Comments for Wellington Times

Comment on Work to begin on Ostrander Point wind factory next week by Chris Keen

Chris Keen — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:16:28 +0000

http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2011/12/16/location-location-location-migration-migration-migration-2/

If you remain unconvinced that an industrial wind factory is not going to harm the environment around Ostrander Point, I urge you to read this article, written in 2009, by Wayne Wegner. Wegner has an Honours BSc in Environmental Science. It is an eye-opener.

Comment on Work to begin on Ostrander Point wind factory next week by Keith Edgett

Keith Edgett — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:40:07 +0000

STOP STOP PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment on Work to begin on Ostrander Point wind factory next week by thebiggreenlie

thebiggreenlie — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:00:53 +0000

In other words, what is going on here is ILLEGAL with McGuinty’s blessings????……sounds about right………same as the ORNGE scam!

Comment on A dangerous mind by Lori Smith

Lori Smith — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:11:40 +0000

.
Yes the government held consultations to determine setbacks -and they were not part of the GEA, but were held after, partly so they could do what they wanted without having to spell it out to everyone first. Acoustical Engineers, Doctors. victims and more told the panel about health problems relating to low frequency noise, infra sound, flicker and more and yet the decision made, included none of that evidence.

The consultations and tribunals are like the consultation process held by the wind industry, a complete sham. Gilead held “open houses” there was no consultation, if you asked a question, they wrote it down and someone would get back to you – no one ever did answer my questions.

They even hired security guards to intimidate the attendees.

It allowed then to fulfill their requirements which in the GEA say nothing about responding to or trying to address any of the concerns, just that they hear them. So that is what they came and did. Because consultations were held, means nothing if the information has not been acted upon.

Similar are the oft quoted “peer reviewed” articles that show no correlation of health problems to IWTs. Again, if you only choose to include studies published that support your position, and ignore those that don’t you can “prove” anything. The studies that show there are known health problems exist, they are becoming more numerous, books have been published, symposiums held, new studies are being conducted around the world. Generally the wind industry uses the “peer reviewed” study, not an actual scientific study. Anyone can do a review of the reviews every 5 years and come to the same conclusion over and over again since they purposely do not include they studies that actually show there are negative health effects. Then every few years they go back and review those same “peer reviews” again, presenting their findings as if they are valid science

Comment on Dead centre by Lori Smith

Lori Smith — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:22:45 +0000

My condolences to Jeff’s family. At least this part will soon be over and they can move on from his senseless death.

Comment on Dancing feat by Sherry Martin

Sherry Martin — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:05:22 +0000

Really looking forward to being at the Gala, the dancing and yes, the hockey all around. Thanks for allowing us to pour our VanAlstine White and Red Port Style Wines with dessert. It’s gonna be so yummy we’ll have to dance all night to work off the extra carbs. Cheers to valentines love in the heart of winter!

Comment on A dangerous mind by David Norman

David Norman — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 05:23:13 +0000

@John Legate
You state, “The government had wide spread consultation before coming up with standards set in the Green Energy Act. To say otherwise is incorrect.” This statement is simply a contrived notion with no merit. Sitting at this “environmental tribunal” (tribunal being an interesting term to use since it normally means “constituted under law” or Government edict, which they were not) were representatives (directors) from 7 ENGO’s, all of whom were stakeholders and would reap benefits from this Act’s implementation. I know of at least one that has already received funding through the Trillium Foundation directly associated with their activities in relation to this Act. And your notions regarding Ostrander may need to be revised… perhaps there is the chance of a settlement in the offing which would allow Gilead to retreat from Ostrander without a financial wound, and McGuinty could dress his wound with the Senate approved Moratorium bandage they recently provided… watch for this one soon, just sayin.

Comment on Council does not know best by Wolf Braun

Wolf Braun — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:47:23 +0000

None of our Councilors and Mayor seem to grasp that we have to have a common purpose – that BINDS AND CONSTRAINS what they can do and try to do – and that prevents them from doing things that they have just found a way to get away with doing.

Comment on A dangerous mind by John Legate

John Legate — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:05:11 +0000

A dangerous mind indeed. I find serious problems with Conroy’s version of reality. First are the job loss studies he references. He didn’t happen to mention the assumptions they made. Here they are: there are no oil spills, fossil fuel prices will remain at their current levels forever, climate change does not exist, the private sector is a better investor than the government Is it any wonder then that a Spanish Libertarian funded by Exxon would reach the conclusions he reached
. Recent history reveals the fallicy of of those assumptions. Oil spills were again headline news in 2010 as they have been for much of my life. As to climate change we need only look to a study by former skeptic Dr. Richard Muller (U. California Berkley). He was funded by the oil billionaires the Koch brothers (also Tea Party funders). He had to admit after reviewing the data climate change is real. Oil prices ? They are up 65% in the last five years. Government investment? The 2008 crash was triggered by private sector investing in sub-prime mortgages. That debacle now is estimated to have cost the US 7.7 trillion (1/2 their GDP) to save the banking system and untold losses in production and personal wealth. No modern democratic government has ever screwed up so bad as the US investment sector. When you make unreasonable assumptions you can get any result you want and that is what the Spanish and British researchers did.

Conroy goes on to talk about McGuinty as someone not given to listening to the public opinion. What it sounds more like to me is he doesn’t like McGuinty not agreeing with his opinion. The government had wide spread consultation before coming up with standards set in the Green Energy Act. To say otherwise is incorrect. It is one of the reasons setbacks was doubled and tripled and in some cases more. I find it disturbing Conroy would question the independence of an environmental tribunal. What he should be stating is the government has put in place a consultive process. Virtually every argument we are likely to hear has been heard before by either a court or a tribunal. Therefore Ostrander Point will have to come up with new arguments if any challenge is to be successful. Since Conroy has presented nothing new in that regard I have to agree with him – oatrander Point will move forward.

Comment on Inching ahead by PEter

PEter — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:50:50 +0000

It’s time to focus on the macro issues surrounding the energy debate in Ontario. I understand our NIMBY obsession. I understand the impact on wildlife. I understand the impact on the natural landscape of the County. I live here, too! In my opinion, to continue beat the proverbial micro-issue drum is a waste of time. Look where it’s got us to date. The industrial wind turbines are coming regardless of how loud we scream. We need to dig in to find out the ‘why’. Simply put, are the macro issues shaping the direction of energy generation in Ontario? If so, is there really anything County residents can do to change it?

Since the events of 911 and the blackout of 2003, the US has become ultra obsessed with energy availability, reliability and security. In addition, the peak oil issue has further served to intensify the debate. And because Ontario’s energy system is so heavily integrated with the North American grid, there is a price to pay. Energy decisions we used to make independent of America must now be made with consideration to compliance standards set out by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). Ontario is directly tied and committed to NERC through our Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

Okay, so what does all this mean?

We need to immediately begin a process whereby we call on Mr. Kramp, Mr. McGuinty and the current federal and provincial Minister’s of Energy to explain whether or not Ontarians have unwillingly/unknowingly given up sovereign rights related to energy generation via our commitments to NERC. In other words, is NERC policy and our commitment to them dictating Ontario’s energy direction? Let’s shame them into having to come clean. Let’s shine a light where it’s dark!

Check out:

http://www.nerc.com
http://ieso.ca