A Courageous Host Farmer Speaks Out Against Wind Bullies!

OPEN LETTER TO:

Premier Kathleen Wynne,  Mr. Tim Hudak,  Ms. Andrea Horvath,   REA

Being landowners who were fraudulently scammed into signing an option/lease for wind development in 2011, the terms and conditions of which we remained unaware until October 2013 when we were first given the document, then officially threatened with legal proceedings and financial ruin coercing us into signing the NextEra lease in February 2014, we would like to outline our experience of meetings with Company contacts (CanAcre for NextEra) in the last three weeks.

 

As yet, we have not received a copy of the lease complete with a NextEra signatory as we should have by now. May 6th a representative arranged to meet to discuss the location of a collection line . .. part of NextEra’s design for our property for which we were offered no opportunity to give input. The point of this meeting was unclear as no concerns of ours were taken into consideration, the placement of the intended line would most surely harm and possibly kill a mature windbreak of spruce and cedar and at the meeting conclusion, we were informed that in the next few days a “survey” and the planting of stakes would take place.

 

The lease states that the Lessee (that’s NextEra) shall consult with Lessor with respect to siting the Works and to act fairly and reasonably in so consulting. We had never been consulted. Ever.

 

In response to our written objection, the CanAcre representative scheduled “another look”. This meeting on May 12th lasted another 2 hours. Our concerns were discussed with construction personnel although the location of the collection line as related to the windbreak remained unresolved. We learned that no documents are provided to landowners without a specific request and from experience we can state they are often not provided after being requested. Another meeting was scheduled for May 21st to which they promised to bring documents as requested.

 

Again at this 3rd meeting the requested complete Lease was not produced. However a map we had not seen before indicated archaeological finds had been made, new information to us, finds made without our authorization to enter the land in the summer of 2011, a flint point credited with the qualities of those used 10,000 years ago. Now we could see that the electrical conduit placement was intended to avoid a large area around where the flint had been found and as a result endangered our trees. We finally understood that the NextEra layout designed in Florida was nonnegotiable and actual locations unknown by anyone until GPS points were staked. .. what CanAcre had been calling “surveyed”. Stakes would be a huge inconvenience during planting and a major problem for managing these organic fields needing scuffling through the season. Since the Goshen Project has not received REA approval and construction cannot begin until it does, we would not agree to the completion of the survey at this time. It had been repeatedly stressed that planting be allowed without the impediment of these stakes.

 

The next day the CanAcre rep phoned to indicate he would deliver our requested lease at 10 am. May 23rd and would be accompanied by an “expert in leases”…. !! On May 23rd he did not have the lease. The ‘lease expert’ turned out to be a CanAcre manager who had his own agenda, that being to spend another two hours reviewing our concerns indicating cooperation and the best possible outcomes before stating flat out that unless we allowed the survey to proceed, the proper care and attention to our concerns could not necessarily be given! This argument was lobbed strongly and repeatedly at us and capped off with his assurance that he would continue to harass us until verbal permission for the survey is given.

 

 

Since June 2011, we have been swindled, deprived of documents and information we should have been given, lied to, told one thing and then the opposite by CanAcre reps, and wasted endless hours. Of greater significance is the Horrendous Deception throughout…. that there are no health effects attributable to these Turbine farms, that they are Green, that they do not affect property values, that they will not interfere with farm operations……

 

And we know all that to be UNTRUE. The Ontario Government and REA need to close this system down!

 

Sincerely,

Bev Teeter

DownWind….The story of the Failed Green Energy Experiment, in Ontario

Sun News Network documentary Down Wind exposes

the Wynne-McGuinty green energy disaster

BY  ,TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, MAY 31, 2014 07:00 PM EDT | UPDATED: SATURDAY, MAY 31, 2014 04:36 PM EDT

wind-turbines
Wind turbines near Watford Ontario, February 7, 2013. (HEATHER WRIGHT/QMI Agency)

How billions of taxpayers’ and hydro customers’ dollars are being wasted, and will continue to be wasted for decades to come, because of former Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty’s naive blunder into wind energy, now fully supported by Premier Kathleen Wynne.

How it has contributed to skyrocketing hydro bills and to the loss of 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario.

A 2011 report by then auditor general Jim McCarter documented how the government rushed into wind energy without any business plan, ignoring even the advice of its own experts that could have substantially reduced costs.

As a result, Ontarians are now locked into 20 years of paying absurdly inflated prices for inefficient and unreliable wind power, which, ironically, still has to be backed up by fossil fuel energy, meaning natural gas.

That means the Liberals’ gas plants scandal, costing taxpayers and hydro ratepayers up to $1.1 billion — according to reports by McCarter and current Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk — is also part of the Liberals’ legacy of wind power waste.

Indeed, while the Liberals were telling us they were replacing coal power with wind and solar energy, they were actually doing it with nuclear power and natural gas.

Wind can’t replace coal because it can’t provide base load power to the electricity grid on demand.

That’s why the Liberals were frantically building new natural gas plants, even as they were imposing, and continue to impose, unwanted wind turbines on rural communities across Ontario.

McGuinty cancelled the locally unpopular Mississauga and Oakville gas plants to save five Liberal seats in the 2011 election, which we now know could cost up to $220 million per bought riding in public money.

A new documentary, Down Wind: How Ontario’s Green Dream Turned into a Nightmare, by Sun News Network’s Rebecca Thompson — airing Wednesday, June 4 at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. — powerfully and succinctly explains the enormity of the Liberals’ wind power catastrophe.

The Surge Media production explains we are wasting and will continue to waste, billions of public dollars for a non-existent environmental benefit — the Liberal myth that wind and solar power replaced polluting coal-fired electricity in Ontario.

Nonsense. As one of Thompson’s interviewees accurately puts it in Down Wind, turbines “don’t run on wind, they run on subsidies.”

Thompson compellingly tells the story of how an unholy alliance of Liberal government insiders, wind industry developers, so-called environmentalists and Bay Street investors worked hand-in-glove to impose wind turbines on unsuspecting farming and rural communities across Ontario.

How those who tried to fight back were and are being crushed by the Liberals’ dictatorial Green Energy Act, which took away the planning rights of local municipalities.

How we don’t need the tiny amount of expensive and unreliable power wind supplies, both because Ontario has a huge energy surplus and because wind developers have to be paid for their energy first, while we dump or export inexpensive and green hydro power at a loss.

How the reported health concerns hundreds of affected residents have experienced because of the sound, vibration, low-frequency noise and shadow flicker from wind turbines — up to 50-storeys high, many located just 550 metres from homes — have been suppressed by the government.

Those symptoms include sleeplessness, nausea, migraines, heart palpitations, all dismissed by the Ontario government, even as Ottawa conducts a major study into what has become known as “wind turbine syndrome.”

The most powerful footage in Down Wind comes from ordinary Ontarians — some forced to leave their homes — telling their stories, often reduced to tears, bitterness and anger.

How on one day they were living peaceful lives in rural Ontario and how, almost overnight, were plunged into a nightmare, as wind companies turned neighbour against neighbour by leasing the land of some property owners to erect turbines, while running roughshod over the concerns of everyone else.

To me, Ontario’s wind power disaster has always been a story of urban greed, ignorance, arrogance and phony environmentalism overpowering rural interests.

Of smug, trendy, hypocritical Toronto downtowners — Wynne’s core constituency — whose experience with wind turbines is limited to one at the CNE — ignorantly accusing rural communities of NIMBYISM (as did McGuinty).

Down Wind exposes all this along with the scariest reality of all.

That the Liberals have gone too far to ever admit they were wrong, and that if we re-elect them, they’ll double down on their wind energy disaster.

 

 

Proof, for Those that Don’t Believe Agenda 21 is Real, or Being Implemented!

 

The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide

by atomcat

The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide indicators. The results will be included in an Annual Report Card.
The completed Report Card will be presented to the community at its annual Sustainable Community Day, where the citizens of
Hamilton-Wentworth take stock of their progress on the trail to VISION 2020.
Contact
Mark Bekkering
Senior Policy Analyst
Planning and Development Department
Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth
119 King Street West
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 3T4
Tel.: + 1 905/546-2195
Fax:+1 905/546-4364
E-mail: markb@hookup.net

6.5.2 CASE #18
THE GLOBAL ACTION PLAN PROJECT
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FOR SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES
Program Name
Global Action Plan for the Earth: Household EcoTeam Programs
Background
Global Action Plan for the Earth (GAP) is a US-based, non-profit organization that has worked for a five-year period to design and
test an effective behavior change methodology for households in the advanced industrialized world. This methodology is called the
Household EcoTeam Program. The program ran a campaign called “The North Puts Its House in Order… Household by Household,”
which implemented the EcoTeam methodology in over 8,000 households in 12 countries: the United States, Canada, Ireland, the
United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Australia.
The Household EcoTeam Program includes a feedback component to support continued involvement and commitment at the
household level. In the United States, the households that have participated in the feedback part of the programs reported that
on average they sent 42 percent less garbage to landfills, used 25 percent less water, reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by 16
percent, used 16 percent less transportation, and gained an average annual cost savings of US$401.00.
Program Description
The Household EcoTeam Program operates by organizing small groups of family members, residents, and co-workers in a
neighborhood or city to work together to make their consumption patterns more sustainable. The program works on the basis that
information is not enough to produce behavior change; in fact, the program recognizes that in many industrial countries there is
an “overload” of information about the environment, which may inhibit action. For this reason, over a period of four months, the
Household EcoTeam Program organizes individuals into “EcoTeams,” which not only provide and distill information about useful
actions, but facilitate the provision of mutual support to put these actions into practice.
A Household Eco Team Workbook is provided to each new EcoTeam to give step-by-step guidance in each action area. The teams
meet once every two weeks with a different member facilitating each meeting, and are supported by a GAP-trained volunteer
“coach.”The coach leads each EcoTeam through a process of taking action in the following areas:
•reducing garbage output;
•improving home water efficiency;
•improving home energy efficiency;
The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide
•improving transportation efficiency;
•being an eco-wise consumer; and
•empowering others at the household, workplace, and community levels.
For each of the first five action areas, participants choose actions from a list of suggestions. The results of the actions taken are measured and communicated back to each Eco Team and to the community at large. Positive feedback is maximized by the coach,
the team members, and local leaders and media to encourage effective actions. Newspapers, radio, television, and bulletin boards
are used to “broadcast” results, and awards are provided from local governments and businesses to recognize success.
In the sixth action area, each Eco Team is helped by the coach to spawn two or more new Eco-Teams by hosting a gathering for
friends and neighbors. At these gatherings, the accomplishments of the Eco Team are reported and guests are informed about how
they can form their own Eco Team.
GAP observes that the Eco Team approach is a far more effective approach than merely providing lists of “things to do,” because
peer support and direct human contact is essential to sustain life-style changes. By regularly showing participants the results
of their actions relative to the other members of their team, other Eco Teams, and the community, a feedback system is provided to
encourage further commitment to positive change.
Based on five years of experience with the Eco Team model, GAP is now employing a system to establish a “critical mass” (50–85
percent participation rate) of Eco Teams in key communities so that the total impact of Eco Team actions can have an aggregated
positive effect for the whole community. For instance, the participants in Santa Cruz, California, USA, have determined that high diffusion of Eco Teams in that municipality would greatly reduce ground water consumption and the need to construct a US$43
million desalinization plant.
This “Community Lifestyle Campaign” builds on the GAP observation that most Eco Teams were established by word-of-mouth
through existing social networks. By supporting each Eco Team’s process to personally invite friends and neighbors to develop two other Eco Teams, a doubling of the number of Eco Teams occurs with minimal effort every six months. (This recruitment method
has been pilot tested with 20 teams, and each was able to form an average of two new teams.) As Eco Teams multiply and mobilize,
their impact has an increasingly significant effect at the community level. This heightened impact, in turn, creates new opportunities for positive feedback through the media and local political leadership.
In summary, the Eco Team methodology uses the simple tool of systematized personal support networks to encourage and increase
positive behavior change. In the course of changing behaviors, participants learn about environmental issues, build confidence that
they can have an impact, and inform and recruit more friends and associates.
Contact
Global Action Plan for the Earth
PO Box 428, Woodstock, New York
12498 USA
Tel.: +1 914/679-4830
Concluding Remarks from the IGLEI Local Agenda 21 Team
As the preceding chapters have described, Local Agenda 21 planning is a collective process for creating community visions and
actions to achieve environmental, social and economic sustainability. Although the Local Agenda 21 mandate was given by the
United Nations to local governments, it is the responsibility of every local organization and resident to ensure that this process is
started in their respective towns, cities or villages. If carried out effectively, these collective local initiatives will have
a perceptible global impact.

 

We Must be Diligent, in Protecting our Rights, to Free and Open Internet!

Dear Mrs. Correia,

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me to express your opinions regarding the management and governance of the Internet. I am grateful for your thoughts and welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with you.

 

As you may know, on March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. NTIA has asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA. This transition has been in the making for years, and in principle it is intended to support the current model of multi-stakeholder governance and keep nations like China and Russia from exerting influence and control over the Internet. However, there is considerable uncertainty about why this decision was made and how this process will unfold. Given the Obama Administration’s record, there is justifiable skepticism about whether or not they are competent enough to manage this transition and strong enough to stand up to enemies of Internet freedom.

 

The commitment to a multi-stakeholder model that is free from the interference of institutions like the United Nations and countries that do not share our desire for a free and open Internet is a positive one. However, this is a complex process requiring vigilance and rigorous oversight because there is no room for compromise. An Internet overseen by governments will mean an end to the current Internet as we know it. There is no question Internet freedom has many opponents, including countries that advocate for greater international control over the Internet and use the Internet to suppress the individual liberties of their own citizens. These countries do not care for the current governance structure or our commitment to it.

 

The United States must vocally and vehemently oppose any attempt to allow the Internet to fall under the control of foreign governments or international organizations like the United Nations. That is why, in 2012, Congress unanimously expressed support for S. Con. Res. 50, a resolution which advocated for the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model that currently governs the Internet and for an Internet free from government control. I sponsored this resolution along with a bipartisan group of senators, and I was pleased that Congress took a strong stand for Internet freedom. Now the Administration must do the same. Any action the Administration takes in carrying out this announcement, any proposal it considers from the global community, and any decision it makes to transition the domain functions must abide by this resolution.

As a member of the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations, and Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over NTIA and Internet issues, I will keep your thoughts and opinions in mind as I continue to advocate for Internet freedom. Thank you again for writing to me about this important issue.

 

Sincerely,

Marco Rubio
United States Senator

Energy Dept. decision knocks wind out of

proposed Lake Erie wind farm: Brent Larkin

LEEDCo-wind-turbine-barge.JPG
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation (LEEDCo) in May 2013 analyzed samples of the Lake Erie lake bed where the nonprofit company plans to build six 3-megawatt wind turbines. LEEDCo suffered a setback in early May when the U.S. Department of Energy awarded major development grants to three coastal offshore wind projects and gave the Cleveland project $3 million for additional development work. (Howard Tucker, Grossi Public Relations, File, 2013)

Brent Larkin, Northeast Ohio Media GroupBy Brent Larkin, Northeast Ohio Media Group 
on May 30, 2014 at 5:43 AM

There may come a time when it’s a good idea to produce electricity by putting windmills in Lake Erie a few miles northwest of downtown.

But the U.S. government has concluded that time is not now.

Nor may it ever be. At least not in the lifetime of anyone reading this piece.

Using our abundance of fresh water in ways that secure Greater Cleveland’s economic survival should always be at or near the top of the region’s list of priorities. As should exploring ways for a cleaner, greener Cleveland.

But read the next three paragraphs very carefully.

There are 534,899 households in Cuyahoga County. Installing five or six wind turbines seven miles out would generate enough power to light a maximum of 6,100 of those households.

The cost is pegged at about $150 million. In Cleveland dollars, that means overruns would push the final figure past the $200 million mark. That doesn’t include annual maintenance costs of about $5 million.

Because businesses and manufacturers always use between 30 percent and 40 percent of the power produced, the wind turbine pilot project would produce about 0.5 percent of the county’s required electricity.

Given the enormity of the region’s problems, it’s tough to justify that expenditure – even taking the long view.

Nevertheless, windmill supporters haven’t given up the chase. Even as business leaders who know how to read a bottom line have quietly backed away, proponents – led by the Cleveland Foundation – have refused to follow the lead of other Great Lakes citiesand scale back their grandiose plans.

So, on May 7, the U.S. Department of Energy did it for them.

In a stinging rebuke, the government rejected Cleveland’s application for a huge pot of federal money essential to help pay for the wildly expensive idea. Instead, the Energy Department awarded up to $47 million each to three projects off the coasts of New Jersey, Oregon and Virginia.

Cleveland received a booby prize of about $3 million for more design work.

When the wind turbine planning turned serious nearly a decade ago, the initial goal was to have them up and spinning by the end of 2011. But the warning signs about this project have been out there for years – signs many of the project’s boosters conveniently chose to ignore.

A $1 million feasibility study released five years ago this month and paid for, in part, by local taxpayers, warned that the high capital and operating costs of offshore wind would require significant funding from the Energy Department and philanthropic organizations. Former County Prosecutor Bill Mason, a prominent proponent of the idea at the time, admitted being staggered by the cost estimates.

The study, conducted by Juwi GmbH, a German company that develops wind energy projects, also warned, “In general the ice coverage on Lake Erie has a significant influence on the ability to perform major corrective maintenance. . . . Limited accessibility by service vessels during the ice season reduces turbine availability to produce electricity.”

There’s no way to spin the Energy Department’s decision not to fund the Cleveland project as anything less than a gigantic setback. And Lorry Wagner, president of theLake Erie Energy Development Corp., the nonprofit charged with making this project a reality, doesn’t mask his “disappointment” over the Energy Department’s decision.

Nevertheless, in an interview, Wagner repeatedly warned against interpreting that decision as an insurmountable setback, framing the issue as an effort to build an industry around wind turbines that creates jobs in a city that’s lost two-thirds of its population.

“So I would ask you to make sure your readers understand that, while this is challenging, we are not going away. It’s just too important for the entire region. It’s too important for our future to see if we can create jobs in the area and clean up the environment.

“We are moving forward. We’re looking at other options. We are driven by leaving this place a better place than when we came in and making a difference.”

Make no mistake. The wind turbine project is a much closer call than former Gov. Ted Strickland’s snail-speed rail plan that would have spent billions in tax money for a Cleveland-to-Cincinnati train that averaged 39 miles an hour. That boondoggle died a merciful death on Election Night 2010.

But it’s time for the folks at LEEDCo to be a lot more forthcoming about their timetable, and provide the public with a whole lot more details about how they might find the quarter of a billion dollars needed to pay for it.

Absent that, they should pull the plug.

Larkin was The Plain Dealer’s editorial director from 1991 until his retirement in 2009.

 

The Wind Scam is Sucking Billions of Dollars out of our Economies…..All for Naught!

Big Wind’s Totally Bogus Subsidy Adventure

bill and ted

If time-travelling teens from the future (a world where wind farms had long since been cut up for scrap) lobbed into 2014, they’d be “totally bummed out” at what must have happened to our collective intelligence to end up with giant fans at centre-stage of today’s “modern” energy policy.

They’d think the idea of trying to run first world economies on wind power “a most heinous error”.

And they would, quite rightly, regard the idea of pouring $billions of tax payers’ and power consumers’ money at these things to be “totally bogus, dude”.

Here’s the US News on “Big Wind’s Totally Bogus Subsidy Adventure”.

Big Wind’s Bogus Subsidies
US News
Nancy Pfotenhauer
12 May 2014

Giving tax credits to the wind energy industry is a waste of time and money.

Despite being famous for touting the idea that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes, investor Warren Buffet seems to be perfectly fine with receiving tax breaks for making investments in Big Wind. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

But while the wind production tax credit may be great for Buffet’s bottom line, it’s harmful for American taxpayers and energy consumers.

The credit’s proponents say that tax breaks for green energy technologies will encourage innovation, but they fail to acknowledge that Washington’s history on these handouts and tax breaks for green energy have consistently failed. For example, we cannot control when or how much the wind blows, and it just so happens that it tends to blow when we need it least. On average, wind energy facilities operate at just 30 percent of their capacity and must be backed up by more reliable forms of energy such as natural gas. Instead of producing energy solutions that can survive and thrive in the marketplace, we’re left with botched green energy projects that have brought us no closer to our energy goals.

If private companies like Berkshire Hathaway are not willing to jump in without government incentives, it is a sign that the energy technology is a bad investment. It simply does not make sense for the government to subsidize energy technologies that are economically unviable, while attempting to restrict other options that provide reliable and affordable energy for everyday Americans.

We’ve all heard the saying, “there is no such thing as a free lunch,” and the very same adage applies to government subsidies. By arguing that that tax credits are needed to create jobs, proponents overlook what the rest of the economy gives up in exchange.

When lawmakers give special tax breaks to their friends and favorite industries, they shift the burden onto everybody left in the tax base. While subsidies may allow wind turbine makers to pump up their payrolls, the rest of the economy suffers as a result. The subsidy diverts labor and capital away from productive areas of the economy, which slows overall economic growth. With only a 0.1 percent GDP growth rate in the first quarter of 2014, slowing down is not a viable option.

Despite the statements of subsidy supporters, artificially propping up industries has a very real cost.

Not only are federal wind subsidies a colossal waste of money and detrimental to the economy, but they subsidize an industry that is actually harmful to the environment. The alleged goal of incentivizing “green energy” industries is to help protect the environment, but with wind energy comes a slew of environmental problems. For example, it is estimated that wind turbines in the U.S. kill up to 328,000 birds annually, and, last year alone, wind turbines killed 600,000 bats. What’s more, the amount of land needed for wind farms to be effective is staggering. For New York City to be powered by wind alone, every square meter of Connecticut would need to become a wind farm.

After expiring at the end of last year, Big Wind’s bread and butter subsidy – the production tax credit – is moving through Congress again. The Senate Finance Committee recently agreed to a measure that would retroactively extend it, which is likely to pass on the Senate floor. On the other side of Capitol Hill, the House Ways and Means Committee is poised to consider similar legislation later this summer – a package that extends the expired tax breaks. Unlike their colleagues in the Senate, representatives on the committee should hold firm and ensure that this handout for the wind energy industry stays out of the package.

Outside the Beltway, people are starting to notice the tax credit’s negative effects. Led by groups like Americans for Prosperity and the American Energy Alliance, there is an overwhelming opposition to wind subsidies at the grassroots level. (Full disclosure: I sit on AFP’s Board of Directors.) Leading up to the tax credit’s scheduled expiration last November, a diverse coalition of more than 100 organizations sent a letter to Congress, asking them to let the credit expire. American families are increasingly upset that subsidies for wind energy make them pay more and more when their energy bills come due each month.

Congress should stand up to special interests in the wind energy industry and oppose efforts to resurrect expired wind subsidies. Their constituents didn’t send them to Washington to enact policies that cost jobs, distort the energy market, and drive up energy bills – but by repeatedly extending the tax credit, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

At the end of the day, competition and free markets should shape U.S. energy policy, not handouts or favors for special interests like Big Wind.

Despite being famous for touting the idea that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes, investor Warren Buffet seems to be perfectly fine with receiving tax breaks for making investments in Big Wind. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

But while the wind production tax credit may be great for Buffet’s bottom line, it’s harmful for American taxpayers and energy consumers.
US News

Bill and Ted_3_bogus

Alarmists Claim that CO2 is a Harmful Gas….Because they have their Own Agenda!

May 30, 2014

The regulatory death of energy in America

By Alan Caruba


Before President Obama took office in 2009, the amount of electricity being produced by coal-fired utilities was approximately fifty percent of the total. Today it is approximately forty percent and, when the Environmental Protection Agency regulations take effect as of June 2, more such utilities are likely to close their doors. The basis for the regulations is utterly devoid of any scientific facts.

Environmentalism, as expressed by many of the organizations that advocate it is, in fact, an attack on America, its economic system of capitalism, and its need for energy to maintain and grow its business and industrial base. Electricity, of course, is also the energy we all use daily for a multitude of tasks ranging from heating or cooling our homes to the use of our computers and every other appliance.

The EPA regulations are said to be necessary to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) which the Greens deem to be a “pollutant” in our atmosphere. It is not a pollutant, despite a Supreme Court decision that identifies it as such, but rather a gas vital to all life on Earth, used by all vegetation for its growth. CO2 is to vegetation what oxygen is to all animal life. Humans, all seven billion of us, exhale CO2!

Viv Forbes, the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition and a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, notes that the Earth’s atmosphere “is not a greenhouse” and “does not have a glass roof. It uses convection to redistribute heat very quickly.” The claim for several decades has been that CO2 has an effect on the Earth’s surface temperature, but Forbes points out that “water vapor is a far more effective agent for insulating the Earth and preserving its warmth than carbon dioxide,” adding that “there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is a significant cause of global warming.”

Indeed, even though the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased, Forbes points out that “Close examination of past records shows that temperature tends to rise before carbon dioxide content rises, sometimes centuries earlier.” Significantly, at the same time Greens have been crying out against emissions of CO2 from coal-fired utilities and other sources, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle now verging on eighteen years!

The EPA is lying to Americans regarding carbon dioxide and, worse, its proposed regulations will reduce the number of coal-fired utilities and drive up the cost of electricity for Americans.

One of the many Green organizations, Earthjustice, claims that “Climate change threatens the world as we know it – and the chief culprit is fossil fuel burning. To avert ecological disaster, Earthjustice is pushing for a shift from dirty to clean energy to stabilize our climate and build a thriving sustainable world.”

There is literally nothing that mankind can do to “stabilize” the Earth’s climate. While the Earth has been going through climate change for 4.5 billion years, there is no evidence that anything mankind does has any effect on it. The change the Earth has encountered, as mentioned, is a cooling, a far different scenario than the “global warming” claims of the past three decades or more.

Tom Richard, the editor of ClimageChangeDispatch.com, notes that “Arctic sea ice has rebounded to higher and higher levels each year. Antarctica is actually gaining in size and there has been no increase in droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, ‘extreme weather,’ flooding, et cetera.”

Reducing CO2 would have zero benefits while, at the same time, the EPA regulations would have a dangerous and totally unnecessary effect on CO2 emissions from plants producing electricity. Other nations around the world are actually abandoning “clean energy.” i.e., wind and solar power, in favor of building many more coal-fired plants to meet their need to provide energy for their populations and their economic growth. China and India are just two examples.

To support its claims of the forthcoming EPA regulations, EarthJustice is claiming that climate change “hits people of color the hardest” and that power plants “disproportionately impact Latino communities.” It noted “the moral obligation of faith community to act on climate change and support carbon pollution limits.” This has nothing to do with the actual facts of climate change and CO2 as noted here and is a blatant political campaign to secure support from these groups.

The reality, as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a policy research organization founded by former Senate leaders from both parties, was quoted in the May 26 edition of The Wall Street Journal saying “A 25% reduction (of CO2) with a 2015 baseline might make it impossible for some companies to operate,” noting that the cap-and-trade policies of emissions allowances that the EPA is putting in place “amounts to a hidden tax” on a whole range of electrical generation and industrial plants that produce CO2 emissions. The EPA will likely use the term “budget program” to avoid “cap-and-trade,” a proposal that was rejected by Congress.

Writing in Commentary, Jonathan S. Tobin, said that the new regulations on carbon emissions “will have a potentially devastating impact on America’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants” noting that “the move was made possible by Supreme Court decisions that ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the right to regulate (CO2) emissions, giving the President virtual carte blanche to remake this sector of our economy without requiring congressional consent.”

In July, the Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, will hold its ninth international conference on climate change. Previous conferences have brought together some of the world’s leading authorities on meteorology and climatology to debunk the decades of lies Greens have told about climate change and global warming.

The President has put “climate change” high on his list of priorities and it is an attack on the nation’s ability to affordably and extensively provide the energy needed to meet current needs for electricity and reducing our capacity to meet future needs.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on record saying that the President’s bogus “climate change” policy could cost the U.S. economy $50 billion a year and force more than a third of coal-fired plants to close by 2030. The Heritage Foundation says “The plan will drive up energy prices for American families and businesses without making a dent in global temperatures.”

This is a form of regulatory death for the nation and comes straight out of the Oval Office of the White House.

© Alan Caruba

Residents “Fed Up”, with Unaffordable Wind Turbines. Want them to compete!

Photo

Wind turbines that collect renewable energy, set in a pasture in Van Wert County, Ohio, are visible for miles.CreditLaura J. Gardner/The Journal Gazette, via Associated Press
As renewable energy production has surged in recent years, opponents of government policies that have helped spur its growth have pushed to roll back those incentives and mandates in state after state.

On Wednesday, they claimed their first victory, when Ohio lawmakers voted to freeze the phasing-in of power that utilities must buy from renewable energy sources.

The bill, which passed the Ohio House of Representatives, 54 to 38, was expected to be signed into law by Gov. John R. Kasich, who helped negotiate its final draft.

It stands in marked contrast to the broad consensus behind the original law in 2008, when it was approved with virtually no opposition, and comes after considerable disagreement among lawmakers, energy executives and public interest groups.

Opponents of the mandates argued, in part, that wind and solar power, whose costs have plunged in recent years, should compete on their own with traditional fossil fuels. But the debate has taken on a broader, more political tone as well, analysts say, with disagreements over the role of government, the economic needs of the state and the debate over climate change.

Photo

Wind turbines in Ohio, where the House voted to freeze the phasing-in of renewable energy for two years.CreditLaura J. Gardner/The Journal Gazette, via Associated Press

“It used to be that renewables was this Kumbaya, come-together moment for Republicans and Democrats,” said Michael E. Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. “The intellectual rhetoric around why you would want renewables has been lost and replaced by partisanship.”

Since 2013, more than a dozen states have taken up proposals to weaken or eliminate green energy mandates and incentives, often helped by conservative and libertarian policy or advocacy groups like the Heartland InstituteAmericans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

In Kansas, for example, lawmakers recently defeated a bill that would have phased out the state’s renewable energy mandates, but its backers have vowed to propose it again.

Jay Apt, director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University, said the Ohio battle was “another skirmish in the question of whether we are committed to cleaning up pollution, and people are divided.” He added, “Renewable portfolio standards and other mechanisms of pollution control are not cost-free.”

The Ohio bill freezes mandates that require utilities to gradually phase in the purchase of 25 percent of their power from alternative sources, including wind, solar and emerging technologies like clean coal production, by 2025. While the freeze is in effect for two years, a commission would study the issue.

At the federal level, alternative energy industries like solar and wind have pushed hard in recent years to preserve important tax breaks that they say have helped spur new development and sharply increased the supply of clean energy flowing into the grid.

But the demand for that energy has been largely propelled at the state level by mandates, known as renewable portfolio standards, that generally set goals for utilities to increase the percentage of green energy they include in the power they buy for their customers.

Roughly 30 states have the standards, which can range from modest voluntary goals like Indiana’s target of 10 percent by 2025 to more aggressive requirements like Hawaii’s, which aim for 40 percent by 2030, according to the Department of Energy.

“Energy markets are highly policy-driven,” said Todd Foley, senior vice president of policy and government relations at the American Council on Renewable Energy. “When states and even the federal government continually revisit these policies, it sends a signal of uncertainty. It chills market and investment momentum.”

In Ohio, where opponents of the mandate argued that it raised the price of electricity and supporters worried about the loss of economic development and jobs, Mr. Kasich worked to broker the compromise bill, said a spokesman for the governor.

“We rejected the efforts by those who’d like to kill renewable energy altogether, and instead we’re moving forward in a balanced way that supports renewable energy while also preserving the economic recovery that’s created more than 250,000 jobs,” the spokesman, Rob Nichols, said. “It’s not what everyone wanted, which probably means we came down at the right spot.”

Eli Miller, Americans for Prosperity’s Ohio state director, backed by the billionaire industrialists David H. and Charles G. Koch, called the proposed law “a prudent step” to re-examine standards that could be a “potential impediment to job creation and job growth here in the Buckeye State.”

But Gabe Elsner, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a pro-renewables group that sees efforts to weaken incentives and mandates as part of a campaign by utility and fossil fuel interests, said the temporary halt could do away with the law entirely.

“The fossil fuel and utility industry has been caught off guard by the rise of cheap, clean energy, and over the past 18 months they’ve responded in a really big way across the country,” he said. “We’re seeing the results of that campaign now in Ohio.”

Renewable energy still represents a small fraction of the overall energy mix, reaching about 6 percent of net generation in 2013, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. But it is on the rise, representing 30 percent of power plant capacity added that year.

For renewable developers, the outlook is uncertain. Michael Speerschneider, chief permitting and public policy officer for EverPower, which recently won approval to develop a 176-turbine project in Ohio, said the ruling would make it more difficult to find a buyer for the power, dimming prospects for doing business in the state.

“We came to Ohio based on the policies that were in place,” he said. “Changing that now, freezing it, just sends a message that says, ‘Now, we don’t want you here anymore.’ ”

Rural Ontario Fights Back Against Wind Turbine Fiasco!

Agricultural issues take centre stage at all-candidates forum in Listowel

By Mike Beitz, The Beacon Herald

Perth-Middlesex candidates, from left, Irma DeVries (Family Coalition), Matthew Murphy (independent), Romayne Smith Fullerton (NDP), Chris Desjardins (Green), Randy Pettapiece (Progressive Conservative), Robby Smink (Freedom) and Stewart Skinner (Liberal), participate in a forum in Listowel Wednesday night hosted by the Perth and Middlesex federations of agriculture. (MIKE BEITZ, The Beacon Herald)

Perth-Middlesex candidates, from left, Irma DeVries (Family Coalition), Matthew Murphy (independent), Romayne Smith Fullerton (NDP), Chris Desjardins (Green), Randy Pettapiece (Progressive Conservative), Robby Smink (Freedom) and Stewart Skinner (Liberal), participate in a forum in Listowel Wednesday night.
A small group of protesters with “Stop the Turbines” and “Not a Willing Host” signs standing outside of the St. Joseph’s Parish Centre in Listowel Wednesday night foreshadowed a key issue that would be discussed inside. Industrial wind turbine projects were raised several times during a well-attended all-candidates forum hosted by the Perth and Wellington federations of agriculture. But it wasn’t until well into the evening that the seven participating provincial candidates – Irma DeVries (Family Coalition Party), Matthew Murphy (independent), Romayne Smith Fullerton (NDP), Chris Desjardins (Green Party), Randy Pettapiece (Progressive Conservative Party), Robby Smink (Freedom Party) and Stewart Skinner (Liberal Party), were asked directly if they support them. Predictably, none of them gave an outright yes. Murphy suggested several times that turbines belong offshore, where their impact on communities would be minimized, and also advocated for more local control over where they’re located. “I think you have a right to say, ‘We don’t want them nearby. We don’t want them here,'” he said. Smith Fullerton agreed with the need for more local control, and suggested that the issue has been “devastating” for rural Ontario. The NDP would consult with the auditor general to determine if contracts could be opened up again, she added. Desjardin argued that wind turbine projects should be “community owned,” with the community deciding where they’re placed. When told by someone in the audience that 70 Ontario communities have declared themselves unwilling hosts for wind turbines, he looked shocked. “We do want the community to say where they’re going, and if you’re an unwilling host, I guess they’re not going in your community,” said Desjardins. Pettapiece said it was unfortunate that wind turbine opponents in rural Ontario are given the NIMBY (not in my backyard) label. “We would cancel the FIT program that deals with these projects,” he said, “and we would certainly investigate the contracts that have been handed out on anything that’s not hooked up to the grid.” Smink, who prefaced most of his responses with a criticism of government interference, did the same when describing his stance on the “windmill idiocy.” “This is exactly the type of problems that you have when you have big government basically telling you how to run your life,” he said. DeVries, who repeated a similar “smaller government” mantra throughout the evening, said the Family Coalition Party would introduce legislation to restore the rights of municipalities to refuse turbines. Even Skinner, whose Liberal Party implemented the Green Energy Act, said that changes are in order, particularly when it comes to protecting fertile soil like those found in Perth-Wellington. “Going forward, I’m going to advocate for protection for prime farmland, that we’re not placing turbines on good Class 1 and Class 2 lands,” he said, adding that he would push for minimum distance separation between turbines and livestock operations. His suggestion that neither he nor any of the other candidates could stop the controversial wind turbine projects planned just outside of Listowel, and that “it’s done,” prompted a sharp response from the crowd. “It’s not done,” several people called out loudly. The wind turbine issues was just one of a number of rural-focused topics on which the candidates were quizzed at the forum Wednesday. Preserving prime agricultural land, extending natural gas lines to rural areas, keeping electricity rates affordable, protecting front-line health care workers and supporting agriculture education in schools were just a few of the issues on which there was general – but not total – agreement. The candidates are expected to square off again tonight in Stratford at a forum organized by the Stratford and District Chamber of Commerce. mike.beitz@sunmedia.ca ​

DownWind is an Amazing Opportunity, to Educate the Public! Don’t Miss It!

Canadians Fight Back Against Ontario’s Wind Farm Onslaught

Ezra Levant_jpg_1274831cl-8

Canada’s Sun News was among the first news outfits worldwide to grasp the scale and scope of the great wind power fraud; and the associated harm inflicted on hard-working rural people. And Sun’s Ezra Levant led the charge, doing what real journalists do: getting the truth out, despite the efforts of those who seek to profit from burying it (check out this broadcast).

Exposing the wind industry for what it is, Sun has produced a truly ground-breaking documentary on how wind power outfits have fleeced power consumers for $billions, while happily destroying the lives hundreds of farming families across Ontario.

The documentary, “Down Wind” will screen on Wednesday, on 4th June; and will be available online, thereafter. Here’s the trailer:

Meanwhile, Kevin Marriott, Mayor of Enniskillen has reminded residents of their right to remain silent, in a clever effort to stymie a developer’s ability to subsequently claim that it had “consulted” with those whose lives it is hell-bent on destroying. Fair call, Kevin.

The “community consultations” run by developers are nothing more than occasions for baseless wind industry propaganda delivered by a pack of lying, sociopaths (see our post here).

These are the people that publicly feign genuine interest in community “concerns”, but are quick to ridicule, bully and berate anyone who has the temerity to point out that losing the ability to sleep in one’s own home due to the incessant low-frequency noise generated by giant fans isn’t a “concern”, it’s a State sponsored and funded crime (see our post here).

Here’s the Sarnia Observer on the Ontario community back lash.

Mayor urging township residents to not speak to wind developers
Sarnia Observer
Paul Morden
15 May 2014

Enniskillen Township residents should feel free to exercise their right to remain silent when wind energy companies come calling, says Mayor Kevin Marriott.

EDF EN Canada has reportedly been approaching residents and groups about its Churchill Wind Project proposal, a 100 to 150-MW wind farm it wants to build in Enniskillen and neighbouring Plympton-Wyoming.

Marriott said he turned down a request from the company to meet with township council, and urged others in the community to do the same.

“We’re unwilling hosts,” Marriott said. “We’re not interested, end of discussion.”

Enniskillen was among approximately 80 Ontario municipalities declaring themselves unwilling hosts for wind turbines after the provincial government said it was changing how it awards renewable energy contracts.

The 2009 Green Energy Act took away municipalities’ planning powers for wind projects, leading to an outcry from many rural communities and municipal councils. Last year, the province said a new system of awarding renewable energy projects will require companies to work with municipalities.

“It will be very, very difficult for a developer to be approved without municipal engagement, in some significant way,” Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli said last June.

But, Marriott said that until the province clarifies what it means by municipal engagement, “We’re being vigilant.”

He advised the anti-wind turbine group, Conservation of Rural Enniskillen (CORE), against meeting with the company.

“I said, ‘Whatever you do, don’t consult with them because they may be able to use that as a check mark,’” Marriott said.

“Who knows what could be construed as public consultation.”

CORE also ran newspaper ads urging township residents to not speak with wind company representatives.

Lambton County has 14 wind turbines in Lambton Shores and Brooke-Alvinston Township, but construction has begun on the 92-turbine Jericho wind project, and Suncor Energy is awaiting provincial approval for its 46-turbine Cedar Point project. Both new projects sit north of Highway 402 in Lambton.

Brooke Leystra, president of the Lambton Federation of Agriculture, said it also turned down the wind company’s request to meet because the group represents farmers on both sides of the turbine debate.

“We didn’t want it to be misconstrued as us working with them, in any way,” Leystra said.

By early June, Ontario is expected to finalize its plan for awarding contracts for up to 300 megawatts of new wind-generated electricity this year, and a similar amount in 2015.

“The government has been really wishy-washy on what this new process does consist of,” Marriott said.
Sarnia Observer

And here’s a fantastic letter from Martina Hayward that captures the seething rage that’s building across Ontario.

Letter to southwesternontario.ca
14 May 2014

We are not willing hosts
Dear Editor:

Influenced to write yet another article overflowing with concerns related to the Goliath that is Industrial Wind, I feel burdened yet galvanized to transcribe the Whole Truth.

The article in the Regional Country News appears to praise the encroachment of these industrial skyscrapers as a “new crop” that must be “liked or lumped.” I, for one, decline the offer to endure these monuments of destruction.

Apparently “owners of the land eventually will share in a harvest of the wind.” The yield we will be forced to consume is the serious, irreversible harm to human health, animal health and the natural environment.

The repercussions of these mechanized tempest power plants seems untold as of late. Perhaps the season of Truth harvest has also arrived.

Communities worldwide are sadly experiencing the environmental, social and economic impacts of wind projects. These towers are merely a tool for energy companies and investment banks to make billions of dollars in subsidies that are subsequently added to the existing debt.

Industrial wind turbines do not reduce greenhouse gases or fossil fuel use. They can reduce your property values by 40 per cent or more.

The Green Energy Act overrides ALL local laws and grants foreign corporations unrestricted power to DO whatever they want, WHEREVER they want. The Canadian Wind Energy Association requested the Ministry of the Environment EXCLUDE the measurement of Low Frequency Noise at wind development sites. Low Frequency Noise has been found to cause nausea, headaches, dizziness, vertigo, tinnitus, memory and concentration problems, fatigue, sleep disturbances in humans. In animals such as goats, it just kills them dead. Sheep, horses, cattle are all afflicted similarly.

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principle of fundamental justice.” Section 7 also “guarantees life, liberty and personal security of all Canadians.” It also “demands that governments respect the basic principles of justice whenever it intrudes on those rights.”

Finally, the article in Regional Country News quotes NextEra’s site safety manager, Tim Cole: “We have to win the hearts and minds of the community by being nice.”

Well, Mr. Cole, is it nice to break the hearts and beleaguer the minds of hard-working people in our communities?

I conclude, absolutely not. We are NOT WILLING HOSTS. No still means no.

Please take the time to read Wind Turbine Syndrome (Dr. Nina Pierpont) and The Constitution Act of 1982 (The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), and Acoustics Today Winter 2014, and go towww.howgreenisthis.org. Educate yourselves.

Martina Hayward,
Priceville

Mandated subsidies for wind power is a policy that is inherently unsustainable. Any policy that is unsustainable will be scrapped or surely fail: it’s only a matter of time.

In the meantime, keep fighting, Martina: justice and sanity will soon prevail.

churchill hell