All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Wednesday, September 27th, 2023

National park proposal suspicious wind farm block

Prince Edward County’s south shore from Point Petre to Point Traverse, including the entire Long Point peninsula, is an internationally recognized Important Bird Area (IBA).

By Nicole Kleinsteuber
A movement to bring a national park to Prince Edward County is a thinly-veiled attempt to block wind farms from being developed in this area, says a South Marysburgh resident.

Objections toward a national park and conservation marina along the county’s south shore took center stage at Tuesday’s council meeting in Picton.

Point to Point PEC Foundation, a local non-profit group, brought the park and marina plan to council.  Point to Point wants to preserve and protect natural habitat along the County’s south shore.

But others see the plan as a way to stop wind projects destined for the county.

“This is a clever, well-put together process,” said Don Chisholm, a member of the County Sustainability Group, which wants the community to adopt green initiatives, including windmills.  “The whole purpose of the park is to create a road block and prevent wind energy development in the county”.

Prince Edward County council voted in favour of the proposal at the last committee of the whole meeting.  Council agreed to endorse the creation of a national park and conservation area on the south shore, including Main Duck and False Duck Islands.

Residents who don’t agree with council’s decision spoke out against the park.

“Council’s motion to approve a national park in South Marysburgh has been done without any consultation of the ratepayers in the township or the county as a whole,” said Deb Hudson a resident of South Marysburgh.

Karen Hatchard, co-founder of Point to Point, said the group has taken steps to involve the community in the planning process.

“We tried to survey the county,” said Hatchard.  “We’ve tried to engage people by asking them to contact us on our website and we ran full page ads in local newspapers.”

Hatchard said out of the 740 people surveyed, 94 per cent were in favour of the park proposal.

Former councillor Monica Alyea is in favour of the park proposal and has been working with Hatchard by bringing the park proposal to council.

Alyea told council the plan is just an idea and it’s not about wind turbines.

“I would not be involved if it was about wind turbines.  I ask you to think bigger than that when it comes to Prince Edward County,” said Alyea.  “We have the opportunity to stay out of it.”

Alyea said it’s unfortunate that people are worked up about it but the two issues are not related.

Hatchard agreed with Alyea.  She said the group’s plan isn’t dedicated to stopping wind farm projects; it’s about preserving the area for wildlife and future generations.

“People are trying to bring the whole wind energy issue into it,” said Hatchard in an interview.  “Nobody is talking about how this impacts the wildlife.  We love this area and we’d love it for future generations to enjoy.”

Hatchard said she’s pleased that council has decided to endorse their plan because it allows the plan to move forward.

“Until we had the support of the council we couldn’t see the point of public consultation, said Hatchard.  “This is a long process we need to see that we have a viable project before we get the public involved.”

Hatchard said the process could take up to 10 years.

Filed Under: Local News

About the Author:

RSSComments (57)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. John Thompson says:

    Nobody expects wind to be a stand alone source of power but it reduces the demand on the most carbon intensive sources. I see the overall effect on CO2 emmissions as depending on what happens in the economy. If wind oomes on as the economy is standing still, the reductions would be quite apparent. Reductions would be less if the economy is expanding at a rate that would use up the reductions.

    As for power rates, the big driving factor is the looming cost of nuclear upgrades and replacements. We haven’t finished paying for the first builds yet. I have been sharing thoughts from time to time but I do not have any business interest in wind power and don’t expect to.

  2. Ernest Horvath says:

    There is no way shape or form wind energy avoids any lowering of emissions .
    Not if you want reliable power.
    You cannot have wind as a stand alone power source to provide on demand power.
    End of story. Time to go home.
    Everyone knows…
    You MUST use partner conventional power.
    Every country uses it , it is either coal or gas.

    The lowering of global emissions… yes they have lowered but the reason for lowered global emissions stems from only one thing …the global financial meltdown starting in 2006..and built to a climax in 2008.
    Hence to back up my previous posts… consumerism , people stopped buying , businesses shut down and people stopped working…

    But why bother with anything other than assertions and statements as long as they “sound” as if they are “facts”.

    Everything is caused by electricity , all the emissions numbers are all electricity .

    Lets all embrace being had and be happy to pay 3 to 15 times more to private energy producers…our planet is miraculously saved!
    I thought it could be more complicated.
    I am so relieved!
    With all the $400 an hour energy PR lobbist consultants that sit in boardroom strategizing , and all one could come up with is,,lets minimize the land and call it scrub..that will work , it’s worthless.
    Why complain?..

    I am converted.

    Spin it anyway you want , it’s nothing more than the same old redirection so no one notices a for profit industry selling us unreliable power at enormous rates while we suckers pay to entrench the industry.
    Deregualtion and privatization promised us cheaper rates through more competition.
    It was not Ontario Hydro or the lack of power that caused the backout either.
    It was a private energy company that didn’t properly maintain their lines which brought the system down.

  3. Chris Keen says:

    These figures of CO2 reduction are calculated by the European Wind Energy Association. I’m sure they have no bias whatsoever.

    Turbines may be important in the energy production mix but they should not be anywhere near an Important Birding Area, a major bird migratory route, or where endangered species are known to reside. Period.

  4. Mark says:

    The propaganda is sure spinning out of the winds today.

    In reponse checkout “Spiegel Online International” – Wind turbines in Europe do nothing for emissions – reduction. Despite a boom in solar, wind energy they haven’t been able to reduce CO2 emissions by a single gram.

    Big money, big contracts, big subsidies, big transmission overhauls equal huge energy cost increases to consumers and no regard to local health, land or environmental issues. A lot of County folk can’t afford electricity now and we’re supposed to buy into an idea that will see 65% increases in 4 years. Who’s making all the money off of the backs of those that are trying to make a go of it? Nothing to do about a green footprint and everything to do with $$$$$. Follow the money trail.

  5. Donna says:

    Thanks for posting that, John. Just to summarize:

    “1 TWh of wind energy saved 0.696 Mt of CO2 in 2010. Taking into account the wind turbines production of 2010, wind energy avoided 126 Mt of CO2 in 2010.”

    “In 2007 the GHG emissions of all the EU-27 decreased by 9.3% compared to 1990 levels.”

    “…wind energy avoids the most expensive, inefficient and, hence, CO2 intensive production rather than the average production mix.”

    All this while the EU grew 5.6% between 2005 and 2010.

    “…the wind turbines installed in a given year will deliver CO2 reductions over their lifetime – that is, for 20 to 25 years from the year of their installation.”

    The anti-winds new argument that CO2 emissions are not reduced with wind power is false.

    Canada is the #8 emitter of CO2 in the world!!! And that’s not per capita but overall! (It’s almost tied with the UK which has double the population.) We need various forms of renewable energy to change that, and wind power must be an important part of our future.

  6. Ernest Horvath says:

    These tell the story.

    Note the years these were done.

    The fear of blackouts should move us away from for profit electricity production by private companies then.
    Not have us embrace them.
    We could go much further in using less power ,lets just not use any at all. Get a hand pump for the house , use oil lamps for light. No more a/c , no street lights , no subways for city folks , no electric street cars ,no cars.
    Horse and buggy.
    And there you have it !
    14 Million people in Ontario , in a global population of 9 Billion people have saved the entire planet from destruction just by not using electricity.
    We would be one step ahead of the IPCC.
    How do condo people heat their spaces? Do their washing or even have water ?…or get up to the 21st floor ?
    I can install a woodstove , put a clothes line up …does TO have community clothes lines in local parks then?
    And hospitals and schools how would they produce reliable power ?
    I guess surgeries can only be done on windy or sunny days?
    And what about shopping centres ?

    Clearly the one and only terror in our lives that is causing massive world destruction is the use of electricity.
    Shouldn’t we just ban it all together?
    Seems to me that is the answer.
    Not privatizing our electricty production and paying eormous profits.
    Actually Wind costs us far more than 3 times conventional rates.
    I was being conservative.
    You have to add the 10 of millions that are used to groom society in embracing it as cure all.
    Then you have to add the cost of gas power plants to partner with this power.
    Then you have to add what we pay when we have excess power to kindly energy brokers totake the excess power off our hands.
    Then we have to add the cost of lost jobs , lost businesses and lost tax revenue , and of course the cost of the increases for everything that uses power that passes this increase down to consumers…it is far worse than overpaying by 3 times conventional rates.

  7. John Thompson says:

    The report at this link details the amount of CO2 reduction in Europe due to wind generation. Quite significant.

  8. Chris Keen says:

    An interesting letter to the editor to balance all the anti, anti wind comments.

  9. Tom says:

    Donna regarding your Oct 21st comment.

    Finally, some one else is calling it “scrub” land. It is an ATV’rs paradise that’s all and that can continue with wind mills installed. Wild life will still thrive life despite all the fear that is being spread. Thank God the animals can’t read!

    My sister who carries the same first name as yours and has since passed away expressed this observation years ago.

    I wonder how many other people feel the same way?

  10. Jeremy says:


    I don’t think I would have any friends if I only showered once a week. I do agree that we need to have a reasoned and balanced debate on what we want our energy future to look like and we don’t have time to pretend that all is well and we don’t need to worry about where our power will come from in 5 years.

  11. Donna says:

    Thanks for speaking out, Jeremy. One reason I continue to post on here, and hope that other pro-renewable energy people will too, is that this debate needs to be balanced. Many people don’t do the research and don’t question any of the constantly reiterated statements from the anti-winds; the more the public hears them, the more they accept them as fact.

    The following story is purely anecdotal but it speaks to conservation AND the price of energy. In the early 1990’s for 3 months our family hosted an exchange student from Switzerland. We lived what we considered quite an environmentally aware lifestyle: a tiny house, public transit in the city, a vegetarian diet, growing food, composting, hanging our clothes outside to dry, and so on. The young Swiss woman, however, was shocked at how ‘generous’ we were with our energy. In Europe prices for energy and gas were high so the European people were masters at conservation and living a small footprint. She wore the same clothes all week and had a shower when she changed them (and she had gorgeous long blond hair! ;-)); she always took the bus even when we offered to drive her; she was upset that we drove 4 entire hours to our family cottage for a long weekend. Her attitude towards energy and lifestyle was one of frugality and was light years ahead of ours! (She’s now a medical doctor in Switzerland.)

    But at the same time in Ontario, it was the policy of successive governments, both conservative and liberal, to have a cheap electricity. They did this to attract industry. It was a primary factor in the development of the auto manufacturing sector in Ontario. A by-product was that Ontarians got acclimated to cheap electricity. As a result we over-consume and consider it our right. Since all the cheap hydroelectric sources had been developed, they turned to dirty fossil fuels and nuclear. We now know the folly of that approach.

    You either need to accept that reality and move on to something that is sustainable, or bury your head in the sand and hope you die before you have to deal with it! My view is that the former is the responsible thing to do.

  12. Jeremy says:


    Your laundry list of costs is very misleading and simplistic. Pretty much everything there is required for system reliability so we don’t get blackouts. They are needed no matter if there is wind on the system or not. As a result it would be more accurate to “blame” wind for between 2 and 10 percent of those costs.

    The thing I take biggest issue with though is the constant beating of the drum that wind is 3 times the “going rate” of hydro. This statement presumes that the plants that were built 20 to 30 years ago will chug on forever. About half of these generators will need to be replaced soon. Please enlighten us all on the magic power source that you are able to build today that will produce electricity for 4.5 cents per kwh.

  13. Ernest Horvath says:

    It is the present system that needs to come under attack.
    You will pay 28 Billion dollars for new infrastructure so you can be sold power at 3 to 15 times conventional rates.
    No one see any issues with this ?
    Then you will pay to cover the back up required.
    No issues with this either ?
    When an energy broker can make 10 million at a click of a mouse dealing excess energy..
    No issues with the either ?
    Why is there not a credit pool trading excess back and forth ?
    It is the system that is driving it all and no one is questioning any of it.
    Viable options time and time again even though Donna keeps asking for some.
    When options are anything but profit based , the room is always silent.
    When direction and the benefits are questioned get we are committed to move away from coal…to gas.?
    So the only way to move away from coal to gas is a guy charging us 3 times more for wind and 15 times more for solar?
    With all the brain power far brighter than I am out one has a better option for Ontario ?

  14. Jeremy says:

    Donna, you hit the nail right on the head. The anti-winds have their heads stuck in the sand. A lot of our generators are close to the end of their life and will be shut down in the next 4-5 years (an undeniable fact) and we need to have a plan to replace them.

    Mark (and the rest of the anti gang), if you compare the cost of wind to the costs of oter NEW generation (see point above) it is only slightly more expensive. Since the price is fixed for 20 years it will seem like a bargain in 10 years and a steal in 20 years. Hardly a contributer to skyrocketing costs.

  15. virginia Hair says:

    The comment, as I read and quoted it, is grammatically challenged, and open to be read more than one way.

  16. Mark says:

    Donna, with the 27.6% new installations of wind power in the world, how has that related to any decrease in CO2 emmissions? If I was to ignore the health concerns, environmental and wildlife impacts, and skyrocketing energy prices from this venture for the time being I would want to know that it was having an impact.

  17. Donna says:

    Gary, it seems to me that people who are against wind (anti-wind ;-)) should be promoting some other kinds of viable renewable energy as well as conservation!

    Peter, Ostrander Point and along the south shore of PEC is indeed scrubland. Look at the aerial photos taken for the anti-winds by Stephen Draper…good old County Red Cedar scrub! Only the ATVers like it!

    Indeed, solar projects should be part of the picture, but big projects are very land intensive. Wind turbines leave the land around them available for farming and pasturing. Solar…hot water, PV, hot air…should definitely be on every house and on all new building developments.

    (I’m sorry to inform you that LEDs are not a solution for the climate change disaster that we’ve created. That would be like spitting on a forest fire!)

    As of 2011, almost 100 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis. Over the past 5 years the average annual growth in new installations around the world has been 27.6%. Canada needs to step up, meet their commitments, and even be a leader in renewable energy. And that includes Prince Edward County!

  18. PEter says:

    When it comes to energy in Ontario, it’s time for a truly open and transparent discussion. To this point, unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case. The lack of information/support/clarity in this area almost cost the Liberals provincial power (ironically, not that kind of power). Many are reporting that the reduction in Liberal MPP’s is directly related to the issue of energy. I tend to support the arguement, especially when one considers that most of rural Ontario is now blue. Rural Ontario is and has been the battle ground when it comes to the wind energy debate. Communities have literally been split apart due to those who support versus those who don’t. Worse yet, the “smart” people have piped in on both sides which only further complicates the debate. Folks, this is EXACTLY what “The Powers That Be” want. See, when we’re all arguing the pro’s and con’s, we’re not focused on the real issue. I swear to God the “smart” people build their case for or against, in part, to show everybody just how smart they are. PEC seems to have a hand full of “smart” people. So, with all due respect, I have some questions for the “smart” people to consider…

    1) how are US energy demands tied to this debate?
    2) what impact does the former Security and Prosperity Partnership (now renamed and repackaged – still the same ole SPP) have on the debate?
    3) what influence has our own federal gov’t had on this debate? Perhaps we should pull Daryl Kramp in to the energy debate.
    4) do federal energy commitments i.e. those the Canadian gov’t has made with our friends to the south trump provincial energy deals… or heavily influence them? I think one would have to be way out in left field not to think one does not influence the other.
    5) what is Canada’s energy policy? Do we have one? Does it trump provincial jurisdictional boundaries? If it’s considered to be an issue of national security, what does that do to the debate? Remember, the empire is hungry for energy.
    6) how does the the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and the selling of water generated electricity from Quebec and Newfoundland tie in with the debate?

    Some thoughts to ponder. Now, I am hoping the “smart” people can help me with the above questions. At minimum, I think someone from PEC needs to be asking Mr. Kramp some of these questions.

    FYI – I am 100 percent in favor of renewable energy. However, I believe residential energy requirements should be powered by “off-grid” sources…. like wind and solar. Big business should be powered by “on-grid” sources. It’s seems bizarre to me that the residents of PEC could be sitting in the dark as our turbines spin, supplying energy to keep the lights on for everyone else. Call it selfish! To me, energy sustainability is about keeping the energy as close to where it will be consumed.

  19. Mark says:

    Reading it again he stated we had a comfortable population (in relation to other parts of the world). “if we manage this correctly” was in reference to managing the natural resources, water and trees he stated in the prior two sentences. That’s how I interpreted the comment on first read and second.

  20. John Thompson says:

    and who is the “we” that would “manage” the population?

  21. virginia Hair says:

    what does “comfortable population…that we manage correctly” mean, exactly. That statement makes me uncomfortable.

  22. Mark says:

    Thanks Peter for a closeby landowner clarifying. Far different description from tick infested scrubland.

  23. John Thompson says:

    Janet, hydro power is clean and renewable and like everthing else, has some negative impacts. The main issue is that our usable rivers are largelly tapped out. This is why we get about half of our power from the less desirable nuclear plants.

    Quinte Conservation has installed a hydro project in Belleville on the Moira River in Belleville. It’s capacity is less than one megawatt and as expected, does not produce in the summer due to the low water flows. This type of project may be worthwhile but can only make a minor contribution to sustainable production.

  24. Ernest Horvath says:

    We seem to refuse to see the forest through the trees in this converstaion in several areas.
    A 9 Billion global population is expected to grow to 14 Billion in 25 years.
    Most in areas where there is not enough food or water and trees are being clearcut by the day to make ethanol.
    There has been discussion of sustainability.
    Right now Canada has natural resources. Right now we have water and trees. Right now we have a comfortable population that if we manage this correctly , some of this will still be around for your grandchildrens children.
    When all the water is gone?
    Who will care about how a home is powered ? Or a retail clothing store sale?
    In order to protect the future of our children and ensure they have the natural resources to survive on this planet after we are gone…these have to be preserved.
    Constant economic and population growth is the complete opposite to sustainability.
    We need a shift to a localized self sustaining economy tied to present population numbers.
    Why is it , that everytime I suggest a shift to grants and subsidies for the population of Ontario to adopt alternate energy the room gets silent?
    If your money is used for any purpose it should be used to provide a better quality of life for YOU.
    Rather than subsidize the entire Alternate Energy Sector and keep the profits flowing out of country, why are we not pushing for these grants and subsidies to produce power that we don’t have to pay up to 15 times conventional rates for?
    You are producing power either way.
    So if the discussion on this subject is about power and future need , not the protection of industry profits and taxpayer dollars subsidizing this industry in many ways , isn’t that YOUR best option ?
    In any case , we have at least another 25 years to figure out the right way to go about doing this.
    As far as power demand is concerned.
    Industry used 70% , while homeowners used 30%.
    Demand has dropped since 2008. And if the direction of skyrocketing energy costs continue , demand will continue to drop. Because those industries that employ people that actually make things are leaving Ontario.
    The main Industry that is seeing huge growth is the Energy Industry.
    And why wouldn’t it?
    They have been handed a captured market with that must buy their product at enormously inflated rates.
    You can do this with any other industry using this method.
    Come to Ontario , I will force people to buy your product and set your prices at up to 15 times what the product can be purchased for. There will be no environmental , health or safety standards to abide by and you can set up shop anywhere you like.
    Even the Industry itself must understand that this is a hit a run sector.
    In the end if you reside here and work for this industry , you have sealed your own fate too.

  25. Peter Barker says:

    Hello all
    I’ve read all the above comments, and I feel I have to sound in.
    The fact is, placing industrial wind turbines in this area
    is going to have a greater negative environmental impact then it will a positive one.

    If you seriously want to consider harvesting energy from a renewable source, one only need consider the fact that the Sun releases 44 times the worlds required energy in a single sunny day.
    Another consideration is to simply reduce our hydro hungry ways. This does not necessarily mean lifestyle changes.
    i.e. LED lighting is of exceptional quality and only requires a 1/10 the electricity without the heat generation which often requires further electricity in cooling.
    If you want an immediate impact on your CO2 footprint, electrical bill, as well as demand on the grid, change your house over to LED’s.

    With that said, I believe wind should most definitely play a roll in the future of our energy infrastructure, but when its impact seems to out weigh its benefits its only wise to reassess the projected plan.

    Regarding the “scrub land” in South Bay, I have lived in this area for most of my life and I can attest that it is teaming with wildlife big and small, beautiful vegetation, and wild flowers abound.
    “juniper on limestone rock or swamp” I guess beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.

    The comments stating that the purposed park would not be used by tourists or locals is sadly misguided. Its constantly used and enjoyed by locals, everyday I step out of my door I enjoy its beauty.

  26. janet says:

    whatever happened to clean, renewable hydro?

  27. John Thompson says:

    Gary, attention is being paid to efficiencys in transportation, industry and conservation except by the people who are not paying attention. Various government incentives are available as well as the obvious rising cost of energy which is an incentive in itself. The oft repeated saying that conservation is not happening does not make it true.

    What is not often said is that energy conservation often leads to an increased need for electricity. Examples are the replacement of combustion engines in industry with more efficient large electric motors, the replacement of residential oil furnaces with air based and geothermal (electric powered) heat pumps and the advent of electic cars. These are among the reasons that electicity consumption is not projected to drop.

    On the other hand, much of our power generation capacity is nearing the end of it’s lifespan and must be gradually replaced. Read the Ontario Energy plan for details. From all points of view, it would be best to replace with sustainable systems so I don’t see any logic invloved in trying to block the approvable wind farm projets which increase employment in Ontario, pay taxes, provide other community benefits, reduce environmental damages from power production and put us in a better position to cope with the expected rising costs of fossil fuels over the next two decades.

  28. Mark says:

    This “footprint” and doing something for future generations is just a guilt trip for $$ seekers. Europe who started this haven’t dropped any CO2 emmissions at all, none at all. Follow the money folks. What we don’t need is to mar the landscape and scab the environment of one of the most beautiful country sides in Ontario, create health issues, and ruin the economy through both tourist trade and local land values. Wrong place, wrong time and for the wrong reasons. We don’t need foreign dollars that bad. Future generations will respect that stand.

  29. Tom says:

    Great comment Donna!!!! I applaud you!!!!

    Gee… I really like this debate!!!!

    Makes life worth living.

    By the way, I am a “County Boy” who left to find a job/career.

    I LOVE THE “COUNTY” and WILL return very soon to again become a part of it.

    I already pay taxes for the cottage so I have paid to have a say.

  30. Donna says:

    Gary said, “Why accept that we need more power?” Because our economy runs on growth and growth needs power! Transportation…electric cars, high-speed rail…AND industry will need electricity as will an increase in population.

    Gary said, “It seems to me that people promoting wind should be promoting conservation first.” Gary, conservation is a given. Aren’t we all here doing that already??! Haven’t we done it for years? Small houses, super-insulation, green energy, energy-smart appliances, smart meters, yada, yada.

    It’s simply not enough! You are a numbers man, Gary, so why play dumb?

    Personally, I live an ‘energy neutral’ lifestyle, and if I didn’t live in the country I could get rid of my car altogether and be ‘energy positive’. How about you?

  31. Tom says:


    What your saying is that we have the electrical energy needed to run everything for years. Everytime a new home is built it needs electricity. Building starts are on the rise in Ontario. More homes the greater the demand.

    All the old generation methods will continue to have the capacity even though many were built 15 to 20 years ago?

    This somehow doesn’t make sense.

    Remember, the “brown out” crisis from days gone by?

  32. Paul says:

    “In 1998, the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris passed the Energy Competition Act which authorized the establishment of a market in electricity.” Wikipedia..
    Ands its all gone downhill from there instead of reinvesing and upgrading..

  33. Ernest Horvath says:

    Tom , we don’t have any energy crunch we never had an energy crunch.
    We have close to twice the capacity being used lately so for the next 25 years we have some time to work it out.
    The entire PR direction and shift has been to privatize and sell for profit.
    That has been the single objective.

    By Ontario’s own releases we are set to spend 28 Billion dollars in energy infrastructure.
    Provide the means for people to be able to afford solar on their rooftops to produce power.
    Lot of business rooftops and quite a few barns.
    The roofs are there.
    The people wanting jobs are out there , it would create local ong term jobs benefitting every area of Ontario.

    And it can work for city people as well. Even High rises.
    You can’t have a better conservation direction than that from my point of view.

    But , no , it’s far better , and the only option at this time and that is to subsidze alterante energy producers that sell us power at 3 to 15 times conventional rates.

    It certainly doesn’t work well for the people hoping to sell us power to make money.

    It does however fall inline with every environmental reason given in every discussion we have had
    We had a public utility Ontario Hydro.
    It was nonprofit. NAFTA allowed the system to be taken apart and directed towards selling you this power for profit.
    Just the 10 million that has gone to feed PR lobby groups to groom us could have put a lot of solar panels on rooftops.

    I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t gladly embrace the concept.
    It’s a win win for the 99%…

  34. Gary Mooney says:

    There’s a lot of focus on electricity production, when this is the only third largest source of pollution and CO2 generation in Canada, after transportation and industry. How come no attention to the latter two?

    Also, there’s no attention to conservation. It seems to me that people promoting wind should be promoting conservation first. Why accept that we need more power?

    If we were to make significant advances in conservation in transportation, industry and electricity generation, we wouldn’t need wind.

  35. Tom says:


    Seems like you have ALL the “facts” but I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that doing nothing about our energy crunch will make things any better in future years. Where are we going to get the energy we need to power our homes in the future? No gas fired plants are being built any where. The “old” fossil fueled polluters are getting very old. Nuclear plants are in need of major costly repairs.

    So what’s next? Energy rationing? Energy for only those who have the big bucks?

  36. Donna says:

    No problems with all that, Ernest. To repeat: if we all insist on maintaining our energy-hog, giant footprint, first world lifestyles, then we should have to pay for them!

    I’m saying that making Ostrander Point a park is a waste of time, effort, and money.

  37. Ernest Horvath says:

    So the argument against a Park is taxpayer dollars ?

    But no problem spending $10 Million +++ on PR Lobby.
    No problem paying 15 times the rate for solar? 3 x the rate for Wind at locked in enormously overinflated prices you must buy for 20 years.
    No problem paying a Smart Meter Fee coming soon
    No problem rebuilding an entire electricity grid
    No problem paying to build Gas Power Generation
    No problem unloading excess power at a loss..almost 1 Billion this year.
    No problem when that 10% Hydro One discount is taken off.
    Yet , the Park becomes a money issue.
    Less transparency..please.

  38. Donna says:

    But who will like a park down there? Not the taxpayers…it will cost us $$. Not the tax base…no County income. Not the locals…no jobs. Not the turtles or birds…constant disruption to habitat. Not the neighbours…more traffic. Not even the tourists once they get all the way down there…it’s a tick-infested scrubland!

    So what good WILL a park do?!

  39. Mark says:

    Let’s see. The Mayor is not supportive. The new MPP is not supportive. I don’t know anyone who welcomes a 65% energy rate increase in 4 years. The birds don’t like it. The turtles don’t like it. The roads won’t like it. The tourists won’t like it. The neighbours won’t like it with health issues and dropping land values. The beauty of the County won’t like it.

    I wonder who likes it? Who’s got their hand on your wallet?

  40. Donna says:

    Gary said: “As far as I know, there are no anti-wind groups in the County.”

    Thanks for a good laugh, Gary! It’s a good thing I didn’t have a mouthful of coffee when I read that!!!

  41. Mark says:

    Newly elected MPP, Todd Smith in a report to today’s Belleville Intellingencer stated his first priorities. Heading the list was putting a stop to the industrial wind turbines in Prince Edward County and assisting the municipalities request for assistance in the formation of a National Park at Ostrander Point.

  42. John says:

    I am not so much concerned with what’s going on on the dry land portion of the County’s’South Shore’, as I am for the Point Petre to Point Traverse and Timber, False Ducks and the Main Duck Island ‘Shipwreck Field’s. These 2/3 of all Lake Ontario shipwrecks are supposed to be ‘Protected’ under the Ontario Heritage Act, which the ‘Green Energy Act’ DOES NOT supercere. Obviously the Province is ignoring it’s own Legislation in this situation. Shipwrecks are ‘National Treasures’ that must be protected and that have the potentiol to be of a far greater ecomomic benefit than any wind turbine farm could ever be. Let’s go with the proven technology rather than the ‘pipe dream’.

  43. Tom says:


    Call it what you want. Anti means “against” as far as I am concerned. How about not in support of wind generation in the County or wind generation is alright then, as long as it not in the County? I am certainly in favour of Parks for recreation and enjoyment as long as they readily accessible for everyone.

    Scrub land is not my idea of a park.

  44. Capt Chris Holder says:

    Main Duck Island is part of Parks Canada and is part of the thousand island park system.

  45. Gary Mooney says:

    As far as I know, there are no anti-wind groups in the County. What we have is pro-County groups, as opposed to pro-wind groups (which can also be labelled pro-save the world groups).

    A given pro-County group can be in favour of one only, or more than one of the following:
    * Pro-health of County residents.
    * Pro-natural environment (birds, bats, turtles, etc.)
    * Pro-property values (protecting market values)
    * Pro-local economy (protecting / ehancing tourism, creative industries and residential construction.

    As an example, PEC Field Naturalists, of which I am a member, are pro-natural environment but don’t have a position on any of the other items in the above list.

    Point to Point PEC Foundation is pro-natural environment and pro-local economy in that they are prosing a national park and national marine conservation area (200 shipwrecks) that would protect birds and other wildlife AND expand and protect major tourist activity on the South Shore and in the adjacent waters.

  46. Phil Norton says:

    Little Bluff Conservation Area (just north of the area being discussed) IS National Park material…I have been saying that ever since I moved here 5 years ago. But the tranquility of the site was placed at risk a couple of years ago when a neighbouring landowner proposed to build a retirement village next door. Yet there was no outcry from concerned citizens against the loss of the rare turtle habitat. I am hopeful that the newly-formed conservation group sincerely wants to preserve the wild lands of PEC (not just their land values) and will take it a step further to protect woods and farmland under pressure from urbanization. On the map it looks like The County has abundant open space but not all green spaces are created equal. Old growth deciduous forests on rich soils are the first choice of home builders and rare biological gems, while the rest of our region is juniper on limestone rock or swamp.

  47. Ernest Horvath says:

    Lets make something clear.
    Nobody , absolutely nobody has the right to legislate my say away in planning where I have lived for 30 years .
    That in itself is slap in the face of everyone who sacrificed so we can live in a free society.
    All so someone can make enormous profits selling me an overpriced product?
    I don’t care what party it is , you pick one , just as long as they are willing to return my democratic right to have a voice in the planning in the community I live in ,
    It is not about being Conservative or a Liberal.

  48. Tom says:

    Oh….so the Conservative vote is a vote for democracy? I wasn’t talking about who voted what in my comment. Just making a comment that not all people support the issue of a National Park and possible prevention of Wind Generation.

  49. Ernest Horvath says:

    I think the people spoke loud and clear in PEC about how they feel.
    They voted for the only party that was willing to restore democracy and are tired of being walked all over by corporation and government.

  50. Tom says:

    Well, I’m not surprised by this latest development to turn this “scrub” land into a national park to further prevent wind mill development. Seems like the residents in South Marysburgh do not accept this tactic to prevent wind generation and are speaking out. Good for you!!

OPP reports
lottery winners
Elizabeth Crombie Janice-Lewandoski
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

© Copyright Prince Edward County News 2023 • All rights reserved.