How does the Green Energy Act threaten our health & natural heritage?

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. Ross
McKitrick, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph.

CO2 emissions saved by wind turbines : close to 0

Wind power. . . can not make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Peter Lang, energy production engineer, 2009

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

As the level of wind capacity increases, 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

Despite huge investments, windgenerated electricity has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide emissions in Colorado and Texas.
Robert Bryce , energy researcher, Wall Street Journal August 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

THE SPIN: Developers and the government tell us industrial wind turbines have no adverse effect on human health.

THE FACTS: International medical experts dispute this.

Government & industry spin Government of Ontario Ministers No proven health Frequently quote risks industry commissioned report and CMOH review No proven health link to turbines Based on industry commssioned report and incomplete literature search Carefully selected literature

Flaws in research: No patients interviewed No original research No patients interviewed No original research No patients interviewed

Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), Dr Arlene King Review CanWEA/AmWEA industry Expert Panel Report

Concluded that there was not even any possibility of adverse health effects being caused by wind turbines

No original research
Qualifications of experts questioned

Serious warnings The National Institutes Of Health (NIH)

(part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)

--issued by credible institutions ignored by Ontario government 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). The sounds emitted by the blades being low frequency, . . . constitute a permanent risk for the people exposed to them. . . . The Academy recommends halting wind turbine construction closer than 1.5 km from residences. (2006) 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 most common health complaints. In fact, there are peer reviewed scientific articles indicating that wind turbines may have an adverse impact on human health. (2009)

French National Academy Of Medicine

The Maine Medical Association Health Canada

Observations of physicians on real patients

Dr. Christopher Hanning, British Sleep Medicine specialist, of University Hospitals in Leicester

More studies ignored by Ontario government

In my expert opinion, from my knowledge of sleep physiology and a review 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 were around 900m from wind turbines. 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. a very detailed, peer-reviewed casecontrol study of 10 families . . . anxiety, fearfulness, sleep disturbance and irritability. Pierpont offers compelling evidence that these symptoms are related to low frequency sound.

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. Dr. Nina Pierpont, United States

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum of the Northern Maine Medical Center presented his findings to the Maine Medical Association. 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 turbines near 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. Found people living within 1 to 4.3 km of the Waubra, Australia wind project complained of sleep disturbance, headaches, sore eyes, ringing in the ears, earaches, dizziness, loss of balance and high blood pressure.

Dr. Robert Thorne of the Australian Acoustical Society, an Environmental Health Research Associate at Massey University, New Zealand.

Dr. Alec Salt, Professor of Otolaryngology He analyzed the infrasound from the at Washington University, St Louis, told turbines-- sound waves of less than 20 the Picton, Ontario conference last cycles per second. autumn: Although you cannot hear such low Allowing turbines to be located 550 frequency sound, it . . . can have effects metres from people's homes is insane. 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 . . . for people living in homes up to 5 kilometers away from the wind turbines.

Australian physician Dr. Sarah Laurie

She is so concerned that she has recommended to people within five kilometres of the Waubra wind farm to check 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. 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.

Epidemiologist Dr. Carl Phillips, Professor of Public Health Policy, University of Texas Medical School

Dr. Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario (recently appointed to the Order of Canada):

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.

His health survey has found 135 Ontario families suffering adverse health effects Its conclusions are not even supported from industrial wind turbines. by the content of the references cited. Many have been forced to leave their The their admits In Ontario, --- people have had to leave review homesthat Ontario doesnt homes. have a protocol to verify compliance 135 have reported adverse health effects with existing wind turbine noise limits --- councils have requested the ontarioappropriate guidelinesmoratorium nor government for a for wind turbine low have been completed. on turbine developments until health studiesfrequency noise. --government ministers continue to insist there is no problem. The Review was a governmentconvened attempt to justify unsound practices of wind turbine development while denying the adverse health effects being reported by Ontario families.

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.

How wind turbines affect sensitive habitats

Biologists are most concerned about habitat disruption and disturbance, 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, waterfowl and 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

Consider how wind turbine construction will impact wildlife

46 turbines in a project: Construction

time: up to

1year 25-30dB to 40-60+ dB

93km of excavation trenches will be

needed to bury collector cables

Background noise increased from

46,000+ tonnes concrete and steel

rebar used in 6-30 foot deep tower platforms

40km of access roads will fragment

habitat

13,018 triaxel gravel trucks (46x

90ft deep steel piles driven down to

anchor platforms

283 loads per road) will be needed to build access roads, plus thousands of heavy component transports, cranes, excavation equipment and concrete mixers

Miles of new transmission lines along roadsides and loss of hundreds of CO2 absorbing trees and wildlife refuge

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

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.

Recommendations of international biologists

Study by the Belgian Research Institute for Nature and Forest, 2007 Dr. Mark Avery, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, U.K. Danish biologists Avoid locating wind farms in regional or internationally important bird or bat areas and/or migration routes

Developers should avoid sites that are important to wildlife 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 of foraging 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)

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 migration pathways 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.

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.

Consider the appalling results for monitoring on Wolfe Island a project the MOE approved-- despite numerous warnings:
The 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Island caused more than a 1800 bird and bat deaths in six months. (This means 3600 in a year). Seven of the species have been identified as species of conservation priority by Ontario Partners in Flight (2006):
2 American Kestrels, 1 Northern Flicker, 1 Black-billed Cuckoo, 2 Eastern Kingbirds , 1 Bank Swallow, 1 Savannah Sparrow , 8 Bobolinks, 28 Tree Swallows , 1 Bank Swallow , 2 Barn Swallows 7 Purple Martins Along with 12 raptors, 3 red tailed hawks and one Merlin.

The Windsor Star recently reported the slaughter of a Bald Eagle at a wind turbine site near Tillsonberg. Eagles are a protected species.

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.

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

The Hon. G. Smitherman

Minister of Energy and Infrastructure

1st Reading February 23, 2009 2nd Reading March 11, 2009 3rd Reading May 14, 2009 Royal 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.

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 that the following do not apply to renewable energy undertakings:

Policy statements and provincial plans.

Official plans.

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).

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)but even 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 5 kilometres?

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.

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)

We found 22 threatened or endangered species around Arran Lake at risk from wind turbines, among them:
The Bald Eagle The Red-headed Woodpecker The Short-eared Owl several kinds of rare snakes and turtles and even the Grey fox

You may have similar species in your area.

THE GREEN ENERGY ACT REMOVES CONSERVATION AUTHORITY APROVAL: SCHEDULE L MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Conservation Authorities Act If 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.

THE GREEN ENERGY ACT UNDERMINES CITIZENS RIGHTS REVERSAL OF ONUS OF PROOF: Once a project has been approved by the Ministry of the Environment, individual citizens 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 must prove 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.

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 established by 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.

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.

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 the
environmental 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?

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 to provide 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 the Environmental 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 issues
or 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 all
participants 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

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: 4.6 have negative effects on migratory birds, including effects on their habitat (Guide to EA Requirements for Electricity Projects Appendices or staging areas? Criterion Yes No Additional information 4.7 have negative effects on locally important or Ministry of the Environment Page 71) valued ecosystems or vegetation? Will the project 1.2 have negative effects on ground water quality, 6. Socio-economic 6.1 have negative effects on neighbourhood or quantity or movement? community character? 2.1 have negative effects on residential, 6.2 have negative effects on local businesses, commercial or institutional land uses institutions or public facilities? within 500 metres of the site? 6.3 have negative effects on recreation, cottaging or 2.2 be inconsistent with the Provincial Policy tourism? Statement, provincial land use or 6.8 cause public concerns related to public health resource management plans? and safety? 3.4 cause negative effects from the emission of 7. Heritage and Culture noise? 7.1 have negative effects on heritage buildings, 4. Natural Environment 4.1 cause negative effects on rare, threatened or structures or sites, archaeological resources, or cultural heritage endangered species of flora or landscapes? fauna or their habitat? 7.2 have negative effects on scenic or aesthetically 4.2 cause negative effects on protected natural pleasing landscapes or areas such as ANSIs, ESAs or views? other significant natural areas? 8. Aboriginal 4.3 cause negative effects on wetlands? 8.1 cause negative effects on First Nations or other 4.4 have negative effects on wildlife habitat, Aboriginal communities? populations, corridors or 9. Other movement? 9.1 result in the creation of waste materials 4.5 have negative effects on fish or their habitat, requiring disposal? spawning, movement or environmental conditions (e.g., water temperature, 9.2 cause any other negative environmental effects not covered by the criteria turbidity, etc.)? outlined above?

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 paper trail 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.

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.bsceoc.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.bsceoc.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: windconcerns@gmail.com

Do we want this?

Or this?

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 in England leaning to 5 km setbacks from homes. Many farmers continue to experience serious health impacts on livestock resulting from unresolved problems with stray voltage, often associated with wind turbine installations.

2.

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.

5.

Our hydro bills are skyrocketing because we are paying twice for wind produced electricity: once with extravagant feed in tariff rates to benefit producers and a second time to run polluting single-cycle gas plants to back up wind. Real estate values are affected by wind turbine developments. Industry generated studies fail to take into account that houses near wind turbines remain unsold and are often withdrawn from the market or abandoned. The environmental footprint of a wind turbine is not benign. It does little to save CO2 emissions, does not replace coal, but it is destroying our natural habitats, endangered species and biodiversity.

6.

7.

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 welfare for multinational energy companies?

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 hydro bills soar.