How does the Green Energy Act threaten our Natural Heritage in Ontario

8/6/2019 How does the Green Energy Act threaten our Natural Heritage in Ontario

1/40

How does the Green EnergyAct threaten our

health & natural heritage?


2/40

THE SPIN:

Developers and the Ontario Government want us to believe that industrial

wind turbines are necessary to cut CO2 emissions and shut down polluting

coal plants.

(However, coal produces only 4% of Ontarios CO2 emissions while

automobile traffic produces 40%).

THE FACTS:

Because wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, it must be backed

up by fossil fuelled electricity generation to stabilize the grid. (Germany

has had to build more coal plants to stabilize its wind power and increased

CO2 emissions). Ontario will be building more gas plants, running them on

standby inefficiently, producing even more pollution.

Wind turbines cant replace coal plants and they will do

nothing to reduce smog in Ontario because most of our

remaining smog precursors originate in the U.S. -- Dr. RossMcKitrick, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph.


3/40

Wind power. . . can not make a

significant contribution to reducing

greenhouse gas emissions.Peter Lang, energy production engineer, 2009

As the level of wind capacityincreases, the CO2 emissions actually

increase as a direct result of having to

cope with the variation of wind-power

output.Irish Electricity Supply Board (ESB) National Grid

Study, 2004

CO2 emissions saved by wind turbines : close to 0

Wind turbines . . . have produced no

environmental benefit in Germany in

terms of lowering of CO2 emissions.Rhein-Westfalia (Germany) Institute for Economic

Research study, 2009

Despite huge investments, wind-

generated electricity has had minimal,

if any, impact on carbon dioxide

emissions in Colorado and Texas.Robert Bryce , energy researcher, Wall Street

JournalAugust 24, 2010

Thermal power plants in the compensation of fluctuating

production of windmills eliminate the major part of the

expected positive effect of wind energy. . .Tallinn Technical University, Estonia study 2003


4/40

THE SPIN:

Developers andthe government tell

us industrial wind

turbines have no

adverse effect on

human health.

THE FACTS:

Internationalmedical expertsdispute this.


5/40

Government &

industry spin

Flaws in research:

Government of

Ontario Ministers

No proven health

risks

Frequently quote

industry

commissionedreport and CMOH

review

No patients

interviewed

No original

research

Chief Medical

Officer of Health

(CMOH), DrArlene King

Review

Noproven health

link to turbines

Based on industry

commssioned

report andincomplete

literature search

No patients

interviewed

No original

research

CanWEA/AmWEA

industry Expert

Panel Report

Concluded that

there was not

even anypossibilityof

adverse health

effects being

caused by wind

turbines

Carefully selected

literature

No patients

interviewed

No original

research

Qualifications of

experts

questioned


6/40

Serious warnings --issued by credible institutions ignored by Ontario

government

The National

Institutes Of

Health (NIH)(part of the U.S.

Department of Health

and Human Services)

Wind energy will undoubtedly create noise, which

increases stress, which in turn increases the risk of

cardiovascular disease and cancer.

--(Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 116, pg A237 238, 2008).

French National

Academy Of

Medicine

The sounds emitted by the blades being low frequency, . . .

constitute a permanent risk for the people exposed to them.

. . . The Academy recommends halting wind turbineconstruction closer than 1.5 km from residences. (2006)

The Maine

Medical

Association

Wind turbines generate a broad spectrum of low-intensity

noise. . . [which] may affect some people in their homes,

especially at night: Sleeplessness and headache are the mostcommon health complaints.

Health Canada In fact, there are peer reviewed scientific articles indicating

that wind turbines may have an adverse impact on human

health. (2009)


7/40

Observations of physicians on real

patients

More studies ignored by Ontario

government

Dr. Christopher Hanning, British Sleep

Medicine specialist, of UniversityHospitals in Leicester

In my expert opinion, from my

knowledge of sleep physiology and areview of the available research, I have

no doubt that . . . industrial wind

turbines generate sufficient noise to

disturb the sleep and impair the health

of those living nearby. . . . Ill health has

driven families from homes which werearound 900m from wind turbines.

Dr Amanda Harry (2007), a UK GP,

conducted surveys of residents living

near turbine sites and reported a similar

constellation of symptoms from all sites.

A study of 42 respondents showed that

81% felt their health had been affected,

in 76% it was sufficiently severe to

consult a doctor and 73% felt their life

quality had been adversely impacted.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, United States a very detailed, peer-reviewed case-

control study of 10 families . . .

anxiety, fearfulness, sleep disturbance

and irritability. Pierpont offers compelling

evidence that these symptoms arerelated to low frequency sound.


8/40

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum of the Northern

Maine Medical Center presented his

findings to the Maine MedicalAssociation.

His study compared effects on those

living nearby and those unaffected,

some distance from turbines.

His patients are experiencing serious

health problems related to shadow flicker

and noise emissions from the turbinesnear their homes.

Symptoms: sleep disturbance, headaches,

dizziness, weight changes, possible

increases in blood pressure, increased

prescription medication use.Symptoms coincide with the time when

the turbines were first turned on in

December 2006.

Dr. Robert Thorne of the Australian

Acoustical Society, an Environmental

Health Research Associate at Massey

University, New Zealand.

Found people living within 1 to 4.3 km of

the Waubra, Australia wind project

complained ofsleep disturbance,

headaches, sore eyes, ringing in the ears,

earaches, dizziness, loss of balance and

high blood pressure.


9/40

Dr. Alec Salt, Professor of Otolaryngology

at Washington University, St Louis, told

the Picton, Ontario conference last

autumn:

Allowing turbines to be located 550

metres from people's homes is insane.

He analyzed the infrasound from the

turbines-- sound waves of less than 20

cycles per second.

Although you cannot hear such low

frequency sound, it . . . can have effects

on the body.

We are only just beginning to understand

that infrasound can disturb sleep,probably by stimulation of subconscious

neural pathways to the brain. Sleep

disturbance over a prolonged period is

known to be extremely hazardous to

health, causing high blood pressure,

diabetes and increased mortality . . . forpeople living in homes up to 5 kilometers

away from the wind turbines.


10/40

Australian physician Dr. Sarah Laurie She is so concerned that she has

recommended to people within five

kilometres of the Waubra wind farm tocheck their blood pressure with a 24-hour

monitor and see a doctor if it is over

140/80 when they first awake in the

morning.

Epidemiologist Dr. Carl Phillips, Professorof Public Health Policy, University of

Texas Medical School

There is ample scientific evidence to

conclude that wind turbines cause

serious health problems for some people

living nearby. The action of people

choosing to leave their homes at

considerable inconvenience and financial

loss rather than endure the adverse

effects of the turbines provides an

objective measurement in epidemiology

of what would otherwise be subjective

phenomena.


11/40

In Ontario, --- people have had to leave their homes

135 have reported adverse health effects--- councils have requested the ontario government for a moratorium

on turbine developments until health studies have been completed.

--government ministers continue to insist there is no problem.

Dr. Robert McMurtry, former Dean of

Medicine at the University of Western

Ontario (recently appointed to the Order

of Canada):

His health survey has found 135 Ontario

families suffering adverse health effects

from industrial wind turbines.

Many have been forced to leave their

homes.

The Review by Ontario Chief Medical

Officer of Health Dr. Arlene King has little

relevance for an emerging technology

because it didnt bother to investigate

complaints of actual patients.

Its conclusions are not even supported

by the content of the references cited.

The review admits that Ontario doesnt

have a protocol to verify compliance

with existing wind turbine noise limits

nor appropriate guidelines for wind

turbine low frequency noise.

The Review was a government-

convened attempt to justify unsoundpractices of wind turbine development

while denying the adverse health

effects being reported by Ontario

families.


12/40

THE SPIN:

Developers and the government tell us industrial wind turbines have a benign

effect on the environment.

THE FACTS:

However, international biologists have concluded that

wind turbine developments placed near important wildlife areas have a long

term, irreversible, destructive effect upon these habitats.

The effect is cumulative, and increases the longer the wind turbines remain in

place.


13/40

How wind turbines affect sensitive habitats

Biologists are most concerned about habitat disruption anddisturbance, leading to long term irreversible abandonment

Access roads, towers, rotating blades and new power lines

fragment habitats and create barriers leading to collision

mortality for birds and bats (especially songbirds, waterfowland raptors)

Disruptive noise and vibration, particularly prolonged

intermittent and low frequency, lead to reproductive

difficulties and species decline

This will inevitably result in loss of biodiversity


14/40

Consider how wind turbine construction will impact wildlife

46 turbines in a project: Constructiontime:

up to 1year

Background noise increased

from 25-30dB to 40-60+ dB

40km of access roads will fragmenthabitat

13,018 triaxel gravel trucks (46x283 loads per road) will be needed to

build access roads,plus thousands ofheavy component transports, cranes,excavation equipment and concretemixers

93km of excavation trenches will beneeded to bury collector cables

46,000+ tonnes concrete and steelrebar used in 6-30 foot deep tower

platforms

90ft deep steel piles driven down toanchor platforms

Miles of new transmission lines along

roadsides and loss of hundreds of CO2absorbing trees and wildlife refuge

When construction starts the first to disappear are the frogs, uncommon birds and the deer.


15/40

Collision mortality with turbines and transmission

lines is increased during adverse weather conditions.

Earth vibrations from wind turbines have been

measured up to ten miles away.


16/40

Study by the Belgian ResearchInstitute for Nature and Forest,

2007

Avoid locating wind farms in regional or internationallyimportant bird or bat areas and/or migration routes

Dr. Mark Avery, Royal Society for

the Protection of Birds, U.K.

Developers should avoid sites that are important to wildlife

Danish biologists 1 km setback from staging areas

Wind turbines must not be placed on flight corridors

between staging and field feeding area

Turbines must not be placed on migratory corridors

Turbines must not be placed in agricultural fields

traditionally used by large flocks offoraging waterfowl.

Dr Scott Petrie, Long Point

Waterfowl

2km setback from staging areas to ensure that there are

sufficient field feeding opportunities between the

staging/loafing areas and the IWT development (Based on

our satellite tracking data of field feeding swans)

Recommendations of international biologists


17/40

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Interim Guidelines to Avoid and

Minimize Wildlife Impacts from

Wind Turbines 2003

1.) Avoid placing turbines in documented locations of any

species of wildlife, fish, or plant protected under the

Federal Endangered Species Act.

2). Avoid locating turbines in known local bird migrationpathways or in areas where birds are highly concentrated.

. . . Examples of high concentration areas for birds are

wetlands, State or Federal refuges [sanctuaries], and

staging areas. . . . Avoid known daily movement flyways

(e.g., between roosting and feeding areas).

3.) Avoid placing turbines near known bat hibernation,

breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies, in migration

corridors, or in flight paths between colonies and feeding

areas.


18/40

Promoters claim office towers, cats and

cars claim more birds and bats than wind

turbines.

. . . as if a greater wrong excuses a lesser.

Even using the scant data inconsistently compiled by consultants

hired by the wind power developers, it is clear that industrial

wind turbines kill many more birds and bats per unit than

these other causes, particularly raptors (such as eagles and

hawks) and migrating bats and songbirds.


19/40

Consider the appalling results for

monitoring on Wolfe Island a project

the MOE approved-- despite numerouswarnings:

The 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Islandcaused more than a 1800 bird and batdeaths in six months. (This means 3600 in ayear).

Seven of the species have been identified asspecies of conservation priority by OntarioPartners in Flight (2006):

2 American Kestrels, 1 Northern Flicker, 1 Black-billed

Cuckoo, 2 Eastern Kingbirds , 1 Bank Swallow, 1Savannah Sparrow , 8 Bobolinks, 28 Tree Swallows , 1Bank Swallow , 2 Barn Swallows 7 Purple Martins

Along with 12 raptors, 3 red tailed hawks and oneMerlin.

The Windsor Star

recently reported the

slaughter of a Bald

Eagle at a wind

turbine site near

Tillsonberg. Eagles are

a protected species.


20/40

Many sites are entirely inappropriate for industrial wind turbine development

Both government and the developers contend they do not place projects in

environmentally sensitive areas.

However, many fragile habitats are now under threat from wind turbine projects.

They include Wolfe Island, Ostrander Point, Peelee Island, Arran Lake Wetlands,

Amherst Island and others. Consider the cumulative effect on threatened species.


21/40

1ST SESSION, 39TH LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO

58 ELIZABETH II, 2009

Bill 150(Chapter 12 Statutes of Ontario, 2009)

An Act to enact the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to build a green economy, to repeal the

Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006and the Energy Efficiency Act and to amend other statutes

The Hon. G. SmithermanMinister of Energy and Infrastructure

1st Reading February 23, 2009

2nd Reading March 11, 2009

3rd Reading May 14, 2009Royal Assent May 14, 2009

Bill 150 was railroaded through parliament in just over 10 weeks with almost no

analysis in the legislature and negligible public discussion.

The secondreading debate followed immediately upon first reading. Opposition

members indicated that they had not had time to fully read and understand the bill.

They were mocked in the House by Mr. Smitherman. His legacy is a highly flawed

undemocratic and regressive Act.


22/40

HOW THE GREEN ENERGY ACTS AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LEGISLATION

UNDERMINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SCHEDULE G ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

The Environmental Protection Act is amended by adding . . .A person who is

engaging in a renewable energy project is exempt from specified

approval and permit requirements.

SCHEDULE K PLANNING ACT

The Planning Act is amended to provide thatthe following do not apply to

renewable energy undertakings:

Policy statements and provincial plans.

Official plans.


23/40

WHAT THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT SAYS:

2.1 Natural Heritage

2.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the

long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems,

should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing

linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface

water features and ground water features.

2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent

lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3,

2.1.4 and 2.1.5 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been

evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative

impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

-- The 1996 Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act (amended in 2005)

.


24/40

Because the GEA disables the Provincial

Policy Statement,

wind turbine developments may be

placed a mere 120 metres from wetlands

or other ANSIs (Areas of Natural and

Scientific Interest)buteven closer if

the proponent provides a study claiming

mitigation measures!

What is the biological justification for

the 120 metre setback when we know

humans are affected even at 5kilometres?


25/40

FUNCTIONAL ECOSYSTEMS

ARE NO LONGER PROTECTED

For example, sensitive wetland creatures depend on the

surrounding uplands for foraging and part of their life

cycle (i.e. frogs, turtles, waterfowl).

Upland woodlands and creeks provide wildlife corridors

vital for survival.


26/40

Example of a threatened Natural Heritage System. All these features

are within site boundaries of the proposed Arran Wind Energy project.

Significant FISH HABITAT

Significant portions of habitat of

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED

SPECIES

Provincially SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS

Significant WILDLIFE HABITAT

Significant WOODLANDS

Rare WOODED DRUMLIN

MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARY and

nationally significant IBA (Important

Bird Area) connected to Arran Lake by

daily migratory corridor for foraging

Significant VALLEY LANDS

Arran Drumlins PROVINCIALLY

SIGNIFICANT EARTH SCIENCES ANSI

(Area of Natural and Scientific

Interest)


27/40

We found 22 threatened or endangered speciesaround Arran Lake at risk from wind turbines, among them:

The Bald Eagle

The Red-headed Woodpecker

The Short-eared Owlseveral kinds of rare snakes and turtles

and even the Grey fox

You may have similar species in your area.


28/40

THE GREEN ENERGY ACT REMOVES CONSERVATION AUTHORITY APROVAL:

SCHEDULE L MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Conservation Authorities ActIf a person requests permission under section 28 of the Act for development

related to a renewable energy project, as defined in section 1 of the Green

Energy Act, 2009, a conservation authority is not allowed to refuse the

permission or to impose conditions on the permission of renewable

energy projects.


29/40

THE GREEN ENERGY ACT UNDERMINES CITIZENS RIGHTS

REVERSAL OF ONUS OF PROOF:

Once a project has been approved by the Ministry of the Environment, individualcitizens have only 15 days to prepare evidence that the development will have an

adverse effect on human health or the environment.

The onus of proof is on the citizen who mustprove adverse health or environmental

effects before the tribunal.

Presentation to the tribunal is very costly requiring lawyers and expert witnesses. This

process leads to citizens being opposed by their own government lawyers as well as

the high priced corporate lawyers of the developer.

Citizens at the recent hearings for the Kent Breezes wind project in Chatham-Kent

found themselves facing the Attorney General, the MOE, MNR and Suncor.

This first challenge under the Green Energy Act established some good points but the

project will go ahead. It cost local residents upwards of $85,000.


30/40

THE GREEN ENERGY ACT REMOVES MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

The GEA makes inoperative any bylaw a municipal council may pass that would

prevent a renewable energy project in their area.

PART II, Section 5,

(2) A person is permitted to use designated goods, services and technologies in such

circumstances as may be prescribed,despite any restriction imposed at law that

would otherwise prevent or restrict their use, including a restriction establishedby a municipal by-law, a condominium by-law, an encumbrance on real property or

an agreement.

Same

(3)A restriction imposed at law that would otherwise prevent or restrict the use of

designated goods, services or technologies is inoperative to the extent that it would

otherwise prevent or restrict the use.


31/40

HOWEVER, THE GEA DOES REQUIRE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

A requirement for community consultation was eventually added to the GEA by the

LieutenantGovernor:

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN ECONOMY ACT 2009

PART I INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL APPLICATION

Definitions and interpretation

2. This Act shall be administered in a manner that promotes community

consultation.


32/40

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION?

Consultation in the Environmental Assessment process comprises

the activities carried out by a proponent to provide a two-way

communication process to involved interested stakeholders in the planning,

implementation and monitoring of an undertaking. -- Guideline on consultation in theenvironmental process published by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in December 2000

Is an open house a two-way communication process or a product showcase?


33/40

A.6.2.1 Public Consultation

The purpose of public consultation in the Environmental Screening Process is to allow the

proponent to identify and address public concerns and issues and toprovide the public with

an opportunity to receive information about and make meaningful input into the project

review and development. Public consultation is required for all projects that are subject to theEnvironmental Screening Process.

Consultation is necessary for the proponent to:

--address the concerns of adjacent property owners, interest groups and members of

the public that may be directly affected by some aspect of the project.

The consultation program must provide appropriate opportunities and forums for the public

to participate in the screening process. Failure to carry out adequate public consultation or to address public issuesor concerns may result in requests to elevate the project.

Public consultation should be commenced early in the screening process and continue

throughout the process as necessary. The proponent is required to maintain a record and mailing list of allparticipants in the consultation process, a record of public concerns and issues, and a record of how any concerns and issues have

been addressed during the Screening or Environmental Review stages.

-- The Guide to EA Requirements for Electricity Projects Part A Overview of EA Requirements


34/40

For the environmental screening, an inadequate yes and no check list is submitted by

the developer. Make sure you research the correct answers to challenge them!

Some of the key questions are:

(Guide to EA Requirements for Electricity Projects Appendices

Criterion Yes No Additional informationMinistry of the Environment Page 71)

Will the project

1.2 have negative effects on ground water quality,quantity or movement?2.1 have negative effects on residential,commercial or institutional land useswithin 500 metres of the site?2.2 be inconsistent with the Provincial Policy

Statement, provincial land use orresource management plans?3.4 cause negative effects from the emission ofnoise?4. Natural Environment4.1 cause negative effects on rare, threatened orendangered species of flora orfauna or their habitat?4.2 cause negative effects on protected natural

areas such as ANSIs, ESAs orother significant natural areas?4.3 cause negative effects on wetlands?4.4 have negative effects on wildlife habitat,populations, corridors ormovement?4.5 have negative effects on fish or their habitat,spawning, movement orenvironmental conditions (e.g., water temperature,turbidity, etc.)?

4.6 have negative effects on migratory birds,including effects on their habitator staging areas?

4.7 have negative effects on locally important orvalued ecosystems orvegetation?6. Socio-economic6.1 have negative effects on neighbourhood orcommunity character?6.2 have negative effects on local businesses,institutions or public facilities?6.3 have negative effects on recreation, cottaging or

tourism?6.8 cause public concerns related to public healthand safety?7. Heritage and Culture7.1 have negative effects on heritage buildings,structures or sites,archaeological resources, or cultural heritagelandscapes?7.2 have negative effects on scenic or aestheticallypleasing landscapes orviews?8. Aboriginal8.1 cause negative effects on First Nations or otherAboriginal communities?9. Other9.1 result in the creation of waste materialsrequiring disposal?9.2 cause any other negative environmental effectsnot covered by the criteria

outlined above?


35/40

WHAT YOU CAN DO . . .

--Submit written questions about your concerns and how the development will effect your

community to the developer. Ask for written replies.

--Keep records of all your attempts to obtain information from the developer. Establish a papertrail including any press coverage. Send copies to your local council, MPP, opposition MPPs, the

Provincial Ombudsman and the Environmental Ombudsman.

--Make your concerns known to your local council. Attend council meetings and make

deputations to council.

--Catalogue information about your local heritage features and wildlife resources using local

experts and provincial online reference material.

--Talk to your friends/relations in the city and let them know how the wind turbines are affecting

peoples health and our environment. Point out that the cost of the wind turbines has a lot to do

with their skyrocketing hydro bill.

--Learn more about the cost and feasibility of commercial wind energy and how it has been

opposed by citizens in every country where it has been installed. Visit windconcernsontario.org

and join your local organization.

--Write letters to the editor. Start with your local paper but try to get information to people in the

cities. Let provincial politicians know that the Liberal governments energy policy is not

acceptable.


36/40

INFORMATION SOURCES

Royal Ontario Museum http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk

COSEWIC assessment and update status reports http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails

Ontario Birds At Risk (OBAR) Site Registry. Rare breeding birds of Ontario, target species. http://www.bsc-

eoc.org/obar.html

MNR Natural Heritage Information Centre Data on rare species in Ontario:

http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/species/listout.

Ministry of Natural Resources Earth Science Database, http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/areas/areas

Conservation Priorities for the Birds of Southern Ontario, (Technical appendicies) http://www.bsc-

eoc.org/conservation/conservmain.html

Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario 2001-2005. Edited by Michael D. Cadman, Donald A. Sutherland, Gegor

G. Beck, Denis Lepage, Andrew R. Coutourier. Toronto: co-published by Bird Studies Canada, Environment

Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, 2007.

Further information is also available from the provincial organization

WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO at:

Website: http://windconcernsontario.org

Email: [email protected]
http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/riskhttp://www.bsc-eoc.org/conservation/conservmain.htmlhttp://www.bsc-eoc.org/conservation/conservmain.htmlhttp://www.bsc-eoc.org/conservation/conservmain.htmlhttp://www.bsc-eoc.org/conservation/conservmain.htmlhttp://www.bsc-eoc.org/conservation/conservmain.htmlhttp://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk


37/40

Do we want this? Or this?


38/40

SUMMARY of the issues

1. Even at a setback of only 550 metres, there are still far too many

people complaining about adverse health effects. There is a move inEngland leaning to 5 km setbacks from homes.

2. Many farmers continue to experience serious health impacts on

livestock resulting from unresolved problems with stray voltage, often

associated with wind turbine installations.

3. Many people living near wind turbines are unable to sleep, experience

continuing stress and increasing health problems. Some have had to

abandon their homes.

4. While wind turbines are being sited unsafely, exposing homes, traffic and

our families to ice throw and blade fragmentation risks, government noise

regulations already in place are being violated on a daily basis.


39/40

5. Our hydro bills are skyrocketing because we are paying twice for windproduced electricity: once with extravagant feed in tariff rates to benefitproducers and a second time to run polluting single-cycle gas plants toback up wind.

6. Real estate values are affected by wind turbine developments. Industrygenerated studies fail to take into account that houses near windturbines remain unsold and are often withdrawn from the market orabandoned.

7. The environmental footprint of a wind turbine is not benign. It doeslittle to save CO2 emissions, does not replace coal, but it is destroying ournatural habitats, endangered species and biodiversity.

Bottom line:

Wind power is undispatchable, unreliable, inefficient and expensive.

Why are we allowing our provincial government to destroy our health,deplete the value of our homes,jeopardize our safety, sell us unaffordable

electricity, degrade our natural heritage and channel our taxes into welfarefor multinational energy companies?


40/40

Learn more at

windconcernsontario.org

Remember, you can help by telling

your neighbours and friends in the

cities about how wind turbine

subsidies are making our hydrobills soar.

How does the Green Energy Act threaten our Natural Heritage in Ontario

Documents