Category Archives: Government corruption

Damning report of the Polish national auditor on wind developments

Wind Power Complex installations demonstrate a common, reoccurring  and global pattern of adverse effects and harm.  The following  mirrors the range of issues being reported and documented by impacted residents in Ontario, Canada.

Massive conflict of interests, no adequate measurement of noise and deliberate misinformation of residents.
stopwiatrakom.eu
A NATIONAL ONLINE PLATFORM
FOR SAFE WIND TURBINE SETBACKS FROM HOMES

 

13 May 2016

The president of the Polish National Audit Authority (NIK) told a parliamentary committee on 12 May 2016 that in up to one third of all the rural municipalities covered by the NIK investigation, decision makers responsible for granting permits for wind farm developments, or close family members of such local officials, were beneficiaries of land leases for these projects.

These are the findings of a multi-year study by the Polish Audit Authority, which sought to investigate if the public interest was adequately safeguarded in the planning and permitting process for publicly-subsidized wind power developments. Krzysztof Kwiatkowski, NIK president, told the parliamentary committee on infrastructure that the study included a total of 70 inspections in 51 municipalities and 19 county-level local government administrations.

In 90 per cent of inspected municipalities, local authority’s approval of wind farm developments was made contingent on the developer’s funding the preparation of planning documentation or making donations to the municipality. Yet, under Polish law such expenditures must be covered from the municipality’s own budget. According to the Polish Audit Authority, such actions may give rise to conflict of interests between the developer’s preferences and the interests of municipalities and local communities.

Mr Kwiatkowski also noted that the existing regulations on noise measurement did not guarantee “reliable [assessment] of nuisance resulting from the operation of a wind farm”. Specifically, under the existing regulations noise was measured at low speed levels, with wind speed below 5 m/s. However, the noise is most intensive at wind speeds of 10-12 m per second, which are optimal for wind turbine’s performance. Furthermore, the regulations did not require measurements of other impacts such as infrasound and shadow flicker, according to President Kwiatkowski.

The Polish National Auditor also noted that in the absence of clear laws and consistent caselaw of courts, wind farms were occasionally built in areas of outstanding landscape value.

The inspections also disclosed that in one third of the municipalities there were conflicts of interests involving “individuals who were primary beneficiaries of wind farm projects”, that is people who concluded land lease contracts for wind turbines. Such people tended to be “mayors, members of their immediate families, municipality officials, council members” who had approved changes to local zoning plans enabling the construction of wind farms in the first place.

The Polish National Auditor also questioned the manner in which local communities were being informed about the planned developments. At times, meetings were announced in a manner intended to make it difficult for interested residents to attend and then the failure to attend such meeting was considered to imply consent on the part of local population.

Download this article

Article originally posted on: friends-against-wind.org

Wind Turbines “Good For Making Toast”

 

Today – Sept 26, 2014 at 10:00 AM

According to the IESO the total energy demand for the province of Ontario was 17,690 MW

The contribution of the industrial wind turbines was 63 MW. That right folks, 63 MW of the total 17,690 MW required to keep the lights on in this province.

63 MW is .00356 % of the energy required. So if 2000 plus Industrial Wind turbines can only produce .00356% of the energy required, can you calculate how many IWT’s would be required to make a meaningful contribution?

What a sham. This is what happens when you engage in a billion dollar industry without due diligence and a business plan. STOP the madness.

Will the last person out, please turn off the lights.

Catherine

“Absolute Corruption”

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER: WIND INDUSTRY RIDDLED WITH ‘ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION’

Written by James Delingpole, breitbart.com

A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet. wind turbines

Patricia Mora, a research professor in coastal ecology and fisheries science at the National Institute of Technology in Mexico, has been studying the impact of wind turbines in the Tehuantepec Isthmus in southern Mexico, an environmentally sensitive region which has the highest concentration of wind farms in Latin America.

When a project is installed, the first step is to “dismantle” the area, a process through which all surrounding vegetation is eliminated. This means the destruction of plants and sessilities – organisms that do not have stems or supporting mechanisms – and the slow displacement over time of reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, arachnids, fungi, etc. Generally we perceive the macro scale only, that is to say, the large animals, without considering the small and even microscopic organisms…

….After the construction is finalized, the indirect impact continues in the sense that ecosystems are altered and fragmented. As a result, there is a larger probability of their disappearance, due to changes in the climate and the use of soil.

The turbines, she says in an interview with Truthout, have had a disastrous effect on local flora and fauna.          Read more.

Unbelievable Beauty to Unspeakable Horror

The landscape of Lake Superior has visually unmatched vistas and unbelievably gorgeous landscapes.  The Group of Seven spent many years trying to capture the soul of its glorious majesty and its splendors are recorded on countless canvasses.  However, nothing they painted can ever match the reality of its wonder.  Now it is a prime location for  industrial wind installations.

This is the site for Bow Lake Wind Farm.the-phtoo-300x272 copy

the photo Read about March of the Wind Turbines: Wind Farm Development in Northern Ontario

Western University researchers calling on governments and wind farm developers to avoid feeding war of words

John Miner – London Free Press – May 21, 2014

Go to the original article and vote on the Poll!!!

A call for calm | The London Free Press

After studying two Lake Erie communities, Western University researchers are calling on governments and wind farm developers to avoid feeding the war of words that has broken out between supporters and opponents of wind turbines.

In a study published in the journal Environment and Planning, the Western geography department researchers found people who have raised health concerns and other objections to wind turbines are denigrated, dismissed and ostracized by supporters of the developments in their communities.

They also endure shots by senior politicians, such as former premier Dalton McGuinty, who dismissed health concerns as “unreal.”

The treatment only makes the situation worse for individuals with concerns, said associate geography professor Jamie Baxter, one of the study’s authors.

“If you get right down to the micro level of the community, life is not good for these people,” Baxter said Wednesday.

It was in face-to-face interviews researchers heard supporters of the turbines making light of the problems of those opposed, with comments such as “A lot of people live to be annoyed” and “Well, you know, I guess if you stood here long enough you’d get dizzy looking at them . . . watching those blades go around.”

Health concerns reported by opponents included pain, dizziness, sleep deprivation and loss of balance.

The study found the majority of people in both communities supported the existing wind farm projects within the communities — 80% in Port Burwell and a statistically significant lower 63% in nearby Clear Creek.

But the researchers said the support was more “pragmatic” than “enthusiastic.” Most in favour said it was simply a “better alternative” than other energy choices. Those opposed were quite emotional, expressing anger, disappointment and frustration.

In addition to lowering the rhetoric, the researchers suggested the developers of wind farms could improve support for their projects if the financial benefits of wind farms were shared among households in the vicinity of turbines, not just the landowners with the turbines on their property.

john.miner@sunmedia.ca

A TALE OF TWO COMMUNITIES

Support for wind farms

  • Port Burwell: 80%
  • Clear Creek: 66%

Average number of turbines within 2 km of homes

  • Port Burwell: 3.7 turbines
  • Clear Creek: 6.8 turbines

Percentage claiming health impacts

  • Port Burwell: 3%
  • Clear Creek: 22%

ABOUT THE STUDY

In their study, the Western researchers looked at Port Burwell in Elgin County, home to 66 industrial wind turbines, and the Clear Creek area in Norfolk County, about 20 kilometres east, home to 18 turbines.

In addition to 152 responses to a questionnaire, the researchers gleaned information from 26 face-to-face interviews.

The questionnaires were distributed to people living within two kilometres of a wind turbine, while the face-to-face interviews were with participants within a two-kilometre radius.

What wind energy opponents say:

“I would say that’s not really a surprise,” said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, of the study’s findings. Wilson said the dismissive attitude toward opponents of wind farms were set almost at the instant former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty introduced the Green Energy Act. She said those who have concerns have even had their grip on reality questioned.

Among wind projects in Southwestern Ontario:

  • Chatham Wind Farm
  • Clear Creek Point
  • Cruickshank
  • Cultus
  • Frogmore
  • Harrow
  • Huron Wind
  • Kingsbridge
  • Mohawk Point
  • Port Burwell (Erie Shores)
  • Proof Line
  • Ravenswood
  • Thames River I

Original Article: A call for calm | The London Free Press.

The Myth of “Settled” Science

By Charles Krauthammer  National Post  February 21, 2014

Computer models of climate change have been dead wrong, yet alarmists aim to quell debate.

I repeat: I’m not a global-warming believer. I’m not a global-warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30, or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).

Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?  Read rest of article here.

Divisional Court January 22, 2014- Going Down a Rabbit Hole

Cheryl Anderson

Interested observers continued to give up their personal time to attend the Divisional Court hearing today.  About 40 people attended.  It is wonderful how many people have been willing to come from the County in the middle of the week to support PECFN.

Sitting in the Court one begins to wonder about the whole process.  PECFN is here to defend the decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal is not in Court.  The Ministry of Natural Resources is not in Court and yet the decision of that ministry to allow species at risk to be killed, harmed or harassed at Ostrander Point is being discussed at length.  The Tribunal was a creature of the MOE and yet the MOE trying to prove that the Tribunal made the wrong decision.  Shouldn’t the MOE be supporting its own creation?  Myrna asks “Are we going down the rabbit hole here?”

The Gilead and Ministry of Environment lawyers spent the morning discussing whether the Environmental Review Tribunal’s decision was in conflict with the Environmental Protection Act and why there was no evidence given about the numbers of Blanding’s turtles at Ostrander Point, the amount of vehicular traffic or the potential increase in vehicular traffic if the project is approved.  Throughout, the 9 turbine Industrial Wind Turbine project at Ostrander Point was described as a” Public Infrastructure Project”.  As you can imagine, this description made the majority of the observers gag!  The next topic was the suggestion that the Tribunal should have considered alternatives to the project – i.e. made a provision that the roads be closed to the public and offered to approve the project with that condition.   Again there was protracted discussion about the relationship between the ERT and the ESA permit issued by the MNR.

Eric Gillespie spent the afternoon responding to the arguments of the MOE and Gilead.  At this juncture we have to say a very special “Thank you” to Natalie Smith.  Natalie spent the fall analysing the ERT decision and preparing for the counter appeal by Gilead and the MOE.  She has been at Eric’s side throughout and provides the extra knowledge to make sure that we are successful in defending the appeal.

Justice Nordheim put a little wrinkle in the proceedings when he asked Eric to show him where in the ERT analysed the difference between “serious” and “irreversible”.  He wanted to be able to follow the ERT’s reasons for coming to the decision that the Gilead project would cause irreversible damage to the Blanding’s Turtles at Ostrander Point.  Of course, Eric and Natalie were able to find several instances in the decision that showed the analysis of the ERT and how they came to the decision to turn down the Gilead project.

The appeal continues tomorrow morning at 9:30.  The APPEC appeal is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.  I will report on the final few hours of the PECFN appeal tomorrow evening when I get back to the County.

Thank you to everyone for your continued support and for the encouraging messages.
Cheryl Anderson