All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Sunday, November 29th, 2020

Community groups organize “Town Hall” on Wind Turbine Impact – April 25

Community groups in Prince Edward County have booked the 450-seat Regent Theatre in Picton for a “Town Hall” meeting on April 25th to discuss ”The Real Impact of Wind Turbines on The County”.

The County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE) has organized this event in response to increased public concern about the looming infiltration of wind energy projects in the County, beginning with a recently-approved nine-turbine project at Ostrander Point, an internationally-recognized Important Bird Area. Two groups are fighting that project at a costly and tedious Environmental Review Tribunal.  Meanwhile other County wind energy projects are in various stages of planning or development.

GONE-WITH-THE-WINDccsageCCSAGE is a coalition of business and citizen groups.  It says current legislation allows turbines too close to residences for safe human habitation, and also endangers wildlife, including migratory birds.  It has demanded that large-scale wind turbines be prohibited within 2km of existing or future home sites and that they should be at least 10km from internationally-recognized Important Bird Areas.  However, the Provincial Government disagrees.  Premier Kathleen Wynne has acknowledged that her government’s process for approving existing projects has been faulty.  She has said that future projects should be allowed only in communities that would be “willing hosts”, but has shown no indication that her new policy is being implemented.  Consequently, more than 100 County residents endured cold winds in Belleville on April 3rd to voice their outrage to Wynne when she was there for another meeting.

Organizers expect to fill the Regent Theatre with concerned citizens attracted by very knowledgeable speakers on turbine-related issues.  There will be presentations by an all-star cast, with Steve Campbell — author, humourist and secessionist — as Master of Ceremonies.

Eric Gillespie, legal counsel for PECFN and APPEC, will update us about the prospects for success of the Ostrander Point appeal.

Cheryl Anderson from PECFN will talk about the natural environment phase of the Ostrander Point Appeal.

Dr. Robert McMurtry, lead medical expert for APPEC, will comment on the human health phase of the Gilead Appeal.

Garth Manning, lawyer and Chair of CCSAGE, will provide some information about effects on residential property values.

Carlyn Moulton, owner of Oeno Gallery, will address the threats to tourism and our local economy from large-scale wind energy development.

Gary Mooney from CCSAGE will provide an overview of all of the wind projects announced for locations throughout the County.

Alan Whiteley, lawyer, will describe a possible class action relating to damages caused by wind turbine construction.

Following the presentations, there will be ample opportunity to ask questions of the speakers. Then there will be an intermission and afterwards, for those who haven’t seen it, a showing of the documentary Wind Rush, originally aired in February on the CBC’s Doc Zone program.

“People want to know what will happen to their health, their livelihood, their property values and their quiet enjoyment of tranquil County spaces when the turbines arrive,”   said Garth Manning, CCSAGE Chair.  “We have put together a program that will help everyone understand the real impact of turbines on Nature, and on this beautiful place where we live,” he said.

Doors open at 6 PM.  Admission is free.  Attendees will be encouraged to give generously, by cash or cheque, in support of legal ERT appeals by APPEC and PECFN, to acquire T-shirts or lawn signs, and to make small cash donations to CCSAGE in support of this event.

For recent developments please visit CCSAGE at www.ccsage.wordpress.com

Filed Under: COMING EVENTS

About the Author:

RSSComments (47)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Henri Garand says:

    Perched in Singapore, safe from Canada’s libel laws, Mike Barnard tries to spread his avian flu via internet defecations. Now he has extended his non-expert commentary to matters of law.

    Countylive readers should ask themselves what motivates Barnard’s interest in the welfare of the County. His pro-wind bias is a clue.

    The Ostrander Point appeal taking place now is an enormous threat to the wind industry. A victory will put a halt to wind development in Ontario and may trigger similar decisions worldwide.

    Of course self-appointed crusaders will defame opponents of wind and try to undermine support for this thoroughly damaging legal action undertaken by APPEC and PECFN.

  2. Mike Barnard says:

    I’ll repeat myself as the Gillespie nonsense is spreading and needs to be stamped out in a few places.

    Read the entire judgment. You’ll find that the Judge clearly states that there is no evidence supporting Gillespie’s claims and that stories to the contrary are based on his press release, not reality.

    “Even though in this case the court accepts that the plaintiffs have suffered, and are currently suffering, losses culminating in diminished property values, as the evidence exists today the plaintiffs are unable to prove that they have been wronged by the defendants. They have not presented any evidence linking the diminution of property values to any tortious conduct.”

    http://www.pembina.org/blog/714

  3. David Norman says:

    @ Mike Barnard… before you point folk to your blog in self glorification you might want to reconsider and revise your stance on property value depreciation, and perhaps your denouncements of Eric Gillespie: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1151369/ontario-court-allows-lawsuits-against-wind-company-and-landowners-just-a-matter-of-time.

  4. Mike Barnard says:

    Do check Eric’s positioning in this necessarily incomplete assessment of anti-wind energy campaigners.

    http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/not-just-nimbys-understanding-anti-wind-energy-campaigners/

  5. Gary Mooney says:

    We’re having the dress rehearsal today for the Big Event on Thursday.

    Although all of the speakers are excellent (except that the jury is still out on me), the star of the show will almost certainly be Eric Gillespie. In his quiet way, he is very compelling and confidence-building.

  6. David Norman says:

    Frances Loch… I state unequivocally that I am not an agent of “Big Oil” or a specific opponent of “Big Wind”. For the most part they are one and the same, ie: Enron, BP, Transalta etc.. I make no distinctions in this respect.
    I did note that when you “paraphrased” my comment you did so unacknowledged, and curiously focused on altering my reference to Mike Barnard’s employer, IBM.

    And although I made no reference to you being “rude” as you disingenuously state: “Please call me rude (but do it rudely!). Please.” I’m not really sure of what you’re requesting of me. Did you mean something like referring to you as a prat? Please provide further direction.

  7. Frances Loch says:

    It’s interesting to note Dave Norman’s “arguing tactics” which consist of wild speculations about his opponents’ eating habits and thought processes (as though he’s stalking them, or possibly telepathic), regurgitating their statements and turning them back on them like a petulant child saying “I’m not stupid! YOU’RE stupid!”, and calling people names (usually “puerile” ensconced in a wall of text full of obfuscating words drawn from his thesaurus (or rhyming dictionary, or dinner menu at his favorite noshing joint), and accusing any and all “pro wind” comments and scientific reports as being “bought” by “Big Wind” and “scientific reports” that are anti wind are certainly NOT bought and paid for by “Big Oil”.

    I’ll make here an example of the kind of “constructive” “mature” and “intelligent” yet “puerile” and “petulant” and “childsish” discourse I’ve seen here over the past many months:

    @ CountyLive… just thought I’d alert you to the fact that in a short time you’ll likely be treated to another breath of Dave Norman’s pro-wind “fresh air”. He arrived on CountyLive from his armchair just before 7a.m. our time, 7p.m. Singapore time. So after shaking off the night’s puerile activity at his home and a nosh to satisfy his hunger, he has once again settled down to thank his pro-wind fans and supporters, and to employ his idiosyncratic rhetorical tactics in a petulant attempt to limit discussion with opponents and express his desire to equivocate. Be patient CountyLive, it will take a little time for his comment(s) to appear here since he has to rewrite and paraphrase everything others write and claim they are suppored by Big Wind, when everyone can clearly see that the anti-winds are supported by Big Oil. Just wanted to give you something to look forward to… wouldn’t want you to become too “myopic and self concerned” over your as yet unrequited worship of him.

    Please, David, continue to “fold back” the above statements so we can have an endless feedback loop of “self congratulatory” nonsense. Please call me out with words I have used (which are based on words you have used, which are based on words Donna has used). Please call me rude (but do it rudely!). Please.

  8. David Norman says:

    @ Donna… just thought I’d alert you to the fact that in a short time you’ll likely be treated to another breath of Mike Barnard’s pro-wind “fresh air”. He arrived on CountyLive from his wordpress blog just before 7a.m. our time, 7p.m. Singapore time. So after shaking off the day’s activity at IBM and a nosh to satisfy his hunger, he has once again settled down to thank his pro-wind fans and supporters, and to employ his idiosyncratic rhetorical tactics in a petulant attempt to limit discussion with opponents and express his desire to equivocate. Be patient Donna, it will take a little time for his comment(s) to appear here since he has included self promoting links to his wordpress blog. Just wanted to give you something to look forward to… wouldn’t want you to become too “myopic and self concerned” over your as yet unrequited worship of him.

  9. Doris Lane says:

    Come on Donna–name calling is that not beneath you.
    I suppose you donot have room for IWT’s on the Ridge road–too many gravel pits.
    We formed a group APPEC because of the threat of turbines. Do you think we enjoy fighting these destructive things and look at all the time and money that the PECFN and APPEC are putting in the ERT .ALL these people would rather use there time and money on something that gives them a little more enjoyment. But they feel the need to try and protect PEC.

  10. Donna says:

    Mike Bernard, you are a breath of fresh air here! Thank you so much for your reasoned and researched comments. The anti-winds here are myopic and self-concerned, and spread so much misinformation. Rather like Noam Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’, many innocent people actually have come to believe them since they are so persistent and pervasive.

    Life in our County was positive and invigorating before the anti-winds began destroying it with their negativity and venom. They are the ones who have had the worst impact on Prince Edward County. Wind turbine farms could have been built without a fuss, much like the solar projects are now, and life here would have gone on as usual.

  11. David Norman says:

    @ Mike Barnard… I noted that you used your business address, IBM Global Business Services, Singapore as your contact address for your “letter to the editor” which presented your attempt to discredit the scientific, peer reviewed study in the Journal, Noise Health, “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health (Year: 2012 ǀ Volume: 14 ǀ Issue: 60 ǀ Pages: 237-43, Web Publication October 29, 2012), by Michael Nissenbaum, Christopher Hanning and Jeff Aramini”. IBM must be a wonderful benefactor of your pro-wind activities… more powerful than even the Koch brothers.

  12. Mike Barnard says:

    @Henri, I thought that might be your response.

    My material references peer-reviewed research, serious studies by major organizations and quotes from credible, independent resources.

    Masterrource.org is a libertarian, fossil-fuel supported, climate-denialist blog. It is associated with the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute, both of which are organizations promoting global-warming denialism and anti-renewables astroturfing. It’s principles worked for Enron and other fine-upstanding environmental organizations. It gets funding from the Koch Brothers and other mid-sized undiversified fossil fuel companies for its aid to them in continuing to be allowed to pollute and cause global warming.

    http://checksandbalancesproject.org/tag/cato-institute/
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_L._Bradley_Jr.
    http://www.desmogblog.com/chip-knappenberger

    You are known by the sources you quote. Citing Masterresource.org makes you a climate-change denialist and a fossil-fuel astroturfer. It makes you someone invested in despoiling the environment and causing global warming for profit.

    I’m sure that’s what you intended.

    The AcousticEcologyInstitute is much more benign, however Jim Cummings is a merely a non-scientist and non-acoustician who wants everyone to just get along. In an attempt to bridge the gap between people who know what they are talking about and anti-wind campaigners, he gets awfully close to anti-wind campaigners, who amusingly spit in his face half of the time not realizing how much he is bending over backwards to accommodate their idiocy. (I’ve had this conversation directly with Jim by the way.)

    As for us having a debate, we weren’t having one. You asked a question, I offered you a deal in which you could return to an evidence-based life and you got all hissy. That’s not a debate, that’s you being manipulative and then petulant.

    Thanks for letting me know that I can add you to my True Believer category in this blog entry: http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/not-just-nimbys-understanding-anti-wind-energy-campaigners/

  13. Henri Garand says:

    @Mike Barnard, I should have known you would try to weasel out of a donation. This was a test of character, Mike, and you have failed miserably to back your opinions with even a trivial contribution. Yet you expect me to abandon common sense and principle for a lousy $100.

    As you well know, hundreds of websites worldwide present facts about the harms of wind development, trying to counter the wind industry’s well-financed, self-serving propaganda. In rebuttal, of course, you reference chiefly your own blog in a vain attempt at self-aggrandizement.

    The basic facts for County readers are on the CCSAGE website, http://ccsage.wordpress.com, and technical background and analysis at such sites as MasterResource, http://www.masterresource.org, and the Acoustic Ecology Institute, http://acousticecology.org . Anyone who reads the material with an open mind will question the value of wind power and the claims of its benign effects.

    Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner has criticized government policies that ignore Important Bird Areas, and Ontario’s Auditor General has commented on the mismanagement and economic folly of ongoing energy development. But I guess their views don’t count for you and other windy sympathizers.

    As for our debate, it’s OVER. I am not wasting any more of my time responding to someone who may think himself a player but is really just a pathetic, misguided meddler in the lives of rural residents.

    Instead, I am returning my attention to what is truly important, the ERT appeal on Ostrander Point. It will soon demonstrate that Ontario regulations do not protect either the rural environment or the health of rural people.

    Do you have the guts to publish this reply unedited on your own blog?

  14. Mike Barnard says:

    @Henri: I am willing to donate $100 CAD specifically to the Ostrander Point campaign you pointed out, but living in Singapore as I do now prevents Paypal from accepting any of my Canadian or Singapore credit cards. There’s a way to do it, but if I’m going to go through the rigamarole, how about a little quid pro quo?

    If I donate $100, you do the following things which won’t cost you a penny:
    – eliminate the fossil-fuel, Koch Brothers focus-grouped term “Industrial Wind Turbines” and variants from your communications, your website and your report.
    – eliminate all references to disproven medical health impacts from your website and communications.
    – eliminate all references to disproven impacts of infrasound from your website and communications.
    – eliminate all fully disproven negative economic impact scares from your website.

    Good deal?

    For evidence of the degree of the inaccuracies you promote and that you are actually causing the problems you pretend to be fighting, please see this material:

    Wind farms don’t harm human health, anti-wind campaigners do. 17 major reviews world wide of all of the available research by credible, independent groups have cleared wind farms of health impacts. Meanwhile, studies in the UK, Australia and New Zealand point the finger at anti-wind lobbyists spreading health fears and jacking up stress. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/wind-farms-dont-make-people-sick-so-why-the-complaints/

    Infrasound produced by wind farms is harmless; humans evolved with infrasound and wind farms produce less than waves on a beach, yet beach front property is in major demand. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/humans-evolved-with-infrasound-is-there-any-truth-to-health-concerns-about-it/

    Wind farms don’t harm property values: five major studies in the US and UK of 46,000 property transactions confirm this. As with health complaints, anti-wind campaigners whipping up fears are responsible for minor lulls before wind farms become operational, with properties often accruing value faster near operational wind farms. This makes sense: more jobs and more tax-revenue funded services make wind farm regions more attractive to people. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/property-values-evidence-is-that-if-wind-farms-do-impact-them-its-positively/

    Wind farms bring in so much revenue to the local community that towns are eliminating property taxes. http://vtdigger.org/2013/03/08/in-northeast-kingdom-wind-power-brings-in-tax-cuts-and-rising-legal-fees/

    What do you say, Henri? I commit funds to the part of your local opposition that makes sense and you drop all of the fear-mongering BS for the larger area and stick solely to the truth and specific siting concerns for specific wind farms?

    Seems like a fair trade to me.

  15. Henri Garand says:

    @Mike Barnard

    If you’re now persuaded that Ostrander Point isn’t suitable for wind turbines, why not help us to defend it?

    Make a donation at http://www.saveostranderpoint.org.

  16. David Norman says:

    @ Mike Barnard… your statement “The Rogue Primate of Bloomfield appears to think that global warming and its impact on wildlife and the environment is a myth or conspiracy theory”, is an unfounded and I must say, unwarranted assertion, “hysterically overblown”!

    I’m fully aware that you are a well connected and informed advocate in this respect and that your acquiescence to inappropriate siting of the Industrial Wind Turbines project at Ostrander is simply a strategy to permit the great green unwashed to “win a battle’ so that Industrial Wind Turbine proponents will “win the war”. It would prove to be politically expedient, particularly for current Ontario Liberals and the wavering ENGOs. I do indeed recognize your sphere and strategy of influence… speaking of which, in your perspective is Margaret a suitable candidate for the “transcendentalite’s”?

    Your presentation of Industrial Wind Turbine development in the form of a “transcendental realism” in this respect, at war with an “unscientific” self interested conspiratorial foe, is quite “enlightening” an indicative of your sociopathology.

    And just so you’re clear on my motivations, I have never considered myself “persuasive”, just curious.

  17. Mark says:

    I was fairly certain that most of the theory folks making money off the environment didn’t use the catch phrase “Global Warming” anymore. They now use “climate change”. That’s because the planet has cooled by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming folks got a little red faced. The roughly 200 active volcanoes on the planet spew out more green house gasses than the total population. In fact the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland since its first spewing of ash, in just 4 days negated every single effort humans made in the prior 5 years to control CO2 emissions. Carbon is necessary to support life and it has for thousands of years. But hey, make money off it if you can! The almighty dollar is most important even if it means scaring people into believing the hoax.

  18. Mike Barnard says:

    The Rogue Primate of Bloomfield appears to think that global warming and its impact on wildlife and the environment is a myth or conspiracy theory.

    I’m sure others reviewing this comment thread will reasonably distance themselves from this ignorant and unfounded position and continue to work toward the best outcomes for our environment and the wildlife within it.

    I’m sure they’ll find the rest of his non-arguments equally unpersuasive.

  19. David Norman says:

    @ Mike Barnard… your most recent comment on this thread is well crafted and orchestrated. You do indeed excel at “cut and paste” skills and your “name dropping” (Margaret Atwood)for colloquial credibility seems to serve you well. The inclusion and link to Diane Saxe, who both you and Simon Chapman have taken to endorsing in mutual admiration, also appeared persuasive. You neglected, this time, to state that after you engaged Margaret Atwood on her blog in relation to Industrial Wind Turbine development that you went to great lengths for you and her to “do lunch” on a couple of occasions, or so you have made claim… perhaps you were holding that back to reinforce your perspective on this “relationship”, should a subsequent comment become necessary. The only glaring assumption you introduced was, in your own words “I’m sure that you’ll agree that wind energy has a strong role to play in reducing global warming and the negative impacts of pollution and habitat destruction from fossil fuel generation.”

    Your attempted contrivance regarding the origin of “Industrial Wind Turbine” terminology as a Koch brother conspiratorial strategy was entertaining. If it looks like an Industrial Wind Turbine, is purposed, created and regulated like an Industrial Wind Turbine, it is an Industrial Wind Turbine… referring to them as “wind mills” is deceiving and disingenuous.

    David Norman, Rogue Primate of Bloomfield

  20. Mike Barnard says:

    @Ms. Lucas. Thank you for providing referenced individuals and a link. This allows a useful assessment of the actual risk.

    For context, I debated with Margaret Atwood and many of the usual suspects on Ms. Atwood’s blog the potential placement of a wind farm off of Point Pelee in Eastern Lake Erie a few years ago. In that case, I agreed after analysis that the offshore wind farm would have been inappropriately sited due to the specific birds and the specific siting.

    I would point out that “industrial wind turbine” was created and spread by the Koch Brothers, who focus-grouped it and started promoting it about a decade ago. As you know, the Koch Brothers, the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute are fossil-fuel funded deniers of global warming and the polluting effects of fossil fuels. I would suggest that if you would like to continue to have useful discussions about specific siting concerns for Ostrander Point with actual data that you drop that phrase from your vocabulary.

    I’m sure that you’ll agree that wind energy has a strong role to play in reducing global warming and the negative impacts of pollution and habitat destruction from fossil fuel generation. These are serious impacts on overall bird populations and put species at risk. As such, the question has to be for specific wind farms, do they put endangered or at risk species at further risk, or are they likely to tip bird species at the verge of being at risk into an at risk status. Anything below that standard is insufficient to warrant significant changes to wind farm placement.

    PECFN’s expert witness, Bill Evans, stated on the stand and under oath on April 8:
    “The project would not affect migratory birds at the population level, but it would affect local populations of breeding birds.” This statement by the expert clearly does not meet that standard.

    Another expert witness for the complainants, Ted Cheskey, stated that there was insufficient evidence to say if there would be an impact on April 5 and then invoked the Precautionary Principle. Once again, no specific species at risk or endangered, just a concern.

    Given the very well known impacts of fossil fuel generation and global warming, this is insufficient.

    Dr. Frederic Beaudry’s testimony on the Blandings Turtles is much more compelling. It is an endangered specie, and his concerns about mitigations being potentially ineffective are reasonable and of concern. I’d be very supportive of more stringent mitigations and re-siting of specific turbines to prevent impacts here. I’d be interested in more discussion about his assertion that the only successful approach being prevention of all access roads, but he may very well be right and if so, this puts very significant and reasonable limits on the Ostrander Point proposed wind farm. This is a useful discussion that can be had around a specific impact.

    Similarly, Dr. Paul Catling’s testimony about the danger to the alvar vegetation is compelling and on point. This too is a reasonable discussion about a specific point.

    Dr. Robert Barclay’s testimony on bats wasn’t as compelling, but he still made a very good point about two species of Ontario bats being at risk due to white nose syndrome, although I’ve been unable to confirm in a the time I’ve spent on this that these specific bats migrate through Ostrander Point.

    That all said, the most compelling argument appears to be the following list from Diane Saxe’s EnviroLaw blog on the Ostrander Point project. (http://envirolaw.com/ostrander-point-wind-birds/)

    Species At Risk at Ostrander Point

    14 priority species listed by Ontario Partners in Flight 2008 breed at Ostrander Point.

    Northern Harrier, Whip-poor-will (End), Black-billed Cuckoo, Northern Flicker, Willow Flycatcher, Eastern Kingbird, Wood Thrush, Brown Thrasher, Field Sparrow. Savannah Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Eastern Towhee, Eastern Meadowlark (Thr), and Baltimore Oriole.

    19 Species At Risk found at Ostrander Point including Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened), Common Musk Turtle (Threatened), Milksnake (special concern), Monarch Butterfly (special concern), Whip-poor-will (Threatened), King Rail (Endangered), Least Bittern (Threatened), Black Tern (special concern), Short-eared Owl (special concern), Golden Eagle (Endangered), Bald Eagle (Endangered), Peregrine Falcon (Threatened), Red-headed Woodpecker (special concern), Loggerhead Shrike (Endangered), Golden-winged Warbler (special concern), Yellow-breasted Chat (special concern), Henslow’s Sparrow (Endangered), Rusty Blackbird (Provincial Status ratings)

    With this information, it’s very reasonable to say that siting a wind farm at this location is inappropriate.

    Note that this discussion starts from facts about a specific location, not hysterical arm-waving about wind energy in general.

    Ms. Lucas, thank you for providing the reference points to allow this to occur. As you point out, I’m not local to Ostrander Point. In fact, when debating Ms. Atwood, I was living in Vancouver, then moved to Toronto for a couple of years, then Sao Paulo and am now in Singapore. I understand very clearly the negative global impacts of fossil fuel generation and global warming on our shared environment, and I understand very clearly the value that wind energy brings in reducing fossil fuel’s negative impacts.

    Fighting wind farm siting has to be specific, accurate and fact-based in order to overcome the demand for change that we are facing. Ostrander Point meets those criteria.

  21. Doris Lane says:

    Barney–getting a little carried away–I should be pillaried because I speak out against wind turbines–what century are you from. People do not get put in the stockes because they exercise their right of free speech.
    Read Christina Blizzards article in Sun Media and find out what terrible things that IWT’s are doing to the economy of this province.. The farmers may get a little momey but the rest of us are going to suffer greatly, environment, health, property values and our general economy

  22. Suzanne Lucas says:

    Mr. Barnard I can only assume that you are not from around this area or you would certainly have heard of the the ERT that is taking place here for the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine development on Crown land at Ostrander Point on Prince Edward County’s south shore. Reading your posts, I get the impression that you are a proponent of Industrial Wind development in general and I notice that proponents like yourself tend to argue on the basis of the overall benefits of Wind energy while avoiding any real engagement on the details. Your statements seem to suggest that Industrial Wind Turbines are some how intrinsically beneficial to the environment. The case against the Ostrander Point development launched by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists on the basis that it will result in serious and irreparable harm to the host environment clearly demonstrates the limits of your argument. Firstly I would encourage you to visit the ccsage website (ccsage.wordpress.ca) and read through the summaries of the expert witness testimony. You will find there the credentials of witnesses including, but not limited to, internationally recognized and published scientists like Dr. Paul Catling, an expert on alvar vegetation, Dr. Robert Barclay, an expert on bats, Mr. Martin Scott, an expert on birds and renewable energy projects in the UK, and Dr. Fred Beaudry, an expert on the now endangered Blanding’s turtle. Secondly I would challenge you to support the development of renewable energy without ignoring the fact that all industrial development comes with certain challenges to the environment, and to their host communities.

  23. Marnie says:

    Go back to your cave Barney Rubble. I know some of the people who are beating the drums for wind turbines because they are dazzled by the big money they stand to make. We all need money to maintain our properties but not all of us are willing to sell out friends and neighbours to do it. Interesting to note that some of the people who thought they were getting turbines on their land wrote letters in favour of wind energy to the papers. But when it turned out that turbines could not be sited on their property after all they dummied up and offered no further words of support. If Doris and I should be pilloried (what the heck is pillared anyway??) you should be stoned.

  24. Doris Lane says:

    How do the people from toronto etc have anything to do with tax increase? Tax increase is caused by the council who likes to build things we do not need.
    The province is responsible for high electricity costs which causes the county more to run things.
    The people from the city usually build large homes which puts more money in the tax ktty.
    It is nice that a few farmers are getting some extra dollars but as far as Ostrander Point is concerned it is Crown Land.
    All I know is that I would not live near a turbine, that is why I moved to Picton. I too like the country better near the lake but no way would I take a chance of living near it. Yoo bad that a few greedy people are destroying this county for the rest of us.
    The Iwt’s will decrease the value of property and make it impossible to sell.

  25. David Norman says:

    @ Mike Barnard… you have yet to directly and honestly respond to any of the facts I have presented regarding your commentary… just more of your typical puerile rhetoric and pejorative assertions. Your replies are little more than disingenuous and often arrogant, childish displays.

  26. Mike Barnard says:

    And there goes Dave, being hysterically overblown, just to prove my point. Thanks Dave!

  27. David Norman says:

    @ Mike Barnard… your latest response on this comment thread is truly pathetic and indicative of your narcissistic view of your contributions in this respect:

    You state; “To quote myself from the comment Ms. Lucas is responding to, “It’s very reasonable to be concerned about siting near endangered bird areas and major bird migration zones, but ensure that the actual threats are clearly and factually based, not overblown hysteria.” … you do indeed go to great lengths to quote and reference yourself in this respect despite having no relevant formal credentials. I’m aware of all of the “wiki”, “quora” and now (since quora has thwarted your endeavors) wordpress blog, links, that you have bee busily trying to established.

    The rest of your recent comment is completely without merit since the names, credentials of the “experts” and their testimony from the Ostrander Tribunal have been dutifully stated and summarized in recent articles on this site. I suggest you do appropriate due diligence before you speak out again in this respect.

    Typical of your puerile rhetoric style you chose to “pull out of a hat” a name of someone (Jim Weigand) who you seem to take great pleasure in trying to discredit, that has no direct relevance to the article on which this commentary is based.

    I paraphrase your statement, “Many of the usual commenters on this thread and many of the people involved in ‘pro’-wind turbine campaigns will spread any lies that they can get their hands on in order to attempt to ‘promote’ wind energy. Surely ‘Mike Barnard’ isn’t unfamiliar with this?

    David Norman, Rogue Primate of Bloomfield

  28. Mike Barnard says:

    @Suzanne Lucas

    To quote myself from the comment Ms. Lucas is responding to, “It’s very reasonable to be concerned about siting near endangered bird areas and major bird migration zones, but ensure that the actual threats are clearly and factually based, not overblown hysteria.”

    Many of the usual commenters on this thread and many of the people involved in anti-wind turbine campaigns will spread any lies that they can get their hands on in order to attempt to discredit wind energy. Surely Ms. Lucas isn’t unfamiliar with this?

    As for Ostrander Point, be specific about the endangered or at risk species involved and the degree of impact of the proposed wind farms. A generic statement that unnamed “internationally recognized experts” made unreferenced and unquoted statements regarding Ostrander Point just doesn’t cut it.

    It may be that the experts really are, or it maybe that they are people like Jim Wiegand, who from behind his desk at his antiques dealership in California pretends to be a wildlife biologist. I can’t say without references, names and quotes.

    It may be that there are endangered species which would be adversely impacted by the wind farm. Without stating which species and the degree of risk, there’s no discussion to be had.

    In the absence of specifics, I’ll stick with the massively referenced experts and international groups who agree that wind energy is a major part of the answer to the real threats to birds and wildlife.

  29. Barney Rubble says:

    Congrats Marnie and Doris for supporting the divisive argumentation between locals and newbies . My neighbors need the lease dollars to sustain their property due to high tax evaluations brought here from the Toronto wannabees to the county. Shame on you both !!!
    Anyone who speaks out against the financial benefits turbine brings into PEC should be pillared.

  30. Mark says:

    It’s all about the greenback. Just follow the money trail.
    No power shortage, no reduction in co’s, just fat wallets on the backs of an already overburdened taxbase.

  31. Tom Clark says:

    Mike Barnard – hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  32. The County has been totally “exploited” by corrupt politicians and greedy Wind Fraudsters……………sad to see this once beautiful tourist destination and wildlife jewel being ruined by the carpetbaggers who support this Wind Fraud!

  33. Marnie says:

    Jethro I am 5th generation county and I am strongly against windmills. You are misinformed if you think it is only newcomers from Toronto who hate the idea of them here. It will be a sad day when these ugly structures deface our beautiful county. Their biggest fans are the greedy folks who stand to profit by leasing their land for them.

  34. Doris Lane says:

    Jethro I am against IWT’s anywhere in the County and I am a 5th generation County person. I am also glad we have so many well educated people with a weath of experience,who have come to our county,and who have stepped up to the plate to help keep the County in its orginal state.

  35. David Norman says:

    Jethro, I understand that both you and Barney will be present and perhaps presenting at the MOE Hearing. As of yet I’ve been unable to ferret out who was the impetus behind this pseudonymous shenanigans strategy on County Live… was it Don?

  36. Suzanne Lucas says:

    I hope that Mr. Barnard is not suggesting that local concerns over the siting of IWTs at Ostrander Point is “overblown hysteria”. Such a claim would be ridiculous given the unbiased testimony of the internationally recognized experts at the Appeal Tribunal for this project. It is indeed “very reasonable” to be concerned about the siting at Ostrander Point. IWT supporters who promote development in such an obviously ecologically sensitive area do not recognize the damage they do to the promotion of renewable energy. If he wants to make the claim that wind energy “is the best source of energy for wildlife including birds” , Mr Barnard should oppose the Ostrander Point project. Otherwise it is difficult to regard his views as anything but self-interested.

  37. Jethro says:

    Way to go Barney Rubble.It’s not the original county people that are against wind turbines, but the city people that have moved here that want to run it there way.You are right, Mike Barnard is right in what he stated.

  38. Gary Mooney says:

    David, nice to see you back online. I appreciate your research into the background of people who comment on this important issue and on the credibility of the information that they put forward.

  39. Barney Rubble says:

    Very well stated Mr. Barnard and your points are well taken. County residents have always fought against any change to their old ways of doing things. This latest fluff over wind turbines is Blowin in the Wind. Look forward to seeing those blades a spinning.

  40. Dan Wrightman says:

    Mike Barnard is being economical with the truth again citing Chapman’s discredited “17 reviews”.
    Of the 17 “reviews” only 4 are actual studies, the rest are trumped up literature reviews. Only 4 out of the 17 papers are actually peer reviewed. 3 aren’t even about wind turbines and human health and one of them is just a web page from CANWEA, which hardly qualifies as a health study by any standards. Furthermore the 4 peer reviewed papers were mail in surveys and no face to face interviews with residents were conducted. Nor did they take physical measurements like blood pressure readings or noise measurements inside or outside of homes to validate sound modeling like the proposed Health Canada study will.

  41. David Norman says:

    A few facts to counter the spin of wind campaigner Mike Barnard:

    Mike Barnard is an Executive with IBM.

    Barnard makes claim that his interests and promotion of Industrial Wind Turbine’s is purely a personal interest endeavor, having nothing to do with the fact that IBM profits greatly from the existence of Wind Turbine and Solar industries through data management systems. He often engages a puerile rhetoric in his commentary in this respect and has, by his own admission, no scientific/academic credentials beyond an undergraduate degree in English Literature. He does however infer an expertise from the interpretation and promotion of others who present more relevant formal credentials.

    IBM profits greatly from smart, meter and grid projects here in Ontario (Barnard has admitted to working on a few of these projects, yet dismisses this as “incidental”). IBM also profits greatly from the supply of main frame computers (of which they are the world’s most prominent supplier, holding almost a virtual monopoly in this respect) which manage systems such as those at this province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (see: http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2010/08/18/smart_meter_data_system_has_89_million_price_tag.html).

    Mike, in your own words, as recently published as commentary on Wind Farm Realities (http://windfarmrealities.org/chapmans-nocebo-study/) “If you want to be able to live with yourself, I’d suggest taking a one-month hiatus before posting more things that you will feel a deep and burning sense of shame over in coming years.”

    David Norman, Rogue Primate of Bloomfield

  42. Chris Keen says:

    Here’s a link to the damning report of the GEA by the Fraser Institute.

    http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=19537

  43. Mark says:

    And the funding source for those studies were??????????

  44. Mike Barnard says:

    A few facts to counter the spin of anti-wind campaigners:

    Wind farms don’t harm human health, anti-wind campaigners do. 17 major reviews world wide of all of the available research by credible, independent groups have cleared wind farms of health impacts. Meanwhile, studies in the UK, Australia and New Zealand point the finger at anti-wind lobbyists spreading health fears and jacking up stress. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/wind-farms-dont-make-people-sick-so-why-the-complaints/

    Wind farms are the best source of energy for wildlife including birds: global warming and air pollution are the big threats. It’s very reasonable to be concerned about siting near endangered bird areas and major bird migration zones, but ensure that the actual threats are clearly and factually based, not overblown hysteria. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/how-significant-is-bird-and-bat-mortality-due-to-wind-turbines/

    Wind farms don’t harm property values: five major studies in the US and UK of 46,000 property transactions confirm this. As with health complaints, anti-wind campaigners whipping up fears are responsible for minor lulls before wind farms become operational, with properties often accruing value faster near operational wind farms. This makes sense: more jobs and more tax-revenue funded services make wind farm regions more attractive to people. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/property-values-evidence-is-that-if-wind-farms-do-impact-them-its-positively/

    As for municipal revenues, wind farms are such bad news that a Massachusetts town has eliminated property taxes while increasing services and putting money away for a rainy day due to tax revenues from the wind farm. That’s really bad all right.

  45. Chris Keen says:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/11/ontario-green-energy-act/

    More news on the Green Energy Act Ponzi scheme from a study by the Fraser Institute to be released today. Rates are rising again on May 1st!

    “Eighty percent of Ontario’s generation of electricity from wind power occurs at times and seasons so far out of phase with demand that the entire output is surplus and is exported at a substantial loss,” the study from the conservative think-tank says. “The Auditor-General of Ontario estimates that the province has already lost close to $2-billion on such exports.”

    Further, the shift to wind, where facilities tend to be placed in rural and remote locations, has required millions of dollars in investment just to tie the new projects to the transmission grid. All of that goes toward the increase in electricity rates.

    And because wind is unreliable, it can’t really replace coal as an energy source. “[Seven megawatts] of rated wind energy are needed to provide a year-round replacement of 1MW of conventional power generating capacity,” the study says.

  46. Big Island says:

    Let’s all attend the Regent Theatre and SHOW FULL SUPPORT to the CCSAGE and APPEC Volunteers /Groups to the fullest.
    They have worked in our best interest to protect us, our health, homes plus the wildlife in The County.
    See you at the Regent Theatre “Town Hall” on the 25th.

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
Elizabeth Crombie Christine Henden
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2020 • All rights reserved.