Carol Mitchell flustered by wind opposition

By Vanessa Brown, Clinton News Record

Recent criticism of the Liberals’ announcement to postpone offshore wind development while asking for more research on land-based turbines is conflicting, according to Huron Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell.

Both Central Huron Against Turbines (CHAT) and Huron East Against Turbines (HEAT) have said the move to temporarily shelve offshore wind is purely political given that it is a provincial election year. CHAT continues its argument that research is still needed for onshore wind turbines.

“When we said we need more science for offshore, they (opponents) then accused us of applying political science while in the same breath asking for more health studies on onshore,” Mitchell said. “Those are conflicting comments.”

Mitchell added she’s confident her government already has an adequate body of science on land turbines.

There are currently no offshore wind farms running in North America. The world’s only turbines operating in a freshwater lake are in Sweden. Minister of Environment John Wilkinson on Feb. 11 said the province will work with the U.S. and Sweden to build a more comprehensive framework for offshore wind energy.

Robert Budd, a member of CHAT, is adamant the decision appeases urban residents while ignoring rural communities. Toronto Hydro has proposed a 70-turbine development in Lake Ontario that would stretch from Toronto to Ajax.

“By cancelling the offshore, they’re speaking to a largely urban audience, whereas the rural people who will have to live amongst them (land-based turbines) are being ignored,” Budd said. “When people see that they need to pursue more science on the offshore, yet have no interest in pursuing more science onshore, it’s very disrespectful to rural communities, I think.”

Budd also suspects offshore wind applications were suspended because they cost too much. He said nuclear electricity costs three to four cents per kilowatt-hour compared to 19 cents for offshore wind energy. He added Ontario’s demand for electricity doesn’t warrant the move to more expensive energy.

“When you look at how we’re hemorrhaging financially with the cost of wind that we have online now, imagine what the impact would be when we put more on at the offshore price,” Budd said. “I don’t think anybody would stand for that, regardless of where you fit on the environmental aspect.”

In 2008, eight offshore wind applications were submitted for Lake Huron’s waters, stretching from Goderich to Kincardine.

Bluewater Coun. Geordie Palmer (Bayfield) said a wind farm in the lake could hurt Bayfield’s economy. He fears the tourism industry would be hit hardest, but also commercial fishing.

“I don’t profess to be an expert, and I’m learning everyday, but I’m finding more questions than I am answers,” Coun. Palmer said.

Palmer said offshore turbines could affect the migration of fish due to possible vibrations.

“It’s one of those things that if it affects migratory birds and insects, it certainly must also have some impact on water creatures,” he said.

Mitchell maintains wind development is part of a larger framework to offset the burden on healthcare, which started with a bylaw against smoking indoors. She said a mixture of renewable and nuclear energy is a logical step, while protecting jobs at the Bruce Power nuclear plant, the area’s largest employer.

“We are committed to shutting down coal by 2014, and the energy supply mix that we have coming forward will in fact allow for that,” she said.

“That is the single most important thing we can do to address air pollution.”

13 thoughts on “Carol Mitchell flustered by wind opposition

  1. These “Turbine Huggers” like Carol Mitchell must be living in a “Green Vacuum”!

    They will hang onto these “destructive green dreams” all the way out to the curb in October when they will immediately open their eyes and realize their leader “mislead them” all the time they were “hermetically sealed inside the Pink Building of Doom”!

    Then the chest beating and screams of outrage will be but a silent epitaph of a failed and misguided bunch of ex-politicos with nowhere to go but to the Unemployment line!

    Enjoy your summer Mitchell and make sure you don’t drive through any Turbine fields in case your car breaks down and you may have to ask someone who’s life you’ve helped to destroy, for HELP!

  2. “Mitchell maintains wind development is part of a larger framework to offset the burden on healthcare, which started with a bylaw against smoking indoors. ”

    Mitchell once again opened her mouth – but forgot to insert her feet – and that meaningless comment came out instead.

  3. All Candidates Meetings before the October election should be standing-room only in Huron-Bruce. I doubt voters will let Carol get away with such sophistry.

  4. Carol Mitchell is flustered. I’d be
    flustered too, if I had to continuously
    regurgitate all of this nonsensical
    Liberal/Canwea propaganda.

  5. Had to look that one up, Lynne: from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sophistry

    sophistry
    n pl -ries
    1. (Philosophy)
    a. a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
    b. the art of using such arguments
    2. subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning

  6. I have some questions for Carol. Would you please answer these questions?
    How many more turbines will be installed?
    Why put turbines on water when they can be put on land for less?
    In 10 to 20 years when they wear out will this expense start all over again?
    What happens if the wind turbine investment is destroyed by high winds or say the wind decreases as it is in Britain? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8261827/Britain-is-becoming-less-windy-raising-doubts-over-Governments-wind-farm-strategy.html
    Will coal be bought from the United States or any other country?
    Why invest in wind turbines if there is cheaper green renewable power available?
    How much do wind turbines cost?
    Where are the turbines being bought?
    How much CO2 emissions have been saved so far?
    How much CO2 emissions will be saved by 2014?
    What do you project electricity will cost in 2014?

  7. Nothing she says makes sense. Opponents are making conflicting statements?? I’m getting a sore neck from shaking my head in disbelief! What’s next ?… ” No Smoking Within 550 Meters of a Wind Turbine”. That ‘otta save the environment!!!

  8. Notice how the goal post is always changing, first it was about saving the world from C02 emissions, then it became about providing green jobs which don’t exist and now it’s all about air pollution to protect our health based on a fabricated death toll that would have been the cause of every death in the 60’s when pollution measures where not in place like today. No one questions the economic impact of removing coal generation which provides cheap reliable and CLEAN electricity. This kind of disconnect is maddening.

  9. green energy is a way of syphoning money from rich nations to poor. We are not in global warming, that is a farce. The earth goes through cycles, from heating to cooling.

  10. when we send the posse for the dalton gang we must remember to send the buckboard for Ms. King and Ms. Mitchell

  11. “When we said we need more science for offshore, they (opponents) then accused us of applying political science while in the same breath asking for more health studies on onshore,” Mitchell said. “Those are conflicting comments.”
    Mitchell maintains wind development is part of a larger framework to offset the burden on healthcare, which started with a bylaw against smoking indoors. She said a mixture of renewable and nuclear energy is a logical step, while protecting jobs at the Bruce Power nuclear plant, the area’s largest employer.
    Back to the CANWEA commune.
    How about her government not wasting health care dollars like they did on their E-health scandal. And yes, we want more assurances that our health, in regards to Industrial Wind Turbines, is protected.

Comments are closed.