PORT ELGIN COMMUNITY MEETING MAY 15TH: GUEST SPEAKER – SHERRI LANGE
environmental
The Windscam – Hurting Families and Others who Cannot Afford it!
Bjørn Lomborg: Cost of Renewables Hit Poorest the Hardest
May 1, 2014 by
Bjørn Lomborg has become one of the most high profile critics of insanely expensive and utterly pointless renewable energy policies across the globe (see our posts here and here).
Bjørn’s back – and this time adds the impact our ludicrous Renewable Energy Target has had – and will have – on power prices and the ensuing punishment that spiralling power costs cause to the poorest and most vulnerable in Australian society.
Renewables pave path to poverty
The Australian
Bjørn Lomborg
29 April 2014
THE Australian government recently released an issues paper for the review of the renewable energy target. What everyone engaged in this debate should recognise is that policies such as the carbon tax and the RET have contributed to household electricity costs rising 110 per cent in the past five years, hitting the poor the hardest.
A Salvation Army report from last year found 58 per cent of low-income households were unable to pay their electricity bills on time. Lynne Chester of the University of Sydney estimated last year that 20 per cent of households are now energy poor: “Parents are going without food, families are sitting around the kitchen table using one light, putting extra clothes on and sleeping in one room to keep warm, and this is Australia 2013.”
What is true in Australia is true globally. According to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “Climate change harms the poor first and worst.” But we often forget that current policies to address global warming harm the world’s poor much more.
Solar and wind power was subsidised by $65 billion in 2012. And because the total climate benefit was a paltry $1.5bn, the subsidies essentially wasted $63.5bn. Biofuels were subsidised by another $20bn, with essentially no climate benefit. All of that money could have been spent on healthcare, education, better roads or lower taxes.
Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less-reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates the total cost of the EU’s climate policy will be $US310bn a year from 2020 until the end of the century.
The burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the world’s poor, because the rich can easily pay more for their energy. In the US, well-meaning and well-off environmentalists often cavalierly suggest petrol prices should be doubled or electricity exclusively sourced from high-cost green sources.
That may be OK in affluent suburbs, where residents reportedly spend just 2 per cent of their income on petrol. But the poorest 30 per cent of the US population spends almost 17 per cent of its after-tax income on petrol.
Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in Britain have reduced their electricity consumption almost 10 per cent since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50 per cent increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from 1.8 per cent to 4.6 per cent.
The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10 per cent, whereas the rich have not reduced theirs at all.
Over the past five years, heating a home has become 63 per cent more expensive in Britain while real wages have declined. About 17 per cent of households are now energy-poor — they have to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy; and, because the elderly are typically poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Pensioners burn old books to keep warm because it is cheaper than coal; they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their homes cold.
In Germany, where green subsidies will cost $US35bn ($37.6bn) this year, household electricity prices have increased 80 per cent since 2000, causing 6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. Wealthy homeowners in Bavaria can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish subsidies essentially paid by poor tenants in the Ruhr who cannot afford solar panels, but still have to
pay more for power.
In Greece, where tax hikes on oil have driven up heating costs 48 per cent, more and more Athenians are cutting down park trees, causing air pollution from wood burning to triple. It is even worse in the developing world, where three billion lack access to cheap energy. They cook
and keep warm by burning twigs and dung, producing indoor air pollution that causes 3.5 million deaths a year — by far the world’s biggest environmental problem.
Access to electricity could solve that while allowing families to read at night, own a refrigerator or use a computer. It would also allow businesses to operate more competitively, creating jobs and economic growth.
Consider Pakistan and South Africa, where a dearth of generating capacity means recurrent blackouts wreak havoc on businesses and cost jobs. Yet funding new coal-fired power plants in both countries has been widely opposed by well-meaning Westerners and governments.
Instead, they suggest renewables. This is hypocritical. The rich world gets just 1.2 per cent of its energy from hugely expensive solar and wind technologies, and we would never accept having power only when the wind was blowing. In the next two years, Germany will build 10 coal-fired power plants.
In 1971, 40 per cent of China’s energy came from renewables. Since then it has lifted 680 million people out of poverty using coal. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23 per cent of its energy from wind and solar. Africa gets 50 per cent of its energy today from renewables — and remains poor.
New analysis from the Centre for Global Development shows that, investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $US500.
But, using gas electrification, we could quadruple that. By focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three out of four people in darkness and poverty.
Addressing global warming requires long-term innovation that makes green energy affordable. Until then, wasting enormous sums of money at the expense of the world’s poor is no solution at all.
The Australian
For a household to be “energy poor” is defined as needing to spend more than 10% of household income on energy, which, in practice, often leaves families with the choice of lighting or heating their homes and putting bread on the table.
The finding that 20 per cent of Australian households are now energy poor is a National Disgrace. That it has occurred as a consequence of renewable policies that amount to the largest wealth transfer from the poor to the rich in human history is nothing short of obscene.
The mandatory Renewable Energy Target is utterly devoid of merit and is simply punishing those who cannot fight back: it must go now.
Invest in the Renewables Scam? Better think again!!!
German Consumer Agency Issues Open Letter, Warns Deutsche Bank Of
“Dubious Renewable Energy…Burdens Of Over 1 Trillion Euros Feared”
In a bid to protect consumers and investors. The Berlin-based consumer investor protection organization Verbraucherzentrale für Kapitalanleger (VzfK) has issued a press release here warning Deutsche Bank AG of the high risks of investments in “dubious renewable energy companies” and their projects after a string of spectacular insolvencies.
Hat-tip: EIKE.
What follows is the VzfK press release, translated to English:
The Verbraucherzentrale für Kapitalanleger [Consumer Agency for Investors] has sent an open letter to Jürgen Fitschen, the spokesman of the board of directors of Deutsche Bank AG, warning of engagement in the sector of renewable energies. The VzfK especially requests a critical review of customer relations to controversial project developer juwi AG based in Wörrstadt.
The VzfK argues that the spectacular insolvency of Prokon, Windwärts, Windreich, Solar Millennium AG and many other dubious renewable energy companies leads us to expect further damage not only to capital investors, but also to shareholders of credit institutes due to the sheer grievances in the sector of renewable energies. The VzfK requests the Deutsche Bank board of directors to assure that the damage to Deutsche Bank AG, its shareholders, and customers be minimized through appropriate portfolio measures and credit decisions. Especially requested is a critical review of the credit engagement that has come under fire because of the corruption scandal in Thuringia and controversial wind projects in the Hochtaunus nature reserve by project developer juwi AG.
Referring to the federal government’s Council of Expert Advisors the VzfK expects the EEG renewable energy feed-in system has to collapse and that economic damage of at least triple-digit billions are to be expected. Already today consumers are groaning and German industry are burdened by ludicrously high costs compared to other European countries and internationally. Energy prices are often more than 50% higher than those in neighboring countries or in the USA. In other words: German workers, as electric power customers, are paying for a gigantic job destruction program. The EEG system is only forcing the chemical industry and other energy-intensive industries to move abroad.
Dr. Martin Weimann, Chairman of the VzfK: “We ask the board to use the societal and political influence of Deutsche Bank AG to act to bring about a stop to the EEG feed-in system and to usher a fundamental reform for the interests of the stakeholders.“
In the letter itself, Weimann writes:
Should the renewable energy support continue to develop further and go on unbraked, burdens to the economy to the tune of over one trillion euros are to be feared.”
Finally….American Bird Conservancy decides to sue Obama, and the Interior Dept!
Group plans lawsuit against Interior rule that ‘gambles recklessly’ with eagles
Scott Streater, E&E reporter 4-30-2014
A leading bird conservation group has notified the Obama administration that it intends to sue over a rule for renewable energy projects that would permit injuring, killing or disturbing bald eagles for up to 30 years.
The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) today sent a notice of intent to sue to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe saying the group plans to take legal action against the Interior Department and FWS over the revised eagle “take” rule announced in December 2013 and implemented earlier this year.
ABC states in the eight-page notice of intent that the rule — which allows Fish and Wildlife to grant programmatic incidental take permits to wind farms, transmission projects and other long-term energy operations for a much longer period than the previous five-year term — is riddled with violations of federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
“ABC strongly supports wind power and other renewable energy projects when those projects are located in an appropriate, wildlife-friendly manner and when the impacts on birds and other wildlife have been conscientiously considered and addressed before irreversible actions are undertaken,” according to the notice filed on behalf of ABC by the Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal.
“On the other hand, when decisions regarding such projects are made precipitously and without compliance with elementary legal safeguards designed to ensure that our nation’s invaluable trust resources are not placed at risk, ABC will take appropriate action to safeguard eagles and other migratory birds.”
The group asserts in the notice that Fish and Wildlife adopted the rule “in the absence of any NEPA document or any consultation under Section 7 of the ESA,” marking it as “a glaring example of an agency action that gambles recklessly with the fate of the nation’s bald and golden eagle populations.”
ABC wants a court to throw out the rule “pending full compliance with federal environmental statutes,” according to a press release accompanying the notice.
“ABC has heard from thousands of citizens from across the country who are outraged that [FWS] wants to let the wind industry legally kill our country’s iconic Bald and Golden eagles,” Michael Hutchins, national coordinator of ABC’s Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign, said in a statement. “The rule lacks a firm foundation in scientific justification and was generated without the benefit of a full assessment of its impacts on eagle populations.”
Laury Parramore, an FWS spokeswoman in Arlington, Va., said the agency cannot comment on pending litigation.
The notice of intent to sue is the latest in the ongoing debate over federal regulation of the wind industry and the impacts of the growing number of wind turbines on birds and bats.
The rule at issue in the notice of intent amends an eagle permitting program established in 2009 that initially allowed the five-year take permits only if the disturbing, harming or killing of eagles was unavoidable.
The take permits are only to be issued to applicants that commit to strict adaptive-management measures that include site-specific steps that reduce impacts to eagles. Fish and Wildlife would review the permits and the conservation measures every five years.
Groups including the National Audubon Society and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly opposed FWS’s decision to allow 30-year eagle take permits.
The National Audubon Society says it is considering following ABC’s lead and taking similar legal action.
“This is an eagle-killing rule that deserves to be challenged,” Mike Daulton, Audubon’s vice president for government relations, said in an emailed statement. “We strongly support the deployment of renewable energy, but reckless slaughter of eagles is not an option. We’re considering legal options of our own.”
ABC “made a decision to go it alone” with legal action because the group “feels very strongly about this issue,” said Robert Johns, a spokesman for the group.
“We’re losing many eagles a year,” Johns said.
What’s more, the federal government has filed only one criminal enforcement action involving bird-protection laws at a wind energy facility, entering a plea agreement last year with Duke Energy Corp. that involved fining the North Carolina-based energy giant $1 million for killing more than 150 migratory birds, including 14 golden eagles, at two Wyoming wind farms over the past few years (Greenwire, Nov. 25, 2013).
“We think that’s ridiculous,” Johns said.
The American Wind Energy Association has argued that the industry takes enormous steps to protect birds, more so than other industries, and that when it comes to eagles, the industry has been unfairly singled out. AWEA has pointed to studies that show eagle populations over the last 40 years have stabilized and that the wind power industry conducts more pre- and post-construction studies to guard against impacts to eagles and other sensitive avian species than any other energy sector.
Lindsay North, an AWEA spokeswoman, said the group would not comment on the ABC notice of intent to sue.
But the wind industry says such incidental take permits give it more regulatory certainty while allowing it to incorporate measures that help protect eagles. And the industry has argued that it makes no sense to not have an eagle permitting system that covers the typical 30-year life of an operating commercial-scale wind farm.
Ashe, the FWS director, told Greenwire last year that the permit should also help protect eagles by ensuring that wind power developments take proper steps to avoid affecting the iconic birds (Greenwire, Dec. 23, 2013).
But ABC states in the notice of intent to sue that the 30-year take rule “undermines the nation’s longstanding commitment to conservation of eagles” and that the group has no choice but to take legal action to “ensure that eagles, and the millions of Americans who enjoy and benefit from them, obtain the legal protections to which they are entitled under U.S. law.”
Vote Conservative for an End to the Wind Scam!!!
A PC government will not allow connection of Gilead and wpd wind projects to the grid
For release April 30, 2014
MPP Todd Smith confirms that a PC government will not allow connection of proposed County wind projects to the grid
Prince Edward County, ON — Responding to a request for clarification by CCSAGE Naturally Green regarding the PC Party’s position on wind projects currently “in the pipeline”, local MPP Todd Smith has confirmed by letter that, under a PC government, such projects will not be allowed to proceed if there is no municipal consent.
Smith referred to the text of Bill 42, the Affordable Energy and Restoration of Local Decision Making Act, introduced by Tim Hudak in the Ontario Legislature in 2012. Smith said, “The intention here is quite clear that, regardless of where in the process a project is, provided a project is not connected to the grid, it is our intention not to go ahead with it unless it has municipal consent. Clearly, the projects planned for Prince Edward County do not have municipal consent and thus, would be cancelled.”
Smith reconfirmed the PC Party’s position after consultation with Tim Hudak, and taking account of County Council’s “not a willing host” motion passed on April 23, 2013.
Following receipt of Smith’s letter, Gary Mooney of CCSAGE said, “From the day that he was elected, Todd has been 100% supportive of the several County groups opposing wind turbines on grounds of adverse effects on human health, the natural environment, heritage, property values, the local economy and municipal control. We couldn’t ask more from our MPP.”
Smith’s statement covers both Gilead Power’s 9-turbine Ostrander Point project, already given REA approval but still under appeal, and wpd Canada’s 29-turbine White Pines project, currently undergoing technical review by the Ministry of the Environment.
Informed of the contents of Smith’s letter, Mayor Peter Mertens had this to say, “We are greatly indebted to Todd for his close attention to the concerns of County residents and business owners, and for his support of the position of County Council.”
Sleep Deprivation, and it’s Effects on Children!
Long-term sleep disturbances in children (1)
Click on link to view article.
World-wide retreat from unreliable, unaffordable, renewables….
Cash cut for solar farms that blight countryside: Energy minister set to announce review of subsidies
- Solar power industry costs the taxpayer an estimated £600 million a year
- Large landowners can claim up to £50,000 a year for hosting a solar farm
- Conservative party will veto any new on-shore wind farms if returned in 2015
Huge solar farms which blight the countryside are to have their funding slashed by the Government, the Daily Mail has learned.
In a further sign of the Conservative shift from away from green politics, sources confirmed that Tory Energy Minister Greg Barker will announce a review of solar industry subsidies in the coming weeks.
The current system of subsidies mean large landowners can scoop up to £50,000 a year from a solar farm, a large chunk of which is paid for through household bills.
Solar industry subsidies cost the British taxpayer £600 million a year, which will increase by a further £125 million if the new projects are completed
Overall the solar industry costs Britain £600million in subsidies a year, a bill that will rise by £125million if planned projects are completed.
Mr Barker wants to take support payments away from the unpopular large solar farms, the majority of which are built on farmland in southern England.
Instead, he wants to increase financial backing for solar panels on the roofs of supermarkets, schools and businesses, where they do not create a visual blight.
Mr Barker’s intervention comes a week after the Tories announced they will make a stand against onshore wind turbines at the next election.
The Conservative Party pledged not to subsidise any new onshore wind farms if they win in 2015, to the delight of their grassroots supporters.
The new announcement will be equally welcomed by constituency parties, particularly in rural areas where solar farms have been built in increasing numbers.
The Conservative Party has vowed not to grant permission to any new on-shore wind turbines and slash subsidies for solar farms if returned in 2015
It will be of particular note in the South West – one of the sunniest part of the country and the biggest target for the solar industry – where the main competition for Conservative candidates are pro-renewable energy Liberal Democrats.
There has been huge expansion in the number of large solar projects over last two years. In 2012 there were 46 large-scale farms in Britain.
By the end of February this year the figure had leaped to 184 projects.
An additional 194 projects have planning permission and are awaiting construction.
The Energy Minister pledged earlier this month that he would not allow ‘unrestricted growth of solar farms in the British countryside’.
Launching the Government’s Solar Strategy, he said he wanted to turn Government offices, factories, supermarkets and car parks into ‘solar hubs’.
And he said he did not want to see solar panels become as unpopular as onshore wind.
‘We have put ourselves among the world leaders on solar and this ambitious strategy will place us right at the cutting edge,’ he said.
‘There is massive potential to turn our large buildings into power stations and we must seize the opportunity this offers to boost our economy as part of our long term economic plan.
‘Solar not only benefits the environment, it will see British job creation and deliver the clean and reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.’
However, the British weather is not always best suited for harnessing the power of the sun
A Whitehall source told the Daily Mail the announcement would be made in the coming weeks: ‘The Solar Strategy set the direction of travel. We are looking at how we follow that up with action.
‘We are keen to boost building-mounted solar, where there is real potential. There are real opportunities there.
‘Solar can continue to be an important part of the energy mix. We are looking at financial and non-financial barriers to this.’
Mr Barker is keen that businesses follow the example of Jaguar Land Rover, which this month installed Brain’s largest rooftop solar panel array at its plant in Staffordshire.
It installed 21,000 photovoltaic panels which will generate more than 30 per cent of factory’s energy requirements.
Britain needs to triple its renewable energy output in the next six years if it is to meet its legally-binding renewable energy targets, to produce 15 per cent of total energy by 2020.
With an increase in onshore wind ruled out by the Conservative leadership, and offshore wind and nuclear sources remaining expensive, rooftop solar arrays are one of the few politically acceptable routes for Government to take.
John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation which campaigns against subsidised green energy, said: ‘This is the classic case of an overheated market getting out of control. It’s quite clear that unless the Government reigns in spending the cap they have set will be broken.
‘This is an industry that should never have been subsidised in the first place.
‘Greg Barker is now trying to get it under control, but the Government should have done this much earlier when they came into power in 2010.
‘This is a hangover from Ed Miliband’s time in control of energy and they are only now getting to grips with it.’
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘We’re very clear that Government support for any renewable technology has to deliver the best value for money to consumers. As technologies mature and costs of generation come down, those savings have to be passed on to bill payers.
‘We will consult on any changes to current levels of support, but our ultimate goal is for renewable generation to be competitive with other forms of electricity generation.’
Paul Barwell, chief executive at the Solar Trade Association, said: ‘We are disappointed that DECC is launching another review on the solar industry.
‘Investor confidence and market stability is absolutely essential in order to deliver sustained cost reductions for consumers and a healthy solar industry for UK plc.
‘We are obviously on tenterhooks to see what changes DECC is proposing to make.
‘We are also concerned that any excessively hasty push for cheap solar will come at the cost of achieving quality in the solar farm industry, which is essential to retain public support.’
Freak Collision With A Wind Turbine Brings Down A Plane Killing 4 In South Dakota
South Dakota surely is abounding with mishaps. After a blizzard wiped out nearly 100,000 cows, a freak accident brought down a plane with 3 on–board passengers.
All 3 passengers, including a person on the ground, died instantly when the plane crashed in South Dakota. The plane is suspected to have collided with a wind turbine at a wind–farm. Debris lay near a wind turbine to the west of South Dakota Highway 47. One of the wind turbines had its blade broken off.
The plane was identified as a single-engine Piper 32, and was traveling from Hereford, Texas, to Gettysburg, South Dakota. The single-engine plane was registered to Donald J. “D.J.” Fischer of Gettysburg, according to the FAA. Though the local authorities haven’t officially released any data, among the deceased was the owner, Fischer, a 30–year, who was believed to be flying the plane himself. Local officials confirmed the identities of 2 other victims: cattlemen Logan Rau and Brent Beitelspacher, who were on the plane. The name of the fourth victim hasn’t been released, though reports indicate his name was Nick Reimann. Beitelspacher and Rau are well-known in the cattle industry, and regularly visited such sales and fairs to trade livestock, reported ABC News
The plane arrived at the Hereford Municipal Airport Saturday and left the next evening, said Hereford City Manager Rick Hanna. Though it crashed in South Dakota, the plane was returning from a big–range cattle sale in Hereford, Texas. The plane broke contact and went missing overnight. The authorities found wreckage on Monday in the South Dakota Wind Energy Center. The wind farm in Hyde County has 27 turbines and only one had its blade broken off, indicating that the plane might have crashed directly into the turbine and then crashing into the ground, reported Amarillo Global News.
While The National Transportation Safety Board is leading the investigation along with the FAA, locals confirmed that the weather was exceptionally foggy and that visibility was poor. Liberal precipitation, combined with fog, might have caused the pilot to lose altitude and misjudge the distance to the ground. Further, owing to the height of the turbine and continual rotation of the blades could have made spotting it difficult. To further complicate the matter, weather reports indicated low–altitude clouds could have extremely complicated the task of maneuvering a single–engine light aircraft. Apparently the South Dakota skies are notorious for causing such mishaps.
Donald Trump faces new wind farm hell at Turnberry
Reposted from:
A CONTROVERSIAL wind farm could be installed overlooking a luxury golf resort the flamboyant US tycoon Donald Trump is set to take over in a £35 million deal, it has been claimed.
The news comes after billionaire and arch wind power sceptic lost a high profile court battle against the Scottish Government’s approval of an offshore wind farm at his course at the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire.
However, a government agency said an offshore turbine could be installed on land near the prestigious Turnberry course in South Ayrshire, where Trump is reported to be on the verge of making his latest acquisition.
Marine Scotland has identified a 116-square mile area for possible offshore wind development – off the Ayrshire coast just 3.5 miles from the shoreline at Turnberry as part of its policy of promoting renewable and green energy.
The Scottish government agency in a document called “Scoping study for Offshore Wind Farm Development in Scottish Waters” earmarked the land at Turnberry as possible land for future renewable energy development.
Trump, who currently owns 16 golf resorts around the globe, is understood to be close to buying the Turnberry course from owners Leisurecorp – a subsidiary of the Dubai government.
However, Trump, who is a longstanding opponent of wind farms, could pull out of the investment at Turnberry it was claimed by the head of Holyrood’s energy committee Murdo Fraser.
The billionaire has already called a halt to any future major investment at his Menie golf resort including the development of a luxury 140-bedroom hotel, due to the SNP government’s backing for the expansion of wind farms.
Nationalist ministers were accused of a “gung-ho approach” to renewables and of putting jobs and investment at risk with their plans to rely on wind farms for the bulk of Scotland’s energy needs.
Mr Fraser, a Tory MSP, warned that Trump would not pursue investment in Scotland and was almost certain to scrap any plans to buy Turnberry
He said: “Given Mr Trump’s aggressive opposition to the project off his Menie resort, it’s hard to imagine him pursuing this while the possibility of offshore wind remains.
“It’s another example of the Scottish Government’s gung-ho approach to turbines potentially costing jobs and investment.
“Even without Mr Trump’s interest, the idea of turbines looming over one of Scotland’s most famous landmarks is appalling.
“There is definitely a place for offshore wind, but it has to be in a place where it isn’t going to ruin the landscape.”
Trump previously accused Alex Salmond of being “hell bent on destroying Scotland’s coastline” with wind power in his longstanding battle with the SNP leader on the issue.
The businessman in a letter to Mr Salmond said: “Do you want to be known for centuries to come as ‘Mad Alex – the man who destroyed Scotland’?
Health Departments Refuse to Acknowledge Complaints About Wind Turbines!
HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS FINALLY REALIZING WIND TURBINES ARE NOT GOOD
Edgar County Watchdog — April 27, 2014
ILLINOIS (ECWd) –
We recently received a letter received from a Divisions Director of a Memorial Hospital takes a shot at an article written touting the grand benefits of wind turbines mitigating the effects of climate change. I have redacted the name of the hospital and the name of the writer to protect them from unnecessary harassment by people who may not agree with him:
I know you have been swamped with many items on your plate, but I wanted to revisit the email I sent you in February regarding Wind Turbines and hospital’s role in ensuring the safety and well being of their communities. The below article demonstrates the lack of education executives of hospitals have regarding the harm and health effects of some “natural/green” energy sources. Even though they are marketed as being “green,” it is obvious to families that have been harmed that they have not done their research to protect their community members. As my CEO, xxxxxxxxx, has always said to the staff here at xMH, ”We offer many services that do not financially benefit our organization, but offer them to meet our community’s needs.” In addition, xMH’s mission: To positively influence the health of those we serve, makes a loud statement in this situation. Wind Turbines do not positively influence the health of any family, child, or other living creature, and if proper education is conducted, hospitals executives in our State will become mindful of the harm already being done in their communities or prevent harm in the future.
Should you wish to meet or talk to learn more on how we can help you educate hospital executives (especially those who serve rural areas), feel free to give xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx, a call or drop him a note. His contact information and the article that prompted this email is below.
This is the article that prompted the email exchange (CLICK HERE).
This kind of makes you wonder what the real agenda of the Vermilion County Health Department is when they refuse to take complaints on Invenergy’s California Ridge wind turbines, especially now that a local school superintendent and a hospital director have written letters referencing the same things.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 