Ontario is on the same hypocritical path as Germany

Ottawa Valley Daily Observer

* They deliberately omit the destructive consequences of wind turbine construction sites, needed service roads and power corridors, especially in wooded environments.

* They deliberately omit the permanent destruction of aquatic habitats and fish migration routes, besides obstructing navigation, at sites where “in-stream” electric generators are installed.

* They neglect to report that wonderland Germany’s +13,400 wind turbines (2007 data) have not resulted in the shut-down of one single coal-fired power station. (Isn’t that the goal of Ontario’s government policy?)

* They deliberately hide and are silent of the fact, that Germany contemplates building about 40 more coal-fired power plants;mind you, with state-of-the- art pollution controls.

* They remain silent on the fact, that every new wind turbine site in Germany attracts hundreds of protesters who take time off work and travel great distances to these sites, nor do they feature interviews with those protesters hearing their reasons for opposing wind turbines. Why?

* They do not mention the amounts of money governments are subsidizing wind turbine and “in-stream” generator construction, besides offering their owners long-term guaranteed prices for kilowatt hours fed into the power grid.

* And lastly, neither they nor our governments publish calculations of how much it will cost society, were a carbon tax or a cap-and- trade scheme implemented and once thousands of electric or hybrid cars plugged into the power grid and smart-metered.

Besides being a columnist, I am an ardent reader of two local newspapers; a daily and a weekly. The weekly reported for almost a year now on proposed wind turbines to grace the Mount St. Patrick escarpment between Dacre and Barry’s Bay.

Through the varying views on this topic expressed in these publications, I became rather interested in wind turbines and “in-stream” electric generators, all of which are the birthchild of the current Ontario government’s fanatic obsession with so-called “green energy” and desperation to stimulate the economy, regardless of the other cost to the environment.

On occasion I wrote about these topics, but without having good answers, I raised questions. The time when I did express a strong opinion, it was castigating the Ontario “Green Energy and Green Economy Act” and the gag-order imposed on municipal governments, literally forcing them to change existing zoning bylaws and issue construction permits without delay, instead of having them exercise their constitutional mandate, ie. acting in accordance with the wishes and in the best interest of their constituents.

Medias have space and/or time restrictions. Writing or reporting about technical and scientific material often leaves no room to list scientist’s credentials and lengthy titles.

This brings me to Dr. Paul Morris’ letter to the editor published in the July 18 Observer. He is highly critical of and castigates Lou Eyamie for omitting the titles and context of scientific studies he referred to in his earlier letter to the editor, but only made reference to highlights.

From what I can decipher in Dr. Morris’ letter, he appears to be a follower of the Al Gore/David Suzuki doctrine that climate change and alleged global warming are man-made for the most part.

Getting back to Dr. Morris’ criticism of Lou Eyamie, for omitting certain matters in his letter, please allow me justifiable criticism of the Al Gore/David Suzuki apostles whose trademark it is to lament about wonderland Germany and its accomplishments to “save planet Earth” against climate change and global warming.

* They deliberately omit the destructive consequences of wind turbine construction sites, needed service roads and power corridors, especially in wooded environments.

* They deliberately omit the permanent destruction of aquatic habitats and fish migration routes, besides obstructing navigation, at sites where “in-stream” electric generators are installed.

* They neglect to report that wonderland Germany’s +13,400 wind turbines (2007 data) have not resulted in the shut-down of one single coal-fired power station. (Isn’t that the goal of Ontario’s government policy?)

* They deliberately hide and are silent of the fact, that Germany contemplates building about 40 more coal-fired power plants;mind you, with state-of-the- art pollution controls.

* They remain silent on the fact, that every new wind turbine site in Germany attracts hundreds of protesters who take time off work and travel great distances to these sites, nor do they feature interviews with those protesters hearing their reasons for opposing wind turbines. Why?

* They do not mention the amounts of money governments are subsidizing wind turbine and “in-stream” generator construction, besides offering their owners long-term guaranteed prices for kilowatt hours fed into the power grid.

* And lastly, neither they nor our governments publish calculations of how much it will cost society, were a carbon tax or a cap-and- trade scheme implemented and once thousands of electric or hybrid cars plugged into the power grid and smart-metered.

Who gets rich and who gets poorer once “green energy” production is in full swing?

I fear Ontario is on the same hypocritical path as Germany, which shuts down its nuclear power plants, but imports electricity from France’s nuclear power generators.

Because Ontario’s steadily increasing electricity demands will not be met by wind turbines and “in-stream” generators, apparently the “green soldiers” see nothing wrong with importing coal-fired electricity from the U. S. once our power plants are shut down.

With so many omissions by the Al Gore/David Suzuki apostolate, allow me to suggest that Lou Eyamie is owed an apology!

Alfred Beck

RR3,Pembroke, ON

One thought on “Ontario is on the same hypocritical path as Germany

  1. To Alfred Beck;
    In reply to your letter “A lot of hot air” published August 1/09. You are a fine reporter when writing your column and reporting on things happening in the area, however you do come off the rails a bit (well, more than a bit) when you start ranting on about global warming. Employing your love of hyperbole and your shotgun approach to a topic I guess you feel if you throw out enough “factoids” and don’t come up with a coherent and sustained argument that it will be hard for people to reply to what ever it is you are saying.
    I take it that your letter was supposed to be in response to a letter written by Dr. Morris but you offer nothing to refute anything Morris said in his letter and in fact you don’t even mention it until about a quarter of the way into your own letter. You reiterate some of the criticisms Morris had and then go off on a Gore/Suzuki mini rant. When you do get back to Dr. Morris it’s only to mention his letter before going off on another Gore/Suzuki rant, something about their apostles trademark being their lamenting over “wonderland Germany”. Then you don’t even make mention of the letter again except obliquely, three columns later when you say that Lou Eyamie is owed an apology because of the Al Gore/David Suzuki apostolate.
    I have some questions here. I just got off the Suzuki Foundation website and for the life of me I cannot find any specific reference to “wonderland” Germany or even an article that specifically singles out Germany for special mention. When I do find Germany mentioned it is usually along with Spain, as leaders in their commitment to wind power. Could you please let me know where you found the “wonderland Germany” reference so I can read it for myself? Another question is; you also mention the G/S apostles lamenting Germany’s efforts to save the earth. Do you really mean lamenting? In the dictionaries I used to look up the word, it means to feel or express sorrow or regret. I’m sure you didn’t mean the Gore/Suzuki adherents are regretting the efforts Germany is making to reduce its carbon emissions. Did you?
    I also looked up apostolate as you referred to Gore/Suzuki using this word. My own Webster dictionary and those I used on line all give a meaning to this word, as it might be used in this context, as an organization of the laity devoted to the mission of the church. Now I’m sure this is true since as early as 2007 the Vatican stated “that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God’s will, and that the one billion-strong Catholic Church must become far greener.” This is from an article in the Guardian that I found by Googling – the pope/global warming. Somehow I don’t think this is what you meant and perhaps you used the wrong word but thank you for this affirmation of the good works that Gore/Suzuki are doing. Maybe you meant Apostate? But that means a person who forsakes his religion, cause or party. Or Apostasy? But that means the same as Apostate. I’m sure that the Gore/Suzuki adherants are neither Apostates nor are in a state of Apostasy. Anyway, I’m sure that you know what you meant. My last query is about your reference to some alternative energy sources as being the “birthchild” of the current Ontario government. Again, try as I might I could not find birthchild listen in any dictionary, thesarsus, etc. Did you mean brainchild? If so I found the definition of brainchild to be “an idea or invention that one has thought up or created”. Wind power, in stream generators, solar panels; none of these have been thought up by the Ontario government and it is only after many years of procrastination that the province has taken a lead in this countries use of wind power. Hardly a fanatical obsession as you describe it. Nor is the expenditure on wind turbines at the expense of other forms of energy even if those plans prove to be difficult to get off the ground as in the recent dissapointment for the government on their hopes for new nuclear power generating plants. So seven billion dollars was not even close to the lowest bid to build a nuclear power plant and the bidders refused to even contemplate what the cost of the generated power would be. They also balked at the cost and logistics of constructing new roads and overpasses that would be required to build and sevice these plants. Since building a road to a wind tower is a concern cited by you several times over the months surely the building of these roads must have distressed you as well. If the forest industry ever rebounds in the county, as I hope it does, I can presume that you’ll be at the head of the opposition to new road construction through untouched forests so trees can be harvested? Or is your opposition to new roads in the bush fairly narrowly defined? One last word on roads. If you go on to Google Images and type in wind tubines you can look at the pictures, page after page of pictures of wind farms. I have been unable to find any of the dual lane roads that you’ve written of. I see cuts through forests where the vegetation is growing back, less cut back than is seen with todays hydro lines. I see farmers harvesting crops up to the base of the towers, I see fields with barely a scar. What I don’t see is what you have decribed. Perhaps while you’re looking up the reference to wonderland Germany you could also find me a picture or two of a completed wind turbine instalation that has these horific roads that you write about. Oh, and while you’re finding pictures of the roads could you also find me a picture of the “power corridors” that you say accompany existing wind turbine sites as I can’t seem to find any evidence of them either. I was going to ask if all this bombast was just more of the over blown exagerations that you are so prone to but in order to exagerate there has to be a fact to try and puff up. I don’t see any facts here, just fear mongering based on your own imaginings.
    There is so much more in you letter that I (or any reasonably aware junior high school student) could respond to, but lets leave that for another day. I’m sure there will be more incoherant, semi-literate bouts of half baked, misinformation coming from you so there will be ample opportunity for us to once again to engage in our discustions.

Comments are closed.