Turtles topple turbines as ERT revokes project approval

sign blanding turtleCounty Live
The County’s Blandings turtles, and nature in general, are victorious in the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists’ more than six-year battle to protect the south shore of Prince Edward County.

The Environmental Review Tribunal in the Ostrander Point industrial wind turbine hearing has decided “remedies proposed by Gilead Power Corporation and the Director (MOEE) are not appropriate” and has revoked the Renewable Energy Approval for the nine turbine project.

“The tribunal decision says that no matter how important renewable energy is to our future it does not automatically override the public interest in protecting against other environmental harm such as the habitat of species at risk,” says Myrna Wood, president of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists. “This was the basis of PECFN’s appeal. This decision not only protects the Blanding’s turtle but also the staging area for millions of migrating birds and bats and the Monarch butterflies.”

In their decision, ERT vice-chairs Heather Gibbs and Robert Wright state “The Tribunal finds that to proceed with the project, when it will cause serious and irreversible harm to animal life, a species at risk and its habitat, is not consistent with the general and renewable energy approval purposes of the Environmental Protection Act, protection and conservation of the natural environment and protection and conservation of the environment, nor does it serve the public interest.

“In this particular case, preventing such harm outweighs the policy of promoting renewable energy through this nine wind turbine project in this location.” Read article

6 thoughts on “Turtles topple turbines as ERT revokes project approval

  1. “In this particular case, preventing such harm outweighs the policy of promoting renewable energy through this nine wind turbine project in this location.”

    Could they be any more site specific and exclusive?

    • The ERT seems to not want to leave the impression that any kind of precedent was set, n’est-ce pas?

    • Convicted (now rehabilitated) Enron fraudster, former CFO Andy Fastow, now cautions about flawed rationalizations.

      For perspective about the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal circus, see: “Enron Explained,” an interview with Andy Fastow & Gerard Seijts.

      http://iveybusinessjournal.com/enron-explained/

      ‘[excerpt] Ivey Business Journal: So is corporate governance better or worse today?

      Andrew Fastow: Well, we have not addressed the problem. The narrative that was spun after the downfall of Enron pointed to a few bad apples doing some things that no one else knew about. The board supposedly just wasn’t paying attention. But that isn’t accurate. All the deals that constituted fraud at Enron were approved by top management and the board of directors because they were deemed technically legal. We all do this. We rationalize and say, “This is OK because technically I haven’t broken any rules.” We do it at work and we do it in our personal lives, especially when filing taxes. We don’t break rules… we get around rules […] My point is that it is still common for people, businesses and politicians to follow rules in ways that undermine their principles. So when you ask about corporate governance, the real question is, “Are misleading deals still being done?” And the answer is yes. In fact, the exact same kind of deals are being done today, and by the way, some of them make me blush — and I was the CFO of Enron.
      […]
      IBJ: So one of the big takeaways here is the need to respect both laws and their underlying principles, right?

      Fastow: Right. Everyone needs to be more careful about what they rationalize simply because it is technically legal. Aggressive rationalizing leads you to follow rules in a way that undermines the principle behind the rule. And so when you go too far it is possible to technically follow the rules and commit fraud simultaneously.’

  2. Here is a “time line” showing the history of Wind Turbine Noise problems, going back as far as 1979. Each entry provides documentation:
    http://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0Ak2bgr7C0nhPdGR3S1lEekU3T3p4ZDhUNDdRV2Y2ZkE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&height=650

    1979 “First complaints received from a dozen families within a 3km radius of turbine”.
    1981 “Wind turbine operation creates enormous sound pressure waves”
    1982 “Closed windows and doors do not protect occupants from LFN”
    1982 “NASA research on human impacts provided to wind industry”
    1985 “Hypothesis for infrasound-induced motion sickness”
    1987 “Wind industry told that dB(A) unsuitable to measure LFN emissions from wind turbines”

    2004 “Wind industry knows noise models inadequate” (from Vestas)

    2011 “Vestas knew that low frequency noise from larger turbines needed greater setbacks”

Leave a Reply

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