Is George Smitherman Familiar With the Environment?

by John Laforet
posted on February 20th, 2009 at 08:01:40 am

While both Premier McGuinty and Minister Smitherman have softened their ‘absurd’ rhetoric since unleashing a very public backlash on themselves across the Province, Minister Smitherman still doesn’t seem to get it. They’ve backed down from flinging insults at Scarborough residents, but still don’t seem prepared to recognize the environmental concerns Scarborough’s residents have.

Smitherman’s latest comments represent the fundamental lack of understanding the Premier and he seem to have regarding Scarborough’s concerns. It’s not about our homes, it’s about preserving the environment from untold degradation. Perhaps if either of them or their staff cared to read or reply to a single letter Guildwood residents sent them before dismissing us as ‘NIMBY’ they would know this.

Smitherman again took aim at opponents of a proposed Toronto Hydro project to put a string of wind turbines in Lake Ontario two to four kilometres off the Scarborough Bluffs, saying they are far enough away from homes not to be “impactful.”

“We have done a lot of work looking at the evidence … we’re always reviewing the literature,” Smitherman added, suggesting polluted air from coal-fired electricity plants poses health dangers that outweigh concerns about wind turbines. Toronto Star, February 20th 2009

It is important that the Minister is now prepared to recognize there is a human health impact worth considering, but why can’t he recognize there is an environmental impact too?

This isn’t a balancing act. The environment should never be a balancing act. I get for political reasons comparing wind to coal makes for a decent talking point, but it isn’t a coal power plant that currently has the potential to release harmful substances into Toronto’s drinking water, cause untold damage to the shoreline or to bird, bat and fish populations. It is a wind turbine project that will not require a single ‘iota’ of provincial environmental review whatsoever. Nothing. Once they have the anemometer application from Natural Resources as far as the Government is concerned it’s officially ‘go time’. (You could already suggest the Government has decided it is ‘go’ time, considering Toronto Hydro Energy Services has stalled their application and the Premier and his Deputy have already come out swinging in favour of the application they have yet to received.)

Can Smitherman seriously ignore the fact that the proposal calls for the installation of 18 000 tonnes of massive structures in the lake, stirring up all kinds of unstudied lake bed sediment upstream from where 45% of Toronto’s water is sucked out of the lake? All of this disturbed debris, like the sand that created the Beach and the Toronto Islands will naturally drift towards the waterworks, where it has the potential to get sucked into the City’s fresh water supply. There will be no environmental review first so we won’t even know what we’re sending down current. Although should it be a problem, the good people at Toronto Water will tell us about it when the release their annual report monitoring the dozens of contaminants in our water they monitor.

As for his coal reference, at least to me it appears the Minister is giving folks the choice between getting their toxic Mercury fix between the air we breathe and the water Toronto drinks. Lake Ontario’s fish are inedible due to high mercury levels, and like other heavy metals that don’t dissolve in water they concentrate in lake bed sediment on the bottom with other harmful materials like PCBs. Construction will undoubtedly displace massive amounts of lake bed sediment.

Smitherman appears ready to ignore the fact that the Scarborough Bluffs is the most sensitive portion of shoreline anywhere on Lake Ontario and this project if ‘forced’ (the Premier’s word) on the community would be the world’s closest project of it’s size. Most European countries say one needs a minimum distance from shore of 5KM for nature conservation reasons. Germany thinks 20KM is necessary. Greenpeace Europe agrees that offshore plants need to respect this minimum distance, European wind energy associations do too. They also acknowledge the importance of full environmental assessments. So why can’t Minister Smitherman and Joyce McLean (the past President of Canada’s Wind Energy Association) take the advice of Denmark, Germany, Greenpeace Europe (McLean is also the former Greenpeace Canada Chairperson, and a former Great Lakes Campaigner for Greenpeace), and the wind industry. Do they seriously believe that they know something that the industry, governments and environmental lobby in Europe don’t?

Joyce McLean has no credibility left on this after the series of misleading statements, dirty tricks, and a demonstrated inability to appreciate any of the environmental, viability or economic concerns residents have put forth. (Once again, I am fully prepared to back up this claim if challenged.) Does the Minister really want to cast his lot in with her and hope for a different outcome?

In it’s current form this bill is not a “green” anything. It’s a fraud of a bill. It is bill cloaked in a label, written by industry insiders with a vested financial interest, introduced by a guy whose chosen to attack folks who object to the fact that not a single Provincial environmental review of any sort is required to construct 60 objects as tall as the Royal York with each weighing the equivalent of 6 subway cars each and anchored up to 90 metres deep on an unstudied sand bar. It is madness that the Province believes no environmental study whatsoever is required.

If he is serious about passing a true Green Energy Act he would recognize that set backs are necessary for environmental protection as well. He would recognize that there is a legitimate need to do a thorough environmental assessment before approving any project that has the potential to release heavy metals and PCBs into Toronto’s drinking water or have any negative environmental impact. He needs to recognize that the Scarborough Bluffs are unstable by their nature, and the construction and heavy pounding that is required to anchor a wind turbine 90 metres into a sandbar could cause erosion and further destabilize the cliffs. He needs to recognize that provincial legislation exempts wind projects from any environmental review. The provincial government just doesn’t care what kind of impact these things have.

I’m not an expert. But based on the current legislation, this blog and my attempt to use other studies and data to educate my audience, is the closest thing to an environmental study that will come out of this proposed project if Minister Smitherman doesn’t find the guts to tell the wind industry that they too need to follow the rules and actually care about the environmental impact their projects have.

The Premier and the Minister need to wake up before they risk damaging the amazing shoreline that is the Scarborough Bluffs because they were either too stubborn to admit they are wrong or not strong enough to stand up and show the leadership needed to protect the cliffs from a moneyed interest that doesn’t appear to care. They need to ask themselves before Monday when they introduce the bill why they wouldn’t want to adopt well recognized international standards for shoreline nature conservation and why the Scarborough Bluffs, which are far more delicate than other shorelines in the world, needs to have literally the closest project of it’s size anywhere in the world? And if so, why does it need to be the closest project of it’s kind in the world and the only one without any environmental review?

Finally – if anyone in a position of responsibility wants to contact me in either the Premier’s office or the Minister’s Office to discuss internationally recognized shoreline set backs for all offshore wind projects, or internationally recognized full environmental reviews, I would be more than happy to share this and can be reached at john.laforet@laforet.ca anytime today or over the weekend.

Let's Talk Offshore Setbacks – Poll Question Below

by John Laforet
posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 07:08:18 am

“A real technological challenge is the location of our wind parks, which will be 40-60 km offshore in a water depth of up to 40 m. But we will manage this, and in the process we will prove that environmental concerns (the fi rst kilometres are reserved for natural habitats) and other aspects (the next kilometres are shipping lines) can be taken into consideration.” Sigmar Gabriel, Minister for the Environment, Germany

Source: (Page 26, Wind Directions – Focus on Offshore November/December 2007 European Wind Energy Association)

“Priorities for the cooperation are the exchange of experiences and information on firstly, the effects of offshore wind on ecosystems, the atmospheric and marine environment. We still have to learn a lot about the birds and sea animals and plants surrounding our wind platforms. We should do our best to reduce and mitigate possible negative impacts.” Sigmar Gabriel, Minister for the Environment, Germany

Source: (Page 27, Wind Directions – Focus on Offshore November/December 2007 European Wind Energy Association)

“The plant is approximately 40 km from Oostend and will not be visible from the coast, one
aspect which greatly simplified the approval procedure.” (Page, 11)

“The Danish concept of expansion seeks to concentrate output on a few large regions in which
plants are to be built at a great distance (up to 40 km) from the coast. Smaller wind farms close
to the coast, such as the Middelgrunden project, are exceptions.” (Page, 12)

“The German projects are to be implemented in extremely deep waters at a depth of up to 30 meters and are often 40 km from the shore.” (Page 14)

“No offshore windfarms will be realised within a distance of 15 km from the coast line, the exeption being the demonstration farm NSW in front of the bathing resort Egmond aan zee.” (Page 17)

Source: Qualification Requirement Analysis Offshore Wind Energy Industry (completed for Pushing Offshore Wind Energy Regions)

The European Wind Energy Assocation makes the following recommendation to EU offshore wind policy:

“Encouraging efficient planning procedures which are based on past experiences and are in proportion to the scale and the impact of the project” (Page, 25)

Source: EWEA Delivering Offshore Power in Europe

Of six currently operating offshore wind farms between 100MW and 200 MW (the proposed size of the Toronto Hydro Energy Services project, the closest is 5km offshore, three are 10km offshore, one is 15km offshore and the farthest is 23km offshore).

Is it unreasonable to suggest that if Ontario is serious about setting minimum setbacks they heed the advice of European experience, considering to date, Europe is the world’s only jurisdiction to have successfully installed offshore wind projects?

Even though there are other serious concerns with their proposal, it appears the  proposed Trillium project in Lake Ontario at least got the shoreline memo as they are talking as far as 28 km offshore (the closest point is 15km off Prince Edward County – a community that can only be described as being swarmed by wind developers.) [updated to correct distance from Prince Edward County and to recognize the irresponsible concentration of wind development in this one county].

There isn’t a single example anywhere in the world of a project the size of the Toronto Hydro Energy Services project anywhere near as close to shore as they are proposing. Considering it is also an ecologically sensitive site that virtually all experts agree doesn’t have the wind to allow for a viable wind project why are we even going down this road?

I have next to no confidence in the Premier or Minister Smitherman making the right decision on this because each has already demonstrated a bizarre level of ignorance of the facts of offshore wind and the unprecedented lack of research into possible damage THES could do and a total lack of international precedence of what they propose. That being said, it is my hope that the Green Energy Act will include environmental setbacks, specifically for offshore projects that recognize generally accepted European standards.

I fear the Green Energy Act will serve as yet another example of why lobbyists and industry should not be allowed to self regulate. These guys are no different from any other energy company that is simply seeking a buck in an recession proof field. They are exploitive and without a care for the environment. Don’t believe me – take a look at what one of their founding members had to say about the environment.

“The dire need to stop global warming with an aggressive renewable energy plan for Ontario outstrips potential damage to sensitive environmental areas, says Marion Fraser, a founding member of the Green Energy Act Alliance.”

Marion Fraser worked as political staff to the Ontario Minister of Energy from 2003 to 2008. Incidentally, it is the current Minister of Energy who is ignoring legitimate environmental concerns and overriding local democracy to give Fraser’s latest project what they want. Call me crazy, but does it seem a tad sketchy to leave a sensitive position in government and turn around and begin lobbying that same office for things you used to be responsible for advising on from within? The fact that these organizations – a bunch of whom are either tied to industry insiders or receive public funds or have charitable designations have been campaigning for legislation seems entirely inappropriate to me. It certainly does not represent my view of how public policy decisions should be made.

Toronto Hydro Windfarm Meeting STACKED!

by John Laforet
posted on November 25th, 2008 at 22:33:12 pm

Supporters of wind farms from Downtown Toronto made their way out to the beautiful shores of Scarborough to support a wind farm in someone else’s backyard last night. Instead of taking public transit, they came on rented school busses. I recorded two busses compliments of the Toronto Environmental Alliance that came to stack the meeting and try to convince Toronto Hydro residents were in favour of a project that they are not. I watched one idle for five minutes. Over 1000 people descended on Sir Wilfred Laurier CI to express their views. It took hours, but Guildwood residents were able to get to the mics after the bussed in, and paid supporters were through with their speeches.

It was a disgusting display. With the greatest respect to the paid staff from a number of organizations that stacked the room and flooded the mics for the first part of the meeting — you’re voices are heard through your professional lobbying efforts and advocacy budgets. The meeting was for residents to express their views. Peter Tabuns – the MPP from Toronto Danforth and contender for the NDP leadership showed up to speak passionately in favour of the development and glad hand all the bussed in attendees.

Members of the Toronto Environmental Alliance’s paid staff took to the mics to read responses received through their website – but could not muster a single member of their organization from Scarborough to speak. Representatives from various union’s spoke in favour, while virtually all residents who spoke were opposed to the plan.

Toronto Hydro representatives sat on the stage and told their sad story about how this wasn’t actually about a windfarm, but just a test to see how much wind is there. No one bought that. They admitted to having no scientific proof that this site would be viable but clinged to the idea of building a windfarm off the Bluffs. They refused to rule out building more than sixty when Councillor Ainslie asked them to commit to that as a limit for the site. I have to admit, watching Councillor Ainslie ask someone to make a pledge on camera was a bit ironic and did remind me of his own pledge not to run.

Even with busses, and paid organizers working against the community, there were still more people in opposition to the project than those in favour.

The fact remains of sixty five sites the Ontario Power Authority thinks could be viable for offshore windfarm development the Scarborough Bluffs are not on the list. That means this site is not even the 65th best option for an offshore windfarm. Toronto Hydro’s response – it wasn’t an exhaustive report. Good one guys.

MY favourite laugh line of the Toronto Hydro presentation was that this would not cost tax payers anything and we would not pay for it. Really? Toronto Hydro is 100% owned by the City of Toronto, and all bills include the matter of this massive hydro debt. I wonder where they hide their money tree to pay for this one.

The wind mill at Pickering – which is right on the water operates at 18% capacity. This is over a five year period and means 82% of the time it is not functioning to the degree it should. How these guys think this project would be any different is beyond me.

What was presented to us last night was Toronto Hydro’s plan to force a windfarm on a site that they have no scientific reason to believe it will be viable. They refused to say what the minimum threshold would be for viability before the research is complete. They refused to allow independent access to monitor the data collection online. They also refused to limit the possible size of the project. They don’t know what it will cost or how much power it will create. They have no answer for why this site and not the nine other sites that the OPA recommended on Lake Ontario for offshore wind. They may was well have summed it up with “But I really wanna build a wind farm here”.

The most bizarre argument they kept making was “but Copenhagen has a wind farm just three km off hits harbour” – Copenhagen is about a fifth the size of Toronto, it’s wind farm is less than forty percent of the minimum size being discussed for this project, and just under 20% of Denmark’s power comes from wind farms and they are a major producer of wind turbines. – Besides that, Toronto and Copenhagen are quite similar I guess.

When someone asked if there is a city the size of Toronto with an offshore wind farm, the response was Copenhagen. When the questioner pointed out the size of the city in comparison to Toronto, he was told he was wrong and told that Cincinnati which was said to be “bigger than Toronto” (Cincinnati has a population of 330 000) and they are looking to build an offshore wind farm. A lot of us were a bit sick hearing about Copenhagen and one man took to the mic and pointed out that the Danish were also pioneers in pornography. This is something I would not know, and felt best not to google, so I will just throw it out there.

I am all for green energy, and like many people from Guildwood I am very concerned about the environment, but I would only support viable projects that will actually have an impact. If the City of Toronto wanted to get serious about climate change, they would focus on more projects involving solar thermal water heating. Currently the City has plans to work with two private companies – one of which is from Scarborough to install solar thermal water heaters on the roofs of some twenty municipal buildings in Toronto. Projects like this can actually work and ease pressure on the power grid. Enwave also has a great potential to help ease pressure off the grid, by utilizing the lake’s cold water to cool buildings in the downtown core.

Let’s work with homeowners to create a program that focuses on making solar thermal water heating units more affordable for individual family homes. If there was some kind of green mortgage plan similar to Dion’s idea and perhaps run through Toronto Hydro, that allowed individual home owners to borrow some or all of the cost of one of these units and pay it back through energy savings, we could go a long way to addressing global warming in our city. Sixty windmills put in a crappy location off the Bluffs is far too small, and too ineffective to make a real impact, and will simply make people feel good when they see pictures of them taken on sunny days.

Click here for some of the press from last night:

Below is more Information on the Toronto Environmental Alliance Busses:

This was posted by Richard Lawrence in the “Clean Energy Education Forum”
– Note the 116 Morningside bus runs from Kennedy Subway station and stops literally right in front of Sir Wilfred Laurier CI. Unlike TEA’s busses, it departs every five to ten minutes and does not idle. I guess you’d need to be from Guildwood to know that.

“Hi Everybody,
Just in case you are from the Toronto Area, there is a very important public meeting tonight concerning the proposed offshore wind project by Toronto Hydro. There are links to more information at the bottom of this email. Sign the petition to support the project here:

Toronto Environmental Alliance:

http://torontoenvironment.org/windmills”