I Actually Felt Good Leaving The Green Energy Act Regulations Consultation
It was well moderated, folks were treated fairly regardless of their opinion, bureaucrats were taking notes in notebooks that look like they use them daily (and therefore might read them), the moderator didn’t editorialize the notes he took on the public board, and industry interests, community interests and public interests mixed without any rancorous debate on the floor.
I watched Jack Simpson (for whom it is clear I have nothing but contempt) and Joyce McLean (whose ability to stay employed amazes me) sit quietly and listen, Jack taking notes (hopefully on how to properly run a meeting and treat folks who have an interest). When I lined up for the mic, they both looked at me and exchanged some words together. I smiled – not because I wanted to, but frankly couldn’t help wondering what folks who feel the need to read my blog everyday could possibly be thinking I would say out loud after what I’ve written. This was the only time either acknowledged my presence with Jack trying to be the strong silent type when we made eye contact, and Joyce walking from the fifth row from the bottom of the room, all the way to the top and over and down a different row to avoid me as I spoke to an individual from the Ministry of the Environment about their wrongdoings.
I would be embarrassed too if I was such an ignorant proponent and recognized that my project was entirely undoable and very likely to result in all kinds of legal processes that are going to be both embarrassing and damaging simply because the conduct of two morons who are way above their head (12 meters above their head based on their latest proposal).
But enough about the fools at Toronto Hydro and back to the meeting put on by the Ministry of the Environment as part of the regulation development surrounding the Green Energy Act.
We were asked to give our names and affiliation before our comment, so I introduced myself as ‘John Laforet, a citizen whose rights are being taken away by the Green Energy Act’ and then went on to describe the Scarborough Bluffs project, the total lack of environmental protection, the lying, the illegality, the lack of response to these issues by MNR and the lack of environmental assessment currently required simply because Toronto Hydro is owned by a public entity. Regulation 334 would exempt them from the Environmental Assessment Act entirely. I told the room that this lack of protection and total ignoring of any international standards would make environmental lawyers standing on the side of the environment very rich fighting the folks who want to exploit this lack of protection. I was actually impressed how many people applauded me as we did not stack the room, or even attempt to.
The representative from the Ministry of Natural Resources came up to explain/defend their response and the didn’t really say anything meaningful or committal about proposed regulations or current requirements. I felt the need to respond, and did, by telling him that his Ministry has ignored letters from our lawyer advising them about the illegality of this application, that all of our evidence to this fact has simply been overlooked and that they are both aware and complacent in allowing Toronto Hydro to violate the law and lie. I threw in that even Toronto Hydro’s lawyers do not dispute the characterization of Toronto Hydro’s application as illegal or Joyce McLean or Jack Simpson as liars, I offered the email I have from Toronto Hydro’s lawyer as proof of this.
The MNR guy didn’t respond to that. It should also be noted that Joyce McLean definitely gave me what can only be described as ’stink eye’. Like someone whose position is totally indefensible and wrong, both she and Jack Simpson did the right thing by sitting down and shutting up. Now if we could only get them to recognize this project is destined to fail and back away quietly.
I spoke to one of the individuals from the Ministry of the Environment on my way out and requested that we be treated as a stakeholder during the development of the offshore setbacks as we have legitimate environmental knowledge it is important to share and no other avenue to date has allowed us to participate properly including the committee hearings. He seemed to feel it was reasonable to engage members of the community in consultation with other stakeholders and I am hopeful we can work cooperatively to mitigate any negative impact irresponsible and ignorant developers like Jack Simpson and Joyce McLean could have on the environment if they and folks like them were the only folks consulted. It is key though that we are heard and part of the discussions that see the proposed regulations developed, and are not just invited to comment once they are developed and in the final stage of formal consultation.
I also shared Toronto Hydro’s failed approach to the Class B environmental assessment with him and now they felt no need to explore impacts on the over half of Toronto’s last remaining natural wetlands within a couple kilometres of their proposed anemometer, the fifty-five known fish populations that live in the Rouge River and presumably find themselves in Lake Ontario not far from where the Rouge lets out near Toronto Hydro’s site, in addition to a total lack of information sharing as part of their failed and illegal consultation period. His response was that he felt like he would be hearing a lot from us, my promise was simple, – yes you will, and if you’re prepared to listen we can work very cooperatively, but we won’t be going away.
The willingness of Ministry of Environment officials to honestly and fully explore the legitimate environmental impacts of near shore wind farm development is a positive breakthrough. If they are committed to this process (and I have every reason to believe they are) they may be able to do what so many of us in Scarborough are trying to do – protect Toronto’s drinking water, a beautiful untouched shoreline full of aquatic life and bird habitat and ensure that renewable energy projects don’t have special permission to carry out environmental damage.
The main thrust of the meeting was about onshore setbacks. Many folks present agreed that a 40 decibel maximum on sound output 550 metres away is reasonable. These are the same regulations in place for a quarry as an example. All wind farm developers, investors and those I will refer to as ‘profiters’ as they derive income from wind power were opposed to any formal, measured setbacks and complained such a setback would prevent their development. None provided any legitimate arguement outside of business case against a measured setback of 550 metres. Folks who live near wind farms and are not engaged or profitting from wind power held a different view and felt that measured setbacks are neccessary. Opinion was split on whether 550 metres was enough and most believed it should be measured from lot line, not dwelling so that they can rightly enjoy full use of their property. Wind Concerns Ontario and many of the thousands of members across Ontario believe a setback of 2KM is required to ensure safety. This is inline with Germany’s 1500 metre setback for on land turbines. Germany has a considerably smaller land mass and appears able to make do with these.
I think the Ministry of Environment officials did an excellent job tonight and should be congratulated on their meeting. It is my hope that they take the feedback seriously and listen to especially folks who don’t profit from wind power. I do genuinely hope to be able to cooperatively engage with Ministry staff in the setting of offshore setbacks when they begin to develop their regulations on that front, and do believe it would be an opportunity for the professionals (Ministry staff) to step in front of the profane (Minister Smitherman and co.) and ensure that bad statues which make up the Green Energy Act and improved with good regulations.
Tags: Green Energy Act, Green Energy Act Consultations, Green Energy Act Regulations, Jack Simpson, Joyce McLean, Toronto Green Energy Act Meeting, Toronto Hydro Energy Services
June 26th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Yes you will, and if you’re prepared to listen we can work very cooperatively, but we won’t be going away.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
You did an excellent job John. Sorry I couldn’t stick around to meet you. They should take the money from the windmill project and invest it something useful like the street car order.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
John
Thank you for representing so well the views of residents all along the Toronto shoreline of the bluffs at this event.
Informed dialogue and decision-making between residents and government people IS possible, when both sides share access to relevant information, are treated with respect and agree to focus on facts, rather than name-calling. I’m glad you showed how Toronto Hydro completely mismanaged its so-called “consultation” process with the public on this issue in the past year.
The simple scientific fact is there’s not enough steady wind to generate enough power on a commercial basis anywhere along Toronto’s shoreline. It’s the “profiteers” of taxpayer-subsidized wind power installations who disagree with all the existing studies done by experienced and impartial consultants and/or government agencies.
The City of Toronto should be ashamed of how so many of its citizens have been so poorly treated by its officials at Hydro. It’s notable that we have a city that aims to be green, but it’s officials can’t manage to have residents’ garbage and recycling picked up (even after making major tax and fee increases on waste management).
Then there are the elected representatives of the Government of Ontario who have been following their own agendas, without listening to Ontarians. MPPs, especially George Smitherman and Margarett Best, are examples of politicians who care more for their own political futures, rather than our planet’s future. They need to have their priorities re-directed to careers where they can do the trusting public no lasting harm. That’s a task that we voters can make a reality at the next provincial election.
John Mason, Guildwood Resident
June 26th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Well written John and from other reports I have read from other attendees state that the sensible and well informed Opponents to this disgusting Bill attended with about a 50% split between proponent versus opponent. Quite a good showing as this is Toronto and most of the Wind Weasels would be sure to show in this venue. I fear though, that no matter how much common sense and scientific study has been presented by people like yourself and Wind Concerns Ontario folks, Smitherman and Company will ignore them and force this anti Democratic and Destructive Bill through so that they can be “cheered on by the rest of the Weasels of Greed in the World. After all didn’t Smitherman win an Award today from the World Wind Energy Conference in Korea? He is being cheered by fellow Weasels half a world away. see: http://mvwind.10.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1269
Selling out Ontario for his personal benefit is not only a morally bankrupt action but should be considered blatantly hateful towards the Ontario Citizens he is supposed to represent!
June 28th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Waste recycling is an important way to take care of our natural resources and even to save money. If you have an entrepreneurial spirit, recycling could be a great way to earn a living! Find out more about recycling by visiting http://recycling.biz .
June 29th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
[...] wind turbines with varying degrees of success and satisfaction, for example in Port Elgin and Toronto. Feedback will be accepted until July 24, [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
John
Following your articles and I am surprised at your optimistic nature towards MOE. You should read Calvin Luther Martin’s “How to Fight the Big Wind Onslaught”. The appearance of listening, taking notes to give the appearance of action buys time for developments to move forward. Moving turbines further from homes does nothing to the unliveable property surrounding the turbines after they are built. Moving them further from homes does nothing for the wildlife displaced. Putting industrial wind turbines out on the waters does nothing to limit potential environmental impacts. Any cost (public finances and environmental degradation) is too high for the little or no gains (other than profits for a few). Discussions with the government will result in compromises. How close is too close, how many are too many… Good cop, bad cop. There are good people working in MOE and MNR who recognize the ridiculous direction the government wants to go with industrial wind development, but they will be bound by the policies, direction and planning process developed by those that have little understanding or interest in doing the right thing. Processes are developed with the intent that no one will say no unless there is a legal reason to do so and even then there will always be “mitigation” regardless whether or not mitigation, in reality, exists. The only nice thing someone in the government can do for us is to ensure a true cost benefit analysis is done by those who understand the limits of electricity produced by industrial wind. Reality is needed. We have no need for industrial wind developments.