Letter to Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Letter written by County resident and business owner Carlyn Moulton, addressed to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, with copies to Dalton McGuinty, Jim Bradley (Minister of the Environment), Todd Smith and Peter Kent (federal Minister of the Environment.

December 22, 2012

Dear Commissioner,

It beggars belief that in the name of being “green”, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has approved the destruction of the southeastern portion of Prince Edward County for a wind turbine project known as Ostrander Point. Virtually every environmental group in the country has made detailed submissions pointing out that this is the worst possible location that could be imagined. It is an Important Bird Area, a critical migratory flight path and breeding habitat for millions of birds, many endangered. It would qualify as an ANSI, or area of natural and scientific interest, because of its unique features.

Then to add insult to injury, in a cynical and grinch-like act that can only be seen as calculated and manipulative,  the announcement is made on December the 20th, allowing 15 days for the public to comment or appeal. If the current government had any interest in participatory democracy, it would have picked another date. As this is not the first time  that this has been done (as you yourself have pointed out), we have to assume that this wasn’t merely inept or absent-minded ignorance of the calendar and holiday season, but a willful thumbing of the nose to those that might wish to spend the holidays with their children as opposed to with their lawyers.

 The effects on the natural environment are not restricted to the Ostrander Point wind project and its nine turbines – wind projects are planned or proposed on many sites along the north shore of Lake Ontario at the eastern end. What is the cumulative effect of these projects? They can’t just be considered one by one.  The following table of projects and turbines lists those along the shore or in the water of eastern Lake Ontario.  Most would be located within or adjacent to Important Bird Areas. (In Prince Edward County four other projects, totalling 47 turbines, are also proposed and awaiting ECTs.)

Wind Project	Status	No. Of Turbines
Ostrander Point	OPA Contract	9
White Pines	OPA Contract	29-30
Amherst Island	OPA Contract	30-35
Ernestown	OPA contract	4-6
Wolfe Island	Operating	86
Loyalist I and II	Awaiting ECT	21
White Pines II	Proposed	36
Dorland	Proposed on Gilead website	20-40
Wolfe Island Shoals	Subject to offshore moratorium	60-150
Trillium I and II	Subject to offshore moratorium	282
Total of land-based Turbines		199-227
Total of all proposed Turbines		541-659

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s impossible to conclude that such numbers would not be an obstacle to migrating birds or a transformation of the natural environment.

Prince Edward County is also well known for organic vegetable farms, wineries and other farms. Wind turbines cause a shift in air pressure that collapse bat lungs and kills them. Bats eat insects. Insects eat fruit and vegetables. Without bats, insect populations increase significantly, and therefore, so does pesticide use. This is not rocket science. So why would we, in the name of the environment, allow for an industrial development that is surely to trigger a rise in pesticide use?

One can only imagine that there must be some sort of staggering electrical power shortage, plunging us all into the dark without this sort of destructive and permanently damaging project – which must surely save us all?

Except of course, we have a surplus of power. Ontario is a net exporter of power and has been for years. http://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html  publishes our surplus on a daily basis. Today, as I write, we have a “capacity” of almost double our current need. And it is a surplus that far exceeds our current use of coal – so that is a red herring.

And if we needed more, Quebec seems to be awash in cheap, renewable, hydro power. Maybe they might sell us some for a fraction of the price that we will end up paying to Gilead Power while they destroy Ostrander Point.

It hardly seems that we have a crisis of such a magnitude that we are compelled to give up public lands that are magnificent, unique, and critical to sustaining the natural environment to a private company who will reap a handsome profit from its destruction, and reaping artificially high rates, guaranteed by our government (but paid for by the people) for years to come.  

This project is unnecessary, irresponsible, and against the interests of the public good and the environment.

The government’s stubborn pursuit of a wrong-headed policy, despite all evidence to the contrary, is damaging the very communities it is meant to protect and represent. 

If the government was serious about reducing carbon emissions, making sure a serious public transit system was implemented around the GTA or along the 401 would seem to me to be a much better investment. Most of Ontario’s emissions aren’t from energy generation, they are from transportation – as anyone who took a day to inform themselves would know.

Sincerely,

Carlyn Moulton

Fraser report critical of Ontario wind policy

 Ontario consumers will pay $285 million more annually for residential electricity and Canada could lose 41,000 full-time-equivalent jobs over a 20-year period due to Ontario’s subsidization of renewable energy, concludes a new study from the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public policy think-tank.

The calculations for the residential sector are based on a Statistics Canada analysis using its Interprovincial Input-Output Model, commissioned by the Fraser Institute.

Gerry Angevine is a Fraser Institute senior economist and co-author of A Sensible Strategy for Renewable Electrical Energy, which analyzes the economics of technologies used to generate electricity, associated technical issues, and, using Ontario’s feed-in-tariff program as a case study, some of the broader effects that renewable energy policies might have on the North American economy.

Read more of this eye-opening  study at Folly of Ontario’s renewable energy program . 

If the Ontario government won’t protect our wildife, perhaps this report will encourage it to protect jobs and consumers.

Vote on Globe and Mail’s Wind Turbine Poll

The Globe and Mail,Canada’s most influential newspaper, is conducting an online poll on further wind development.  At last look the “NO” votes were at 59% .  Let’s do everything we can to get that number up.   Please cast your vote and send this link to family members and friends so they may participate in the poll as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/ontarios-green-dream-was-just-a-fantasy/article2369422

(The poll is to the left of Margaret Wente’s article, about half way down) 

For the most part, the Globe and Mail article focuses on the soaring costs to taxpayers.  SSC members are well aware of the immeasurable cost to the natural environment.  We must continue our efforts to raise awareness of the impact of these “hulking metal towers” on birds and on all forms of wildlife.

Thank you for participating in the poll.

Environmental Commissioner says Ontario government ignores endangered species

 (Toronto- November 29, 2011) The Government of Ontario is not taking sufficient steps to protect and recover the province’s imperilled species. This warning was issued by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Gord Miller, in his 2010/2011 Annual Report released today at Queen’s Park.

“Ontario’s Endangered Species Act is a good law that has the potential to make a real difference,” said Gord Miller. “However, the government is not making the tough choices about what it will and will not do to protect species at risk. Rather than taking decisive action, much of what the government is doing has become an empty bureaucratic exercise with little benefit for endangered species.”

The government released its plans to address the recovery of 13 species at risk in November 2010. The Environmental Commissioner’s report found that the government’s commitments in the majority of these plans do the bare legal minimum to address these species. The government is taking a backseat in its own program by offloading key actions, creating a situation in which the on-the-ground recovery of species at risk might only occur if external, voluntary groups step up. Further, the government is not providing stakeholders with the necessary information on how to carry on with business, if appropriate, when species at risk are present.

“Protecting endangered species must first be framed by science, and then political and social choices can be made,” stated the Environmental Commissioner. “Instead, the government has so muddied the process that it is difficult to decipher science from politics. The result for Ontario is that the loss of biodiversity continues unchecked.”

The Environmental Commissioner’s report found the Ministry of Natural Resources is sending mixed messages in its conservation efforts for species at risk:

 The Ministry of Natural Resources allows the hunting and trapping of some species at risk, such as snapping turtles and eastern wolves which are both species of special concern.

 The Ministry of Natural Resources has failed to provide the public with a clear picture of where Ontario’s threatened woodland caribou are and what will be done to actually conserve their habitat