The following files are the result of a Freedom of Information Request as to the “science” that was used to justify the Green Energy Act. How were setbacks determined? What justifies the loss of citizen rights and local powers? What justfies the autocratic approach and why were all submissions warning of problems ignored? Was the science biased and lobbyist-driven?
Unfortunately the research cited by Mr Robert Knox (“Some find turbines annoying but most don’t” — Feb. 5) is an industry-funded report. It was reviewed in Britain by the National Health Service (NHS) and found to have critical flaws: “methodological shortcomings”, and the fact that “the reviewing group did not include an epidemiologist.”
“Further research is needed,” it concluded. Why was clinical research of victims not carried out? How can an industry give itself a clean bill of health? The tobacco corporations used to put out reports verified by MDs that cigarettes were not a problem. Continue reading →
[NHS concluded the CanWEA study] is a non-systematic review of literature. There are several points to be made about this research:
There is no clear description of the methods the researchers used to search for available research, nor how they rated the quality of the research they found. Therefore, it is not possible to say that all relevant research was identified, or comment on the reliability of the research that was included.
This review panel was commissioned by an industry group, and included a variety of academic perspectives, but not anepidemiologist. Someone with this specific skill set should be included when environmental health hazards are assessed.
The link between psychological distress and physical symptoms has not been explored by this report. The acknowledgment that some people exposed to wind turbine noise suffer annoyance suggests that monitoring and maximum permitted levels need to be considered carefully in areas where turbines are planned.
Buy it Today from Amazon.ca
“Eventually the obsession of our politicians with tower blocks was seen to be one of the greatest follies of the age. In time to come – it may be sooner than we think – the obsession with wind power will likewise come to be seen as an even greater folly”
Recently released, in The Wind Farm Scam, Dr. John Etherington argues that wind farm technology is a wholly counter-productive and undesirable response to the problems of climate change and electricity generation. Dr. Etherington is a former Reader in Ecology, Thomas Huxley Medallist at the Royal College of Science and former co-editor of the Journal of Ecology. Continue reading →
All of which means that when the greens call for wind, they are really calling for natural gas. When Ontarians read newspaper headlines in 2015 saying that provincial GHGs are as bad as they ever were, they will wonder how they were so badly fooled by those who said wind is the answer to climate change. Continue reading →
* 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. Continue reading →
When readers were asked to submit nominations for these Rubber Duck Awards, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty scored high. He deserves it. The list of nanny-state initiatives foisted upon Ontarians based on dubious science claims is long and growing.
The province’s new Green Energy Act, one of the more interventionist energy-regulatory regimes in North America, brings in massive subsidies for wind power and solar energy, new electricity pricing mechanisms and regulations that aim to turn the Ontario economy into a carbon-reduction powerhouse. Trouble is, the government produced not one page of scientific proof that the program will cut even one carbon of emissions. Continue reading →
I am compelled to respond to Kevin O’Kane’s letter to the editor that appeared in a recent issue of this paper.
Mr. O’Kane writes that “if she (Cheryl Gallant) is concerned about relative health issues she should consult the 2008 Information Report issued by the Municipality of Chatham-Kent: “The Health Impact of Wind Turbines, A Review of White, Grey and Published Literature.”
Mr. O’Kane obviously believes that this document is an authoritative report. And that’s where his argument falls apart. Let me explain: Dr. Colby, the acting medical officer for Chatham-Kent, has been credited with writing this document. However, he has stated that the health unit wrote it and he supervised and approved it. He has also stated that he is no expert on wind turbines and has not conducted any of his own research on the subject. This document does not address the reports of worldwide health effects, nor does it take into account current medical research. It is an incomplete literature review. Continue reading →
Wind power doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions, costs consumers more and kills jobs.
It is important to understand why the Danish government, which appears to have commissioned Mr. Pedersen’s comments, is sensitive to critiques of the Danish experience with wind power. Denmark is home to Vestas, the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, with 20,000 employees and a market share of between 20% and 25%. As the market for its turbines in Denmark and other European countries becomes saturated, it seeks to export the Danish experience worldwide. To this end, it recently ran a multi-million dollar global ad campaign with the slogan, “Believe in the wind,” claiming that Denmark has solved the problem of dirty electricity through wind power. Continue reading →
Years ago, Princeton economist Alan Blinder famously exhorted policy-makers to frame policy that was based on soft hearts and hard heads. The McGuinty government’s proposed foray into investments in wind generation upends this admonition by giving us policy that is soft-hearted – and soft-headed.
Why have you turned a deaf ear to thousands of Ontarians and labelled them NIMBY’s simply because they are asking for a chance to have their legitimate concerns heard? You once said in the Legislature that everyone should have “a fair voice in debates that affect them.” Apparently not when it conflicts with your views. Continue reading →