Councillor seeks support to declare County is ‘Not a Willing Host’ for turbines
Administrator | Apr 23, 2013 | Comments 28
Councillor Robert Quaiff will seek support at tonight’s Prince Edward County council meeting to declare “that Prince Edward County is ‘Not a Willing Host’ for Wind Turbine Development.”
About 90 municipalities across the province have passed, or are reviewing, such resolutions.
The resolution states:
WHEREAS the Premier of Ontario has recently conveyed the Government’s desire to limit Industrial Wind Turbine (IWT) Projects to communities that are willing hosts;
AND WHEREAS Council for the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward has received a clear message from its residents that they are not willing to host to IWT’S in Prince Edward County;
AND WHEREAS Council for the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward has taken a consistent position on the issue to IWT’s;
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Council for the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward applauds the position taken by the Premier and the Government;
AND THAT based on the consistent position of Council for the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward and the input received from the community regarding IWT’s, the Province of Ontario and specifically the Ministry of Environment be now advised that the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward is not a ‘willing host’ for IWT’s;
AND THAT this resolution be circulated to Premier Kathleen Wynne, as well as to the Minister of Environment, Minister of Energy, Minister of Rural Affairs.
Council will also review a letter from the Township of Wainfleet to the premier and decide on endorsing recommended ‘Changes to Site Rules for Energy Projects’; and will review support to that township’s resolution as it relates to not being a ‘Willing Host’ for Industrial Wind Turbines.
Filed Under: Local News
Do you really think that the Fraser Institute would promote a carbon tax, mandatory reductions in fossil fuel consumption, and other “conventional” methods that would reduce CO2 production?
An interview with Eric Gillespie about a landmark decision in Superior Court this week. Sadly, too little, too late for the County.
http://www.zoomerradio.ca/uncategorized/podcast-goldhawk-fights-back/gfb-podcast-eric-gillespie-april-25th/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gfb-podcast-eric-gillespie-april-25th
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/26/green-energy-act-ontario-government-still-sees-no-evil
The Green Energy “Plan” that wasn’t.
“Earlier this month the Fraser Institute published a report sharply critical of one of the flagship policies of the Ontario government, the Green Energy Act (GEA). We found the Act is costing Ontario over $5 billion annually but yields negligible environmental benefits, and that equivalent or greater benefits could have been achieved using conventional pollution control measures at less than one-tenth the cost.”
As long as it isn”t one of the many scientists that are in conflict of interest with big business making a fortune off of this. The CO reduction from this scam is so miniscule it is not worth mentioning.
Listen to the scientists, Mark.
Climate change is a matter that needs urgent considerations. Increasing world population is a factor making addressing the source of energy even more urgent.
The bigger threat to earth as we know it is over population and an adequate supply of fresh water.
I am wondering why Countylive has not covered the results of the vote on this motion. This story should definitely have been followed up with the details of what transpired in council.
Al,
I do not know if your 1/3 estimate is accurate but will accept your word. No one is naïve enough to think that no energy goes into creating 100% green energy. It takes energy to create any energy, green or dirty – solar, hydro, nuclear. That is a given.
But reducing the carbon footprint by 2/3 is pretty impressive.
The point is, wind is a step in the right direction, a direction that if we do not begin to follow, we will not be worried about saving the earth. We will be worried about saving ourselves from what the earth will shoot back at us. The earth will survive, humans may not.
Nicely put Al.
It is disturbing to find so many people uninformed about IWTs. They talk of saving planet earth from carbon/coal/oil/gas . . . everyone talks of GREEN energy. Wind turbines seem NOT to have a carbon footprint right? WRONG 1/3rd of the life of a IWT is a carbon footprint. Take the mining of the ore, transportation,smelting, moulding to ingots, transportation, rolling and manufacturing of parts, transportation to location, (you need to take into consideration the carbon footprint of computers used to design the IWTs), widening of roads, 800 tones of concrete per turbine (take into account the excavation of materials and their transport) bulldozing of sight along with construction of access roads, assembly of IWTs. Construction of transmission lines (remember they had to be manufactured from raw materials, and the equipment.) The fossil fuels and electricity used all ad up to approximately 1/3 of the 20 year life of a IWT. Now who said they were 100% Green Carbon Clean? Shall we talk useless on demand? Solar is less dangerous and less of an eye sore. Remember, there are large windy tracks of land away from People and Important Bird areas. These IWT corporation prefer to place their factories in communities where the infrastructure is already there. Roads, power grid. They spend less money make more profit . . . corporate greed at your expense 🙂 GREEN WASHING “All for future generations and saving the planet.”
@ Rightie… I see what you mean! The acceptance of Industrial Wind Turbines is like a penance for our Co2 sins. However, I would prefer to say perhaps 7 “Holy Industrial Wind Turbines” or perhaps even engage some self flagellation, or even more radically perhaps “make do with less” rather than express more human arrogance by despoiling the environment further with omnipresent Industrial Wind Turbine eco-crucifixes.
I don’t know if ‘climate change’ exists or not.
I do know that you don’t fix one problem by creating an even greater problem!
David, Marnie and Karen,
I love to be “Right”, but about climate change is one time that I truly hope I am wrong.
However, but with so much evidence in our face, we need to act as if is true until the scientist prove otherwise. The stakes are too high not to heed the warnings.
David Norman and Marnie,
I viewed the George Carlin video. (made in 2008 incidentally since when there has been consensus amongst scientist that climate change seen recently IS a result of human activity, and not simply the natural slower changes seen in the past).
It is sad to hear someone mock those who want real change as he does, and who feeds into our natural wish not to believe that what we are doing is contributing to climate change. He is right, we do not need to save the planet from ourselves, it is ourselves who need to be saved from ourselves, our actions.
Global warming does not mean, unfortunately, nicer and warmer summers. It means that the overall increased temperature of the earth will result in crazy patterns, many of which will see winter in the wrong place and time (like this spring), AND crazy stuff like one-in-a-hundred-year-storms occurring one every 25 years (Hurricane Sandy, Katrina etc)
In the event there is a major climate event that affects us globally, there will be massive and drastic measures taken to help us live with the new climate, and to prevent it from getting any worse. A few wind turbines will look pretty innocent compared to what we may need to face. On the others hand, the scientist tell us that even if we went to ) emissions worldwide today, the damage done will result in changed climate anyways, as it is too late.
So go ahead as George says, keep wasting and destroying our ability to live here, it is probably too late anyways. Incidentally, does anyone know what he died of so young? Maybe a cancer from some polluted air he breathed in for decades or some food poisoned by all the chemicals in it?
Sure, burning of fossil fuels from automobile, and meat are major contributors to climate change. But energy for homes and business has been a major contributor as well. Nuclear is taking care of that however.
If the we cannot accept wind farms, will we ever accept limits on driving, banning fossil fuel cars, banning meat? Of course not. And do you want more nuclear and all the expense that goes with nuclear (not to mention the risk of disastrous accidents, vulnerability to terrorism, and the even looming dilemma as to what to do with the waste)?
David Norman, in a recorded vote, Barb Proctor voted AGAINST the motion. She was joined by Marisett, Forrister, MacDonald and Gail. The motion passed 11 to 5.
Thank you David and The PEC Council.
@ Terry… the vote was 11 to 5 against having IWTs in the County. A notable “for” vote was that of South Marysburgh Councillor Barb Proctor.
@ Karen… the 2005 UN report on energy consumption in relation to the release of Co2 and other potent Green House Gases (GHG) responsible for climate change, ranks the emissions of cars and transportation vehicles significantly above that of those from coal and natural gas power generation. Interestingly, the greatest source of GHGs originates from the production of meat, accounting for over 17%.
@ Rightie – the single largest use of fossil fuels in North America is the combustion engine not energy generation. We need to address improved transit in cities like Toronto – which has the longest commute in North America. Hydro and nuclear are both fossil fuel free and emission free sources of energy generation and account for approximately 85% of all energy generation in Ontario. So, stop using the fossil fuel argument in energy generation. It just doesn’t make sense.
What was the result of the vote?
About that climate change Rightie. We have all heard about global warming. Is this weather typical of it?
How many times have we been told that something is “good” only to be informed a few years later that it was completely wrong and actually could be harmful? How can the destruction of our county as we know it be good for this generation or the next?
http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/04/23/wind_turbines_have_reduced_property_values_court_says.html
“(Madam Justice)Healey noted that the landowners near the proposed wind farms had submitted expert opinion estimating that drop in land values of 20 to 50 per cent.
She said the landowners can file a damage claim when the project clears all of its regulatory approvals.
“It is possible . . . that they may he wronged by one or more of the defendants committing a tort in the future when and if the Fairview Wind Project is either given approval and/or constructed,” she wrote.”
@ Rightie… I recommend you watch the video on “climate change” on the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4.
We need to go with the times. Alternative energy choices to fossil fuel which is killing the planet must be developed, and soon. Doesn’t anyone see that this spring weather is a clear sign that climate change is real and here to stay.
Quit blocking the road to the future, and the future of your children and grandchildren.
Congratulations to Councillor Quaiff and all the citizens that turned out to support him. Congratulations to most of the Councillors that supported the motion
I have been informed that MacDonald, Marriset, Forrester Proctor and Gale opposed it.
Since 90 other municipalities have passed this same bill, I am glad to see that PEC is among them
Other than the vote in South Marysburgh, has there been a County wide vote about wind power? Does Councillor Quaiff know that the majority of County residents are opposed?
Let’s turn out to support Councillor Quaiff. He has put a lot of effort into the opposition to turbines.The only people who seem to be pro are landowners who benefit from renting their land.