Spinning tales about Ontario government’s honesty regarding wind turbines

Read our New Setbacks tab
The Barrie Examiner
Both Premier Dalton McGuinty and Environment Minister Jim Bradley have been repeatedly quoted as saying that the setback requirements in Ontario are ‘some of the toughest in the world’ and ‘the best in North America’. Contrary to these claims, there are a multitude of townships and counties in the United States, other areas of Canada and various countries around the world, with setback regulations and wind ordinances that are clearly stricter than those in Ontario. I believe that Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Bradley are intentionally trying to mislead and deceive the people of Ontario. Their statements are simply not true. Read article

18 thoughts on “Spinning tales about Ontario government’s honesty regarding wind turbines

  1. Politicians are just following the money trail or the carrot, corporations are handling strings as they are puppets playing there dance the way they hear the music. Our political dimwits being played and we idiots are okaying their stupidity. Sorry but we need to take all the veils off or it will get nastier. Do nothing and we deserve what they dish out. If no body wants to help out maybe jump ship and move to another place were more is being done but a lot of this is global. We al are being railroaded by the larger corporations and actually they are telling us what to eat and grow and what happens in our lives. We let all this happen by not standing up or buying there products. it is complicated I agree, but we need to stop this if we can.They cannot get our freewill, if they could then we are total slaves and done for.

  2. Thank You Trish for getting your excellent letter published. I have written to all of the usual suspects and pointed out that the “some of the safest standards” line is complete Bull S#$%!

    I wonder if anyone has compiled an extensive list of places which currently have setbacks greater than 550 metres?

    If anyone knows of one I would love to get that. It would make a great talking point when dealing with the pro wind spin that seems so easily accepted by the Toronto media. I have done a few searches and haven’t found a concise list, but asTrish pointed out there are in fact many jurisdictions way beyond 550. The governments that are silly enough on one hand favour wind as an energy source but on the other hand want to protect people, seem to settle on 2km, almost 4 times the “Safest Standards” crap our current bought and corrupt Government has settled on.

      • Most Ontario concessions were laid out 6600ft/1.25 miles/2kms deep with 66ft/20m roadways between them. Rectangular 200 acre farms back to back with 100 acre splits for some farms. 2 kms IWT setbacks would be placements about every other concession.Not enough setback for “noise” with the planned density of these turbines or larger turbines will be installed to make up for the lost setback distances.

      • Thanks for the link Frances, and thanks for setting this up on your site M.A.

  3. Please include a section for setbacks about specific concerns regarding Safety… for example from “petroleum operations” (eg oil and gas wells)

    The known petroleum resources can be viewed in Google earth with a down load from Oil, Gas, Salt resource library:
    http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/
    but the biggest concern is the “unknown/unrecorded” petroleum operations, as most wells prior to the 1950s are not recorded on MNR maps.

    The actual regulations are in the APRD :
    http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@renewable/documents/document/277097.pdf

    75m setback from any new construction: regulation 7.8
    300m investigation required for preconstruction report with mitigation responses: regulation 5.2.6

    Any Engineers out there who would be willing to consult? Ask the webmaster for my contact info.

    • “A decommissioning plan is required to ensure that the project location is restored to a clean and safe condition as determined by the MNR on a project basis. This includes the retiring,abandoning, dismantling, or removing from active service, working order, or operation all components of the renewable energy testing project.”
      Being these are regulations for Crown lands, do all turbine projects have to come with a
      decommissioning plan? Do any monetary provisions have to be provided?
      “The goal of this initiative is to permanently protect at least 225,000 square kilometres of
      the Far North of Ontario while allowing for sustainable development of the region’s natural resources. It would give First Nations a leadership role in community based land use planning. Community based land use planning would allow for the identification of areas that should be protected and areas where sustainable development could occur.”
      So apparently community based land use planning is only for the north, because
      farmers in southwestern Ontario have no useful say. sarc.
      “It is particularly important for any applicant of a renewable energy project to consider the impact of its construction and operation on any species that may be designated as a species at risk under that Act and to work with Environment Canada should any possible impact be identified.”
      Well now, that’s an understatement.
      I don’t know how any projects get approved. Thanks for the link Linda.

    • NO! Not with the deceit that has already been found that is associated with IWTs.But this could be political and not the government scientists and engineers fault.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *