Return to sanity!

Tories Plan to Eliminate Green (Greed) Energy Act

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario Tories will scrap selling unused power to Quebec, U.S. states, says party’s finance critic

 Jul 05, 2017 by Kevin Werner 

Progressive Conservative MPP Vic Fedeli

Ontario Tory MPP Vic Fedeli (left) was the keynote speaker for the Hamilton chapter of the Macdonald-Cartier breakfast event in June at the Mountain’s Marquis Gardens. – By Kevin Werner, HCN

The Ontario Progressive Conservatives are proposing to end the longtime strategy of various governments of selling excess power to Quebec.

Vic Fedeli, the MPP for Nipissing and the party’s finance critic, said in a recent interview the party will look to “stop shopping power” to Quebec and a number of U.S. states, in an effort to create jobs in the province.

“We can use that power here in Ontario,” said Fedeli after addressing about 25 people at a breakfast meeting of the Hamilton chapter of the Macdonald-Cartier Club at Marquis Gardens last month.

“If there is a way for us to use that power at night to create some employment and use that power up to cover your hydro bills (and) allow businesses to put on a third shift,” the party should do it.

A study by the Consumer Policy Institute revealed that Ontario customers have paid $6.3 billion over the last decade to cover the cost of selling electricity to customers outside the province, predominately to Quebec, New York and Michigan.  In 2011, surplus power was sold by the province for about $418 million. In some instances, power is sold for a penny or two per kilowatt hour, and sometimes even given away to the interconnected grid linking Ontario with New York, Quebec, Michigan, Manitoba and Minnesota.

Fedeli said Quebec has lower hydro rates than Ontario and is enticing businesses to relocate to the province.  He said Google chose to locate its first data centre in Canada in Montreal, Que. rather than in Ontario due to the lower energy costs.

“This goes on and on, not just the companies that left Ontario, it’s the companies that chose not to come to Ontario,” he said.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has stated selling surplus power is not new and has happened over the years under governments of all political stripes. Ontario also, it stated, takes advantage of low energy prices on the grid from other areas.

Fedeli said the Tories are also preparing to eliminate the Green Energy Act, which the party has stated has provided expensive subsidies to renewable companies for power that Ontario already has.

“The first thing we have to do is stop signing contracts for power we don’t need,” said Fedeli. “Second is open up those contracts and look at them.”

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE…

 Albion fencing

NEWS

Albion Falls fencing begins

 Hamilton Huskies

NEWS

OHA decision ices bid to bring junior hockey back…

 Skateboarding

CITY HALL

Dundas’ Veteran’s Park and Ainslie Wood’s…

He also wants to slash Hydro One’s $11 million pay for its chief executive officer and four of the top executives to the more manageable salaries of counterparts at Hydro Quebec and B.C. Hydro where they make about $400,000.

“It makes no sense making that kind of money,” he said.

During his address, Fedeli took aim at various Liberal ministers and accused them of providing incorrect facts about how well Ontario’s economy is doing.

He said Brad Duguid, minister of economic development, has stated that Ontario is “growing faster than the United States.” Yet, said Fedeli, Arkansas, Washington, Oregon all have higher growth rates than Ontario.

Fedeli added that Duguid said Ontario is the “top foreign direct investment location” in North America.

“Well, no we’re not the top foreign direct investment destination we used to be,” he said.

He said Ontario is the fourth highest location for direct foreign investment.

“So we are the fourth, not the top,” he said. “We fell, tumbled from $7 billion to $4 billion. That is a serious change in only a very short period of time.”

Duguid’s office did not respond to a request for comment. But the ministry’s website states Ontario is the “North American leader in attracting foreign capital investment, dated 2015.

A report from fDi Intelligence, a division of the Financial Times Limited, showed Ontario leading for the second year in a row for foreign capital investment, receiving $7.1 billion; ranked third when it comes to foreign direct investment job creation with 13,055 from 6,102 in 2013; and ranked second in the number of foreign direct investment jobs in the finance sector and first for automotive and life sciences sector.

In the fDi 2017 report on global investment, Ontario ranks third for foreign investment, surpassing Texas and Florida, from $4.1 billion 2015 to $4.5 billion in 2016.

Fedeli also took issue with the Liberal government’s description of Ontario returning as Canada’s economic engine. Ministers and Premier Kathleen Wynne have stated, including in visits to Hamilton, that Ontario is booming again.

Yet, said the former North Bay mayor, referring to an analysis from the Fraser Institute, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec all have lower unemployment rates than Ontario.

“So how can you say we’re leading when there are 10 provinces that don’t make us the leader,” he said. “So why do they do it? It’s because our economy is under attack. It is not outside forces that has made this happen, it’s the policies of this government that have brought our economy under attack.”

Fedeli said the major reasons why Ontario’s financial situation is in such a precarious situation is because of the high taxes, topping out at 53.5 per cent and the rising debt of over $300 billion, making Ontario the world’s most indebted subsovereign borrower.

“The deficits are going to get bigger,” said Fedeli, referring to the Liberals’ decision to extend the borrowing plan to finance the 25 per cent hydro rate cut under the party’s Fair Hydro Plan.

“We are going to be about half a trillion dollars in debt,” he said. “This is sobering and pretty damn scary.”

Enercon Forced to Accept Liability for Harm Caused to Neighbours of Irish Windfarm!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Families forced from homes due to wind farm noise win court case

Sunday, December 11, 2016

A number of families in Co Cork who were forced to leave their homes because of noise from a nearby wind farm have won a significant case in the High Court this week.

The families claim they have been severely impacted by noise since the wind farm began operating in 2011.

This is the first action of its kind in Ireland and may now open many wind farm developers to the prospect of legal challenges from families in similar situations.

The case was taken against wind turbine manufacturer Enercon who have accepted full liability for causing nuisance to seven families who live up to 1km from the wind farm.

The case will return to the High Court in 2017 to discuss punitive damages.

Promises in Government over the last four years to introduce planning regulations regarding wind turbines have failed to materialize.

According to out-dated guidelines, turbines may be built 500m from homes. In many cases, including this, wind turbines have been built closer than 500m.

A spokesperson for Wind Aware Ireland said: “There now is a possibility for multiple legal actions against wind farms right around the country.

“The legal implications for the wind industry are significant. The use of inadequate and out-dated planning guidelines may come back to haunt the industry, planning authorities and the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE).”

On election, Minister Naughten promised that new planning guidelines would be in place within 3 to 6 months of the formation of the new government.

Renewables may Lose “First to the Grid Privileges in EU”.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Renewables could lose European power grid priority, documents reveal

Industry concern after confidential impact assessment models scenarios for paring back the ‘priority dispatch’ system for clean energy

The sun reflects off a solar collector assembly at the Andasol solar power station, southern Spain. Retroactive changes to funding rules have caused disputes and cutbacks in several countries, notably Spain.
The sun reflects off a solar collector assembly at the Andasol solar power station, southern Spain. Retroactive changes to funding rules have caused disputes and cutbacks in several countries, notably Spain. Photograph: Marcelo Del Pozo/Reuters

Windfarms and solar power could soon lose the privilege of getting priority over other energy sources on European electricity grids, leaked documents show.

Paring back the “priority dispatch” system could increase carbon emissions by up to 10%, according to a confidential EU impact assessment seen by the Guardian. But the document goes on to model four scenarios for doing just that, in a bid to make Europe’s energy generators more flexible and cost-competitive.

Some industry sources have told the Guardian they are alarmed and think it highly likely that priority dispatch for clean energy will be scrapped from the EU’s renewable energy directive, which is currently being redrafted for the post-2020 period.

Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the WindEurope trade association, said: “Removing priority dispatch for renewable energies would be detrimental to the wind sector, which would face more curtailment across the continent. It also seems to be at odds with Europe’s plans to decarbonise and increase renewables penetration over the next decade.”

“Investors took priority dispatch into account when projecting revenues in the original investment decisions, and it could have a bearing on existing projects if they are not protected from the change.”

The issue of retroactive changes to funding rules for renewables in Europe has been a cause for disputes and cutbacks in the wind and solar sectors of several countries, notably Spain.

Senior industry sources say they will push for financial compensation and access to balancing markets to help prevent a significant industry contraction, if priority dispatch is ended.

“We have had enough instability and retroactivity in Europe and going forward, the difference between existing and future assets should be well distinguished,” said one industry source.

“I would be extremely worried if they just removed priority of dispatch and did not touch other key issues around market design. It would mean that the commission was taking measures against the same renewable industries that they defend in public.”

Fossil fuel power providers argue that renewables have the lowest operating costs and so would anyway receive priority access to the grid network.

They also say that taking the clean energy sector out of priority dispatch would prevent “negative prices” – where more energy is produced than can be sold – and eliminate anti-competitive subsidies.

The EU’s assessment views the abolishing of priority dispatch as a step towards the creation of a “level playing field” for energy generators.

But without such a system, renewable sources may be the most likely to be taken offline because of the relative ease of switching off a wind turbine compared to a coal or nuclear plant.

The energy source with the lowest marginal cost – almost always renewables – is usually the first in line to be shut down by power grid operators.

As things are, a Europe-wide trend towards ending financial support has constrained the forward march of renewables on the continent, and siphoned off investment to elsewhere in the world.

“Everyone is investing in renewables outside Europe right now,” said one industry source. “If you want to bring investors back you have to send very relevant signals.

Removing wind and solar power from priority dispatch may be intended to help reform the capacity market system, which currently pays gas generators to remain idle. Ironically though, it could lead renewable generators to demand an extension of the same mechanism to their own sector.

“If priority dispatch is removed, then renewables must be given a fall-back option of access and remuneration in the balancing markets to help stabilize the system, or clear levels of compensation in the event that curtailment is necessary,” Joy said.

Priority dispatch is supposed to be mandatory under current EU rules, although the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands are among countries that do not comply.

The study says that “the biggest impacts on generation [from ending priority dispatch] would be observed in Denmark, Great Britain and Finland, where biomass holds a large share of generation capacity”.

But this would be felt more in terms of bio-energy’s “expensive” production costs than its carbon emissions reduction potential, which is disputed inside and outside the commission.

“The removal of priority dispatch for biomass would indeed, in the first instance, imply an increase in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions,” the paper says.

The four scenarios for scaling back priority dispatch involve an increase in CO2 emissions of 45m-60m tonnes.

Wynne Uses Wind Turbine Scam to Destroy Ontario’s Financial Stability!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Can Ontario Escape its Self-Inflicted Wind Power Disaster?

October 19, 2016 by

wynne

***

Ontario’s energy policy is in tatters; power prices have crushed business and the roll out of thousands of these things has wrecked the lives and livelihoods of thousands, in what were once peaceful and prosperous farming communities.

In short, Kathleen Wynne & Co have dug an enormous hole from which there may be no escape. But before the Province considers how it might get out, the only sensible strategy is to stop digging – starting with bringing an end to the ludicrously generous and heavily subsidised wind power contracts that led to the inevitable debacle that’s playing out in Ontario; and which has Wynne’s Liberals petrified of the political consequences the next time their victims come to vote.

Lawrence Solomon: Yes, Ontario’s Liberals can cancel their terrible renewable power contracts—and they should do it now
Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon
15 September 2016

Ontario’s power prices are soaring out of control, industry is leaving the province, the Liberal government is panicking over its re-election prospects, and almost everyone agrees there’s no remedy, that the ludicrously lucrative long-term contracts that the Ontario government signed with wind and solar energy developers condemn the province to many more years of economic hardship.

Except there is a way to deal with the onerous contracts — rip them up. There is no compelling economic, environmental, moral or legal case for the government to “honour” odious contracts. The only honourable course of action for the government, in fact, is to admit its mistakes and pass legislation declaring those contracts null and void.

A compelling economic case? In announcing its Green Energy Act, the Liberals repeatedly boasted they’d be creating 50,000 jobs, boosting the Ontario economy to new heights. With jobs fleeing the province and business confidence at rock bottom, no one hears that boast any longer.

A compelling environmental case? Industrial wind turbines, which rely on fossil fuel backup, do next to nothing to reduce carbon dioxide, the sole rationale for their existence.

In contrast to this trivial and dubious environmental benefit, wind turbines do immense and certain environmental harm by disfiguring the countryside and slaughtering millions of birds and bats.

A compelling moral case? Ontario’s multi-billion “clean energy” industry has a squalid provenance.

This has been largely a closed-door sector in which 11 politically favoured domestic and multinational giants control 90 per cent of the wind power market, letting them pocket an estimated $10 billion in government-mandated subsidies over the next two decades. Although the industry portrays itself as small scale and local, it’s anything but.

A compelling legal case? There is none, if the province proceeds properly, explains Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen’s University, a former adjudicator for the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal and author of the 2014 Fraser Institute study, Cancelling Contracts: The Power of Governments to Unilaterally Alter Agreements.

“The right way is to legislate: to enact a statute that declares green contracts to be null and void, and the province to be free from liability,” he explains. “Statutes can override iron-clad provisions in a contract because that is the nature of legislative supremacy: Legislatures can pass laws of any kind, as long as they are within their jurisdiction and do not offend the constitution. Legislating on electricity production is clearly a provincial power, as are ‘property and civil rights.’”

There is no compelling case for Ontario to honour its odious renewable power deals Pardy’s analysis is sound not just in theory but in practice, as Trillium Power Wind Corp. discovered when it sued for $2.25 billion in damages after the Liberals, to quell fierce public opposition to offshore wind turbines prior to a previous election, unilaterally rewrote the rules.

The appeal court had no time for Trillium’s claims, noting that it was “plain and obvious” and “beyond all reasonable doubt” that Trillium could not succeed in arguing breach of contract.

As an analysis of the case by the law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt put it, the appeal court “made it clear that proponents who choose to participate in discretionary government programs, such as Ontario’s renewable energy program, do so primarily at their own risk. Governments may alter the policies that underlie a program, and may even alter or cancel such programs, in a manner that may be fully lawful and immune from civil suit.”

Moreover, the appeal court decision dismissed Trillium’s contention that the government had acted improperly out of “purely political” considerations, rather than out of legitimate public policy considerations.

As Osler explained, governments are free to act in their political interests: “this decision emphasizes that political factors, such as strong public opposition, are legitimate public policy considerations.” These principles aren’t Ontario-specific — they’re fundamental. Throughout Europe, governments are also unilaterally rewriting their unaffordably generous rules governing the renewables industry.

Cancelling Ontario’s odious renewables contracts would immediately and directly lower rates for the province’s citizens and industry, reversing the harm to the provincial economy and improving the government’s prospects in the coming provincial election.

A cancellation would bless the citizens of Ontario — and other provinces —indirectly as well, by disciplining future governments and investors alike. Investors would be leery of participating in future politically motivated government programs that weren’t fundamentally sound, making it difficult for future governments to pursue pet projects that run the risk of harming the citizenry.

Benign government projects — say building a school or hospital — would run no such risk and discourage no investor.

Contracts are sacrosanct between private parties, when they follow the law. Contracts means something else entirely when one party — the government — makes the law and is free to change it. Let the investor beware before getting into bed with government. Let the government think hard about whether its fling with renewables is an affair it wishes to continue.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.
Financial Post

digging-a-hole

Governments Intentionally “Dumbing Down” the Populations…In Order to Manipulate!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Wikileaks reveals “conspiracy to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry’

Wind warriors – ever wonder how woefully hard it is for truth, justice and the American way to prevail over propaganda by paid off politicians, media and environmental groups in the wind battle?

Some of the answer is right here:

“And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry,” he writes”.

The email is a shocking insight into the elitist and arrogant mindset, with Americans viewed as dumb sheep who need to be herded in the right direction.

http://www.infowars.com/clinton-campaign-email-outlines-effort-to-p…

Wind Fiasco Promises to be the “Liberal’s Undoing”!

/ 1957chev / 6 Comments

Grits’ failed wind energy to face tough test in 2018

By Jim Merriam

Monday, October 3, 2016 

Premier Kathleen Wynne

Premier Kathleen WynneBookmark and Share

You have to wonder how bad the Ontario Liberal party’s internal polls are to force the government to fold on its signature green energy policies.

Published polls show both Premier Kathleen Wynne and party have found a basement under rock bottom and it’s likely private polls show the same or worse.

The fact wind factories were destroying communities and tearing families apart in rural Ontario meant nothing at Queen’s Park.

Likewise, the Grits ignored endless pleas and protests from municipal leaders and wind opponents. They dismissed as meaningless complaints about wind turbines driving families from their homes.

Even the mounting evidence giant turbines are contaminating nearby wells didn’t move Wynne and company.

Plus, the Liberals were experts at ignoring the media, who repeatedly pointed out green energy problems that were leading Ontario into power poverty, particularly in rural areas.

As the old joke about always being ignored until you pass gas in an elevator goes, it only took one Scarborough byelection loss to change the landscape.

The Grits’ first response was the throne speech fiasco to “reset” the agenda. That brought the eight per cent tax rebate on energy bills, a give that went over like a lead balloon.

Now future renewable energy projects valued at over $3 billion are gone because experts said Ontario has excess power.

It’s too bad bureaucrats couldn’t have figured that out for themselves months ago when they started delivering extra power across neighbours’ borders at huge losses to Ontario.

The big question is, now what? Cancellation of future projects will keep power bills from rising by a measly $2.45 per month in the future. But that does nothing about the current power crisis.

Obviously there’ll be more goodies to come on the power front as the government gets ready to face the people in 2018 but with a provincial debt of $300 billion and counting, how significant can they be?

Besides all the ways in which the people of Ontario have been victimized by green energy initiatives, the biggest crime is the bad rap the experiment has given to renewable energy.

Former premier Dalton McGuinty and his energy minister George Smitherman got in bed with international companies to bring green energy to Ontario at the highest possible cost.

Had these two done their homework and paid even scant attention to the people of the province, they would have found all kinds of ways to introduce renewable energy on a smaller scale with Ontario residents, not offshore companies, reaping most of the benefits.

Instead McGuinty set the stage for all that was to come by prejudging most criticism of green energy projects as nothing but NIMBYism, (Not in My Back Yard).

From that moment of insult to the intelligence of rural Ontario residents, the entire green energy plan became more farce than future.

Wynne, of course, doubled down on all that was wrong with the program and has brought Ontario to the financial disaster in which it finds itself today. The antipathy is massive towards Wynne in rural Ontario because of the energy mess and other fumbled files from health care to the environment to trail development. Her government is unlikely to recover in the boondocks.

The interesting question for 2018 is how many urban folks can be convinced that the Liberals have learned their lesson and suddenly will become good stewards of Ontario’s money and interests.

Even that seems to be an insurmountable hill to climb.

jmerriam@bmts.com

“Letter to the Editor”, regarding Cancellation of Renewable Energy Agreements…

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

 

Dear Editor

Electricity is back in the news again and some are expressing that green jobs might be lost if the province doesn’t enter into any new agreements for renewable energy.  This will save Ontarians a whopping $2.45 per month on their electricity bills.

Ontarians need to know about the original contract between Ontario and Samsung/Korea Consortium, where there was to be approx. 16,000 jobs created.  This was challenged in the World Trade Organization Court and Canada lost.  Because of the amended trade agreement in 2013 Samsung/Korea could “develop, construct and operate wind and solar generation projects” totaling “up to 1,369 MW of capacity (Phases 1 and 2 and 300 MW for Phase 3).  It could also “establish and operate facilities” to “manufacture wind and solar generation equipment” which might create approximately 900 jobs.

With how much Ontarians have spent on this monopoly there would be 900 jobs created – think about that.  And it would be the same deal even if it were the PCs or the NDP.  They are all getting the same failed advice from the same back-room boys.

We also must remember that there is 3 phases to the Samsung/Korea monopoly and only new agreements, with others, won’t be entered into.  This leaves Ontarians on the hook for the next umpteen years, according to the press, and what about the turbines that are already expropriating people’s use, enjoyment and operation of their land with 500 meter plus set-backs, that go over property lines.  According to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, a noise receptor is the inner ear, not the government’s definition that it is a house.  This expropriation/violation should not be tolerated by any Ontarian because if it can happen to one person it can happen to any person.  And one merely has to look at the “big 3” parties to see why this is continuing.

Bill Davis’ PCs (1985) was one of the first to have a government agreement with Suncor (TransCanada), which neither, the Liberals or NDP seem to cancel.  This might explain why none of the parties are not saying anything about the breach of trust involved with the cancellation of the gas-plants.  Wynne even admitted her government had committed breach of trust against Ontarians – silence from the other parties.  As for the Attorney General’s office, why isn’t it upholding the law?  Isn’t that its job?

When Ontarians find out what is really happening they might look to someone else to represent them in Queen’s Park and not merely the “big 3” representing the “back-room boy’s.” These costly agreements will be back, no matter which party is in power.  So don’t be fooled.  We have 18 months to find someone new – let’s do it.

 

Elizabeth F. Marshall,

Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association

Author – Property Rights 101:  An Introduction”

Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board

Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc

Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Mun. Councillors, etc.

President All Rights Research Ltd.,

Steering Committee – International Property Rights Association

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.  Any information relayed is for informational purposes only.  Please contact a lawyer.

1-705-607-0587Collingwood, ON

 

Covering up bird mortality at wind farms. Mark Duchamp

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

PRESS RELEASE
12 September 2016

Hiding evidence of the massacre

 


News of bird and bat deaths at wind farms have reduced to a trickle. Does that mean that a solution has been found? Yes, it has, but it’s not what you think. Wind turbines are every year more numerous and the massacre they cause is ever increasing. What has changed is that the cover up is now effective at 100%, or just about.

The following news sheds light on the latest technique for making mortality data unavailable to the public (and the media):

Wind farm sues to block bird death data


Yes, you read correctly: “releasing (the wind farm’s) bird and bat kill reports would provide “trade secrets” to its competitors”. Surrealist, isn’t it? But that’s only one of the many lies we must deal with when investigating that hugely subsidized industry. Below, we present the “trade secrets” they are trying to hide:

trade secrets
courtesy of Ontario Wind Resistance


Indeed, in present day United States, mortality data legally belong to wind farm owners, and the public has no right to see the numbers without their permission. This is the “solution” that has been found for covering up the butchery of eagles, cranes, pelicans, condors, swans, swallows, bats, owls, falcons, hawks, geese, gamebirds, songbirds etc.

Throughout the world, ever since shocking mortality statistics at wind farms made the news 15-20 years ago, efforts have been made by the wind industry and complicit governments to hide the numbers. In the UK for instance, wind farms have long stopped being monitored for mortality; in Spain, the monitoring has been done, but the reports were filed away without publishing; elsewhere, whenever a wind farm had to be checked for mortality, its owner would select ornithology consultants based on their reputation for “cooperation” – i.e. whose reports always showed “manageable” numbers. This is still the preferred method for covering up in some countries, e.g. Canada or Australia.

To make it even safer for European wind developers, and regardless of the proclaimed right of the public to be informed on environmental matters (Aarhus Convention), reports concerning wind farms’ impact on birds and bats were soon stamped “property of the developer”, meaning that he may edit them before publication. “The wind companies rewrite all ecological work themselves“, said to me a UK ornithologist who had worked for wind developers. But a non-disclosure clause in the contract kept him from revealing publicly what he knew and what he saw. This is now standard practice in wind farm monitoring contracts.

Thanks to these various methods to hide the evidence, high mortality numbers soon disappeared from the headlines, and the public lost interest, trusting large ecology NGOs and bird societies to watch over protected wildlife. However, conflicts of interests oblige (i.e. $$$), these organizations keep denying that significant harm is being done to biodiversity. For instance, none of them has published the report by the Spanish ornithological societyrevealing millions of deaths a year in Spain. Yet it is based on 136 monitoring reports obtained from the Spanish government under Freedom of Information legislation.

Granted, the particularly deadly Altamont Pass wind turbines kept coming back in the news now and then, but the media has become so gullible (or complicit) that even their repowering for another 25 years didn’t make waves.

The issuing by the US administration of “incidental take permits”, allowing wind farm operators to kill a number of eagles accidentally, did cause anger among bona fide conservationists, especially as wind farm operators can easily hide the real number of eagles they kill. But this scandal didn’t make the evening news on television. Most NGOs don’t really mind: there is no money in protesting, but plenty of it to be reaped from Big Wind, awash as it is in subsidies.

In Scotland, an issue that could become a hot potatoe is the census of golden eagles. Originally due in 2013, this politically-sensitive 10-year survey was postponed to 2015, and to date we are still waiting for its publication. Cynics are suggesting that it takes time to edit the text and doctor the figures, which would otherwise reveal a sharp drop in the Scottish golden eagle population, coinciding with the period when the moorlands were invaded by wind farms.

Coincidence or not, a report just surfaced in Edinburgh, reassuring the Scots on the fate of their beloved eagles. Wind turbines may be installed near eagle nests, it claims, provided ornithologists are paid, during the life of the wind farm, to feed the eagles and monitor their behavior. It’s pure rubbish, but it keeps ornithologists and bird societies happy. Officially, they are the ones who “know” about birds, and their opinion is taken into consideration by the authorities; so it’s important for the wind lobby to keep them cheery. In reality, we know that wind turbines attract (and kill) eagles, as they do other raptors, swallows and bats: read Biodiversity Alert. In short, the new report is just another one of many biased, misleading studies financed by wind interests. If you read the press article till the end, it actually claims thatBeinn an Tuirc wind farm helps Scottish eagles survive. Yes indeed, the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

The population survival issue was tackled differently in the western United States: the golden eagle census was carried out from a plane. Obviously, scientific rigor was lacking: seen from an aircraft, it is easy to mistake a juvenile bald eagle for an adult golden eagle. The wind coalition used this worthless census to report a “stable golden eagle population” in the western States. Different methods, same misleading result.

One of the countries where the cover up wasn’t achieved at 100% is Australia. Mortality at the infamous Woolnorth wind farm apparently ceased being reported to the public, but a few months ago, that of the Macarthur wind farm hit the news, causing concern worldwide.

More recently, another Australian wind farm discreetly announced (you have to search their newsletter thoroughly – page 2, paragraph 3) that it was killing many eagles: Bald Hills wind farm – 7 eagles killed in 4 months. Seven in four months is the official figure, so the reality could be even worse. It’s also a good indication that, as revealed by Save the Eagles International, raptors are attracted to wind turbines (and then killed). But don’t be surprised that, in spite of the evidence provided in STEI’s article, bird societies completely ignore this lethal attraction exerted by wind turbines: it would hurt the wind industry if they recognized it. Here you can, again, appreciate the hypocrisy surrounding the whole issue.

Finally, the cover up is naturally helped by scavengers, which become rapidly aware that wind turbines provide easy food in the form of dead or injured birds and bats. So they make the rounds daily, mostly at night or at dawn when their chances are best. Searchers employed by consultants rarely start their work as early as foxes and crows, so they miss most carcasses. In addition, they visit the site once every week at best, leaving plenty of time for scavengers to clean up the grounds.

That is how the company operating Bald Hills WF, above, can claim they only found 19 bird carcasses (assuming the figure wasn’t simply doctored). You’ll note that there were 7 eagles among them: typically, small carcasses disappear whole, while larger ones often leave some remains behind. Some wind farm operators instruct their employees to bury the evidence , but some carcasses can escape their vigilance, given the very large surface to be searched, and the vegetation.

At Altamont Pass, California, Dr Smallwood estimated in 2004 that 116 golden eagles were being killed yearly by the 5,000 (small) wind turbines (1). These mostly young, wandering eagles, were from California, the western United States, and even Canada. The massacre will continue as new, bigger turbines replace the old ones. The “green” NGOs don’t really care – do we hear them protest? The killing is now legal (incidental take permits), and that keeps the operators out of trouble if some eagle carcass happened to be discovered by a member of the public. The wind industry wins. The extermination of eagles, hawks, falcons, cranes, swallows, owls, bats and other highly valued species may continue unabated.

Mark Duchamp
President

(1) – Altamont Pass wind farm, 116 golden eagles killed yearly: see Page 73, Table 3-11: Species/Taxonomic group: Golden eagle
Mortality per year:
– adjusted for search detection: 75.6
– adjusted for search detection and scavenging: 116.5
DEVELOPING METHODS TO REDUCE BIRD MORTALITY IN THE ALTAMONT
PASS WIND RESOURCE AREA – Shawn Smallwood & Carl Thelander (2004) – for the California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-04-052/500-04-052_00_EXEC_SUM.PDF

Words of Wisdom, About Government-induced Climaphobia….

/ 1957chev / 3 Comments

Food for Thought

Posted on September 7, 2016by

global-warminmg

Scientists are always telling us to “accept nothing, challenge everything, ask for empirical proof”. Lawyers work by a similar creed – “do you have proof of that? If not, there is very little I can do for you”.

Well bear that in mind when you read this little gem:

“The Big Lie – By Alex Epstein

On February 29, 2016

There is an oft-cited comment that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is global warming and that human beings are the main cause.

.

First of all, this statement itself, even if it were true, is deliberately manipulative. The reason we care about recent global warming or climate change is not simply that human beings are allegedly the main cause. It’s the allegation that man-made warming will be extremely harmful to human life. The 97 percent claim says nothing whatsoever about magnitude or catastrophe. If we’re the main cause of the mild warming of the last century or so, that does not begin to resemble anything that would justify taking away our machine food.

.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

.

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.”

.

This is not about being what opponents label “a global warming denier”. It is simply a plea to break away from the “groupthink” and research and investigate these things for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Look into the backgrounds of these so-called experts/prophets of doom and see where their money is invested, for example. You might be surprised, hopefully shocked.

.

This idea that “if you are not with us, you are against us”, is bullshit, plain and simple. Consider both sides of the argument, study research methodologies, ask politically incorrect questions to politically correct people, come to a conclusion for yourself when you actually understand what the arguments are about. If you don’t understand it, don’t come to a conclusion, because that is not your conclusion, it is somebody else’s.