot take in any more. They probably won’t believe you but you have done your duty as a parent. Take a break and a well deserved stiff drink. Let them exchange pitying glances; in years to come they may realize that you did know something.
They will need this advice in the near future for the climate is changing. No, the IPCC hasn’t finally got a prediction right! Forget ‘Climate Science’, within 5 years it will have been consigned to the rubbish bin. No, this is the real science. In the last 1,000 years the sun has gone quiet 5 times, and each time the temperature has dropped, agriculture has suffered, and a large portion of the population has died from cold, starvation, plagues or wars.
Don’t look at the pious chants of the eco-loonies as they recite the dogma of Global Warming, or whatever they call it this month, look at the actions of those who know. China has a long history and has been through many changes in the climate. They have never agreed to sign up with the IPCC to destroy their economy. Lately they have started buying up resources and agricultural land and produce in Australasia, Africa and South America.
The industrious ants are filling their larder, while Europe and the USA dance like demented grasshoppers. Russia is building nuclear powered ice breakers and casting eyes on the Ukraine – “the breadbasket of Europe”. They’ve plenty of oil and gas for those who can afford it, and vast pipelines are planned to China. Europe needs those fuels too, but will they be able to afford them when the price goes up again? And what will be Putin’s price?
Countries will need flexibility, financial reserves, political strength and credibility to adapt, yet this is what Europe lacks. For the past 25 years it has embarked on a stupid and destructive policy based on a nebulous threat. In the name of reducing emissions they have wasted hundreds of billions sending their industries abroad while spending even more on social welfare for those unemployed and without a future. And the World’s emissions have soared.
A captive breeding program for unicorns would have achieved as much, been as logical and a good deal cheaper.
California has been following the same road as Europe. Overspending by borrowing, then borrowing to pay the interest on the borrowing. Under stress expect it to declare bankruptcy, but it won’t. It will just be unable to re-pay its debts with anything other that weasel words. The result will be the same; a world-wide financial crisis that will end the US dollar’s time as the reserve currency. That will be bad news for the USA, but otherwise they will suffer less than most, although agriculture will have to move south.
There will be no more orange groves in Florida, but a lot more people fleeing the cold north. The rising population of Texas along with the antagonism against anything or anyone tarred with the “Washington” tag, by the declining populations of the western states may lead the country being split by a Union of the Western States, leaving California and the Eastern states divided. It is unlikely that Mexico will seek to reclaim Los Angeles, because that would mean inheriting the mess.
In North Africa and the Middle East not one country is self-sufficient in food, especially wheat. When the World was warmer in Roman times, Egypt and Libya were the granary of Rome. When times turned cooler and the rain bands shift south, the desert expanded. The Canadian wheat crop will be much reduced, even non-existent, during these cold years, and reduced in many other places, so the price will rise beyond the point that the populace will remain docile. They won’t be able to supply more than a fraction of their population, and their inflexible social order guarantees violent troubles. Only Turkey and Israel have the modernity and flexibility to survive the crisis.
Europe, too, is doomed. Europe will collapse in on itself. The money, the flexibility to ride out the crisis has been thrown away on a false assumption. The chattering classes may indeed not notice any problems for a while, then pass them off as passing irritations and call for “business as usual.” But “this time it’s different” we will be told. “World wide trade will ensure a flow of food” will be the assurance, so the supply won’t be inadequate. “Wars are a thing of the past”, will be the claim of fools. “Things aren’t that bad” and “It will all be over by Christmas” will be as true as they were the last time they were used.
The EU will go, and a vast crowd of bureaucrats will gain first hand knowledge of the difficulties of getting employed in a shrinking economy. Their supporters, the Green parties, will be in disarray by their widespread rejection and lacking influence, indeed outlawed in some countries. Nor will they be helped by the fissioning of the various states. Expect Italy to split into north and south; with South Italy overwhelmed with refugees from North Africa (and who can blame them) but law and order broken down. Lombardy will have some of the toughest borders in Europe to deter any thinking of moving north.
The takeover by Nazi-like Golden Dawn in Greece, where they invented xenophobia, will make climate refugees even more desperate to get into what was Spain. The civil wars in there would make it uninviting, with the Basque, Catalans, Galicians and the southern Union (Andalusia and Murcia) all off anybody’s holiday list. France is their only hope, and may their God help them with the mood that the National Front will be in then. A few survivors may be allowed to remain to do the menial, the dirty and the dangerous jobs.
There will be a rising tide of nationalism in Germany, which will frighten its neighbours. The Flemings (Belgium having split under the pressure) will joined with Holland and Denmark (and possibly Norway) in a self-protection league. In the east, Poland and the Baltic states will be casting nervous glances at Russia also, and talking with Finns and the Czechs about history repeating itself.
Turkey will looks very dicey once Israel supplies it with nuclear weapons, as the renewed alliance looks east towards an unstable and threatening Iran. They will hope that the internal troubles there will cause Iran to disintegrate before the clergy starts a war.
Russia will have a second time of troubles, but there their foresight and the advantages of modern technology will operate in their favour. With plentiful oil and gas supplies they will be able to buy extra food. Life may be tough, but there will be hope and they will draw in on themselves to survive. They certainly won’t want to have anything to do with the Balkans and the troubles there. Panslavia is one thing, Pansuicide is another.
China will struggle along, having foreseen the coming crisis. Enough food can be imported because of their huge financial reserves. Indeed dribbling aid and the reduced american presence will lure more asian countries into the chinese block. That said, the tropical far east will be less affected. The Chinese will patiently gain their revenge as they let Japan slowly die.
India will not threaten China. The continued failure of the monsoon will destroy the population and any resemblance of unity. Pakistan will disappear into murderous chaos, which won’t confined to its original borders. In times of troubles politicians are too prone to think that slaughtering some of their neighbours will act as a pressure relief.
Australia will find it drier north, a help in deterring boat people. A few hundred miles of desert are an effective barrier to those trying walk to a better life uninvited, particularly if well stocked with crocodiles in the waterholes and with venomous snakes lurking in ambush. A thriving agriculture and a much bigger population will be in the well watered south. With a record crop of wheat and record prices, the economy is able to support the many lucky or prescient recent immigrants.
NZ will be little changed and continue to beat the Aussies at rugby, and occasionally at cricket.
And what of the United Kingdom? Either united or re-united as Scotland won’t long survive on its own in the cold hard world. The upper classes still wonder what has changed. They now take their holidays in the West Indies, where it is still warm, if expensive now that the pound is worth so little. Still, the islands are exciting, if overcrowded, thanks to all those lucky enough to have had grandparents from the West Indies so they could emigrate back there.
The middle classes will be complaining about the cost of everything going up, since the pound lost so much value. The last winter, they moan, was the worst ever. They will envy the luck of their former neighbours who got into Australia before it closed its borders.
The poor will be sullen and despairing. Their life will be grim indeed after the slashing of welfare payments by the Grand Coalition (Cons. & Labour) following the last currency crisis. Tens of thousands will die of cold each winter. The poor never get the best houses. They rarely bother to vote, and increasingly against the coalition government. Surprisingly there may be an upturn in religion, with evangelical churches gaining huge attendances. Some might claim it is all the funerals the masses have attended recently that has brought them back to Christianity, others, more pragmatic, will point to the evangelicals habit of heating their meeting places and the free hot refreshments afterwards.
But the sun will not remain quiescent for long, and warming will start again after several decades. From their lairs in the Himalayas the few remaining believers of AGW will stir. The time is ripe, they will say, and soon the glaciers will dry up as predicted in the sacred books of the IPCC, and the mountain shall split and in great radiance, accompanied by seraphim and cherubim, will the prophet William Connolley appear, riding on a Unicorn. Then, and only then, will we hear the truth.
WA Liberal Senator, Chris Back launched a stinging attack on the wind industry during a speech in the Federal Senate, yesterday. Responding to a cacophony of wind industry rent seeker bleating, Chris has smashed headlong into three of the wind industry’s greatest myths.
The first is that any alteration to the mandatory Renewable Energy Target amounts to “sovereign risk”, for which substantial “compensation” is payable by the Commonwealth to wind farm “investors” who’ll end up losing their shirts.
Now, there’s no doubt that “sovereign risk” rightly springs to mind where a well-braided General in charge of a military junta declares that – henceforth – BP’s oil assets will be treated as property of the (read “his”) State (or tinpot dictatorship, as the case may be), say.
In the last week, the wind industry has been wailing louder than ever about “sovereign risk” and the need to be “compensated” for any change to the mandatory RET; as if Renewable Energy Certificates were some God-given-right. Chris slams that one straight over the long-boundary, based on Parliamentary advice which, funnily enough, reflects what STT has already said on the issue (see our posts here and here).
The next myth is that, despite all the evidence, wind power is driving down retail power prices, with the help of the mandatory RET.
Never mind that South Australia (Australia’s wind power “capital”) – already paying the highest power prices in the world – has just been whacked with a 6% increase in retail power prices. Never mind that Australia enjoyed the lowest power costs in the world less than a decade ago and now pays among the highest (see our post here).
STT made the observation that the wind industry’s “strategy” of claiming that wind power can be delivered at prices equal to or less than conventional generation sources was not just brave it’s “crazy brave”. The obvious retort is that: “if wind power is truly competitive with coal and gas, then it won’t need a mandatory RET or Renewable Energy Certificates anymore” (see our posts here and here and here).
Well, Chris Back has given the obvious retort, congratulating the wind industry on its new-found ability to compete with the big boys and welcoming them to a world where they’ll be free to compete without the unwieldy strictures of the mandatory RET.
The other great wind power myth that copped bucketing by Chris is the wind industry’s wild and unsubstantiated claims concerning CO2 emissions reductions in the electricity sector. Chris made it plain that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector, stating that the subsidies provided to wind power have been “all but totally ineffective” in greenhouse gas abatement.
Here’s a video of Chris’s speech; Hansard (transcript) follows.
****
****
THE SENATE PROOF ADJOURNMENT SPEECH Wednesday, 9 July 2014
First, I congratulate you on your role as Deputy President. My contribution today continues the discussion that we have had in the last few minutes, and that is the question of the renewable energy target review and whether or not there is a sovereign risk associated with it. I say this because of claims made by representatives of the wind industry, including Infigen Energy’s Mr Miles George, who has been claiming to one and all and anyone who will listen to him that a sovereign risk may arise with the potential scaling back of the renewable energy target. I want to address that today.
It is interesting that a review of the origins of the RET scheme provides a very clear view that the renewable energy industry’s position is self-serving, aiming to reinforce their own self-interest. As we all know, if you are at the races – through you, Mr Deputy President, to Senator Bullock – and there is a horse called Self-Interest running, make sure you have got your money on it, because you will know it is trying. It is interesting that the wind industry is trumpeting two issues in the media. One is that wind power is dropping the wholesale price of electricity and the second is that the RET will cause the retail price of electricity to fall. If wind is causing the wholesale price of electricity to fall, then it follows that the industry no longer requires subsidy through the RET scheme as renewable energy is therefore cost competitive in the market. The RET is causing prices to rise significantly and it relates to the power purchase agreement, an agreement in which prices are locked in at some $120 per megawatt hour compared with the average wholesale price of $30 to $40 – a factor of some four times. The price set by the PPA, therefore, is paid by retailers irrespective of the wholesale price. The price is passed on, as we know, to retail consumers.
So let us go back to basics. The RET is a government intervention designed to mandate the proportion of electricity generated from selected sources. It was designed to support a policy of at least 20 per cent of Australia’s energy supply coming from renewables by 2020 and, as such, the policy taxes electricity users and, in some cases, non-renewable generators, in order to subsidise selected renewable producers. From it emerges the renewable energy certificate market, where the RECs are issued to power station generators classified as renewable under the act. In that way, RECs have become a form of energy currency as electricity retailers must purchase RECs to cover their liability under the act. These entities, generally electricity retailers, pass the cost of acquiring mandatory certificates on to energy consumers in the form of higher energy tariffs. This effectively becomes a tax on energy consumers.
The interesting exercise is that, after some 13 years of operation – and this is what the coalition government is addressing – it has become clear that the objectives of the act have not been reflected in the outcomes. In fact, they have been ineffective in their objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector. Indeed, the Centre for International Economics in their 2013 report generously indicated about 10 per cent of total electricity generation is from renewables; and the Clean Energy Council in 2013 made the observation that the slight increase in renewable generation attributable to the RET was actually greatest from hydroelectricity, not the other forms that have been so vocal.
Turning to the RET review which is underway at the moment, some people, including the Greens, are claiming that this has been an attempt to render ineffective the Climate Change Authority’s 2012 review. But, of course, we all know that there is a two-year mandated review. There is nothing unusual about that two-year mandate. Again mentioning Infigen Energy, it is interesting that in their submission to the current review they question whether there needs to be a two-year review at all. So we come to this figure of the 20 per cent target by 2020. Is it a percentage or is it a number of gigawatt hours?
When this discussion first took place it was believed that the figure of 20 per cent due from renewables by 2020 would account for some 41,000 gigawatt hours. But, as we know, in recent times as a result of manufacturing moving offshore and as a result of other changes in the economy, that figure of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020 is probably wrong. More recent estimates, including by ACIL Allen Consulting in their 2013 presentation to the Electricity Users Association of Australia’s conference, suggest that that figure would not be around 41,000 gigs but somewhere around 23,000 – a significantly lower figure.
The case to abolish the renewable energy target is driven by its cost to electricity consumers compared with the corresponding reduction, or lack of reduction, in greenhouse gases. We have got to do something before this gallops on to 2031, hurting families, individuals, residences, businesses and governments even more.
I come to the question of sovereign risk, and a key question is: who owns the renewable energy certificates? Are they the property of the Commonwealth? By implementing the act and establishing the RET tax, the Commonwealth created the renewable energy certificates, which are a form of intangible regulatory property for trade by virtue of mandated national consumption levels, upon which all consumers pay an increase in their electricity bills.
If we look at the provisions of the act itself, we can see immediately what the various points of importance are as we look at this question of sovereign risk. At least in theory, firstly, parliament may alter the law at any time, or vary or take away rights and obligations. The parliament has that power within the precepts and concept of the Constitution. Secondly, the act has a phasing clause which provides for periodic review of the RET, which we are undertaking at the moment, and that may result in changes to the scheme. We all know that – it is totally transparent; it has been there from the word go; everyone always knew about it. These are prescribed by section 162 and they will make recommendations consistent with the objectives of the act itself. The RET scheme was never intended to operate as an unchecked subsidy to the renewable electricity providers and it is high time they understood and remembered that. It is most interesting that we would have proponents questioning that a future statutory review of the RET ought to be undertaken every couple of years.
The third point to be made is that, in the 2012 review, the issue of investor confidence was raised as an effort to promote renewable energy investment. Of course, concern with investor confidence is not the same concept as sovereign risk. Indeed, it may be well acknowledged, as it was by the Climate Change Authority in 2012, that investor confidence had to be balanced with other considerations – one of them being the cost to the consumer, families and business. A wide range of views were expressed at that time.
If we look to the review that is underway at the moment, what are the options? The first may be to leave the existing target unchanged at 41,000 gigawatt hours. The second may be to reduce that to what people are saying is the real 20 per cent projected electricity supply demand, and that is the 23,000 gigawatt hours that I have spoken about. This would reduce the potential cost of the scheme, particularly for energy users like us and incumbent generators. The third option might be to increase the target to promote a greater share of renewable energy more quickly and, particularly in light of the CEFC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to make any renewable generation attributable to it and additional to that delivered by the RET, heaven forbid. The fourth might be to repeal it altogether.
In summary, we would have a circumstance in which the reviews will probably result in changes to the rules of the RET scheme. I do not think anybody would be in any doubt about that and, should that occur, it will have an impact on the RET price. The coalition has been sending that signal very clearly for a long time. Nobody needs to be under any doubt or illusion as to where the coalition has stood on this and the contrast with the policies of the Australian Labor Party then in government. The question becomes one of compensation for property acquired by the Commonwealth.
There are some interesting cases, including Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. For those interested, that case seems to reinforce a view that statutory property interests cannot be assumed to be protected by section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, because modification or extinguishment of such a right may not amount to an acquisition of property. Another case was Commonwealth v Tasmania – the Tasmanian dam case. The Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v Commonwealth case was interesting. The authority was the proposition that mere extinguishment or deprivation of rights in relation to property will not, in and of itself, amount to acquisition. Extinguishment or deprivation may not result in the question of acquisition.
The problem for the renewable energy industry is that, in the case of renewable energy certificates, it would seem that the Commonwealth might not be ‘acquiring’ property or, indeed, ‘extinguishing’ property. The outcome of a review may result in a decrease in the value of the RECs, as could be anticipated, and probably is by those having a punt, but the RECs would not become worthless. They may be worth less, but not worthless. There is, of course, a significant distinction and there is no argument for compensation on that basis.
So what do we define as sovereign risk? As we know, one common definition is: ‘any risk arising on chances of a government failing to make debt repayments or not honouring a loan agreement’. As a result of the global financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund in 2011 expanded the traditional definition of sovereign risk to, broadly, the probability that a country may not pay its debts, and in their view it has been shown to be too narrow. Developments subsequent to that have exposed very complex interactions between fiscal balances, public and private debt, and the financial sector. However, the IMF held discussions in 2012 around the definition of sovereign risk, suggesting that it might be extended, including the government’s role in the resource sector and the imposition of additional unanticipated or unforeseeable regulations on participants.
We have the circumstance where the outcome of the discussions being conducted does not extend to the understanding that is being trumpeted by the renewable energy sector. The reality for the renewable energy industry is that it may be very difficult for them or, indeed, anybody else to argue the concept that sovereign risk in this case is a relevant basis for compensation. They may not be rendered worthless; they may, in fact, be rendered worth less.
Finally, to add some international context to the position that I am advancing, in Europe the renewables scheme is being modified or, in many instances, scrapped and as yet, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no sovereign risk claims have been put forward by the industry.
So I make this point again in conclusion: the wind industry cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that wind power in this case is decreasing or dropping the wholesale price of electricity and, secondly, that the RET will cause the retail price of electricity to fall. If that is indeed the case then there is no cause for that particular aspect of the renewable energy industry to require further subsidy at all, since that renewable energy is cost-competitive in the market. If, indeed, it is cost-competitive in the market then let it live in the marketplace, but let it not be the reason—through its own self-service and self-interest – to see prices being unnecessarily driven up for domestic consumers, for residences, and for small and large businesses. Senator Chris Back (Western Australia)
Nice work, Chris!
Here’s The Australian’s take on Chris’s speech.
Senator’s case for killing RET The Australian Andrew White 10 July 2014
A government senator has rejected claims of sovereign risk caused by the review of the renewable energy target as “weak”, arguing there is a case to abolish an “insidious impost on every electricity consumer”.
Chris Back, the deputy government whip in the Senate, said the RET was a tax on consumers and conventional energy suppliers to subsidise renewable energy providers but had been “all but totally ineffective” in greenhouse gas abatement. The comments from the West Australian Liberal senator are among the strongest yet from the government ahead of a mandated biennial review of the RET that is due to report at the end of the month and are likely to fan industry fears that the government wants to use it to abolish or weaken the scheme.
The country’s biggest infrastructure operator, IFM Investors, and Spanish renewable energy investor Acciona told The Australian this week that $15 billion of fresh investment in renewable energy — mainly wind farms — was on hold because the industry feared the scheme would be scrapped or weakened. Australia’s foreign investment credentials would also be on the line because changes to the scheme could force writedowns on an estimated $20bn already invested in renewable energy that requires a 20-25 year payback period, the investors said.
But Senator Back said that after 13 years the scheme had increased investment in renewables but had not achieved its objective to reduce greenhouse gases. “The case to abolish the RET is driven by its cost to electricity consumers compared to the corresponding reduction (or lack of reduction) in greenhouse gas emissions achieved through its 13-year lifespan,” Senator Back said. The Australian
Kill the mandatory RET and the wind industry will die in a heartbeat – it’s on life support now.
The Danish press reports the case of a garden centre going out of business because of nearby wind turbines. Headaches are frequent among employees, and female workers complain of unusual bleeding and problems with their menstruation cycles. They are worried that more serious illnesses may follow and five of them recently resigned from their jobs. The owner is now closing shop for fear of being held responsible should a child be born with deformities, as happened to numerous mink puppies at a fur farm near wind turbines in Jutland (1).
Boye Jensen, the owner of Lammefjordens Perennials, is 67-year-old. He started his plant nursery 43 years ago, and it became a prosperous business with 15 employees and annual sales of 12 million krones (equiv. $ 2.1 million). He was planning to continue working for another 6-7 years, then sell the nursery. But his business is now worth nothing, causing him an important financial prejudice.
He is presently consulting with his lawyer whether he should sue Vattenfal, the company that owns the wind turbines, or the Municipality of Holbaek, which approved their installation 400-700 metres from his garden centre. He will go to court, and seek damages worth several million krones.
“Himself a neighbour to 127-metre high wind turbines since their installation three years ago, Boye Jensen has long been convinced that low frequency noise emitted by the turbines makes people ill as they do animals” (2). Then, recently, the sorry news from Kaj Bank Olesen’s mink farm came to his ears (1). This, and the resignation of several of his employees for health reasons, made him realise his business had become unviable because of the wind turbines. “The nursery owner made this hard decision after a mink breeder in Jutland was able to establish a causal link between the loss of a third of his mink puppies, deformed or stillborn, and several giant wind turbines erected nearby” (2).
The story made the news in Denmark (2) (3), and Member of Parliament Karina Adsbøl expressed her concerns to the Minister of Health at a Parliamentary hearing. The Minister, typically, replied by addressing other, less important issues mentioned by the MP, and ignored the important ones, i.e. wind turbines causing birth defects in animals forced to live near them, and disrupting women’s menstruation cycles (4).
The World Council for Nature (WCFN) is calling attention to the fact that, as occurred for tobacco, asbestos, thalidomide etc, governments are siding with private financial interests in ignoring or denying the existence of obvious health problems linked to wind turbines. As is the case for the millions of birds and bats killed yearly by the turbines’ blades, mendacious studies are published by unscrupulous consultants, and by professionals and universities happy to oblige their benefactors. Hypocrisy is rampant, species are fast disappearing from our skies, and thousands of windfarm neighbours are being submitted to torture. The word is not an exaggeration: sleep deprivation is indeed a recognised form of torture.
In Denmark as elsewhere in the world, many country dwellers are suffering, particularly since the apparition of the mega turbines (1 MW and over), which emit more infrasound as they grow bigger. This may explain why the complaints are becoming more strident. But how much longer can this suffering be ignored, or even denied by health authorities? Some countries, like Canada or Australia, have commissioned studies into the matter of noise emitted by windfarms. But the studies’ scope and methodology condemn them to failure, perhaps intentionally. What is really needed is: 1) an epidemiological study, and 2) the measurement of low frequency sound (including infrasound down to 0.1 Hz), inside the homes of windfarm victims, at night, windows closed, when the wind is blowing from the direction that is causing problem.
Most importantly, as a precaution, no mega turbines should be erected less than 10 km from habitations until such time as these studies are completed, published and analysed. There is indeed compelling evidence that infrasound travels much further than other sounds, and tortures sensitive people in their homes at distances of 10 km and more. Shorter distances could be temporarily set for smaller turbines, in proportion with their generating capacity.
WCFN calls upon the Danish government to intervene in favour of victims. A wealth of evidence is available, including peer-reviewed studies, which warrants applying the precautionary principle without delay (5). Children are particularly at risk – even unborn ones, as suggested by the evidence presented in this release.
WCFN’s primary goal is the conservation of biodiversity. A sane and responsible human population is the single most important factor towards that end. Our interest in human health is therefore justified from a logical perspective, among others.
A letter is being addressed to the Danish government concurrently.
Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736+34 693 643 736 Chairman, World Council for Nature http://www.wcfn.org
References:
(1) – Kaj Bank Olesen’s mink farm: stillbirths and deformities:
(4) – Video: a Member of Parliament, Karina Adsbøl, addresses her concerns to the Minister of Health, mentioning the deformities at the mink farm and the menstruation problems at the garden center:
The BBC, the UK Government Broadcaster, has banned former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson from appearing on BBC programmes to talk about climate change.
According to a spokesman for the BBC, a series of complaints about an interview in which Lord Lawson expressed climate skepticism, led to a ruling in favour of the complainants by the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Board.
“This ruling found a false balance was created in that the item implied Lord Lawson’s views on climate science were on the same footing as those of Sir Brian Hoskins.”
However, this is not the first time the BBC has gagged unfashionable views.
Sir Winston Churchill, the WW2 leader of Britain, openly expressed the opinion that his views on NAZI Germany were gagged by the BBC, because his concerns about Germany were not what the BBC wanted the British people to hear.
According to the article on Churchill’s “gagging” by the BBC;
“There is no written evidence that Churchill asked the BBC for the opportunity to speak out against appeasement. However, he did complain to a young BBC producer who visited him on the day after Chamberlain returned home from Munich. A memo records their meeting. They spent hours discussing the Nazi threat and “Churchill complained that he had been very badly treated… and that he was always muzzled by the BBC”.
The BBC producer who tried to reassure Churchill about BBC bias was Guy Burgess. Burgess was the man who would later become Britain’s most infamous traitor, when he defected to Moscow with fellow spy Donald Maclean. Story Title: BBC Bans Lord Lawson for Climate Skepticism One line summary of story: A previous gagging led to disaster
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.”
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.
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, 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!!
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 Ambrose, Rick 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.
. — 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.
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…
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 