Follow us on:
Who’s funding anti-renewable energy efforts? Polluters, of course.
back to the issue
Click a term to initiate a search.
topics
- Tar Sands (44)
- Toxic Nation (44)
- Blue Flag (29)
- Just Beautiful (26)
- Great Lakes (23)
- Clean Energy (17)
- Lake Simcoe (15)
- Greenbelt (14)
- Good Green Jobs (9)
- Banning Bisphenol A (2)
May
10
2012
It is really a surprise to anyone that the polluting fuel industry is behind recent attacks on clean, renewable energy?
photo credit:
It is really a surprise to anyone that the polluting fuel industry is behind recent attacks on clean, renewable energy?
After all, as our transition to using windmills, solar panels and electric vehicles gains momentum, it’s easy to see how peddlers of oil and coal might be freaked out. What if we don’t want to buy what they are selling anymore? It’s not like anyone actually enjoys getting robbed at the gas pump every week or relishes a lungful of coal smog.
This week, the U.K.’s respected Guardian newspaper uncovered a confidential memo proposing a massive fossil-fuel corporation funded campaign to build opposition to against wind power in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential elections next fall.
The fossil fuel-funded strategy proposes a partnership with local anti-wind groups, the biggest climate denial think tanks and the ultra right-wing Tea Party. Suggested tactics include creating a ‘think tank’ to create credible looking reports and disseminate misinformation, fake businesses to buy anonymous billboard advertising, and an ‘astroturf’ campaign to create the illusion of grassroots support.
The goal? “To cause subversion of [wind] so that it effectively becomes so bad that no one wants to admit in public that they are for it.” Sound familiar?
The scheme looks disturbingly close to anti-renewable tactics already being used in Ontario. There, anti-wind campaigns are in full swing spreading misinformation, buying up billboards, referencing discredited studies, and even running an astroturf campaign. U.S. oil billionaires are already funding anti-renewable campaigns north of the border. The main talking point is identical to the one proposed for south of the border: “green energy isn’t actually green.”
If in fact renewable energy were as insignificant as the fossil fuel industry says it is, it seems doubtful they would pull out all the stops to discredit it. But, actions speak louder than words and the fossil fuel industry sees the writing on the wall. The end is nigh for outdated 19th century energy and they are terrified.
Why any rational group would oppose replacing our electricity generation with sources that are far cleaner, safer and sustainable is clear: They don’t, oil companies do.
Just as the fossil fuel industry spent millions attacking the science behind global warming, now it is attacking the solutions to the problem.
So, the next time someone tries to tell you that renewable energy isn’t green, you might want to consider where that idea actually came from.
leave a comment
May
11
2012
group funding
Paul Kuster says:
I really wish Big Oil was funding our opposition to Big Wind. But alas it seems that Oil Sands players such as Suncor have interests in Big Wind projects as well, so your premise for Ontario is false.
Jul
25
2012
Sorry Paul, that doesn't make
Remember The Future says:
Sorry Paul, that doesn't make any sense at all. Why would you take money from organizations that are working against your goal? Yes, Big Oil is most likely NOT funding your anti-wind activities and those in Ontario, but how about nuclear? Bruce Nuclear Generating Station is in the same community that your anti-wind group is based out of. That would make it one of the only communities in the world that is anti-wind and attempting to stop any new installments, but has no issue whatsoever with the gigantic aging radioactive threat in the same place.
May
13
2012
Could you answer these questions for me please?
Lori Griffin says:
a) How many wind turbines do you have 550m from your home?
b) If the answer is none, how many petitions have you signed to build them there?
c) It appears the vast majority of residents of the GTA, Burlington, Hamilton, Stoney Creek, and all the way out to Oshawa, are in support of Premier McGuinty’s Green Energy Act, which has stripped away the rights of local government and rural citizens to decide whether they want these 600-foot structures blanketing the countryside of Ontario. The shorelines of Lake Huron, Lake Superior and Lake Erie have already taken on their fair share of turbines.
Here’s my question: If all of the other Great Lakes are so perfectly suited to industrial wind turbines, why are there not an equal number dotting the shoreline of Lake Ontario, specifically in the Toronto area? There is already more than 1,500 mW worth of turbines in Ontario. McGuinty’s goal is 10,000 mW. You could easily fit 2,000, 2.5 mw turbines, if not more, right from Hamilton to Oshawa, thus attaining Premier McGuinty's goal in one fell swoop.
Why are you not actively advocating for this to happen?
Why are we putting these wind turbines so far from the place where consumption is the greatest?
Rural Ontario has already done more than its share. Instead of destroying much needed farmland and fragile ecosystems, isn't it time for the largest urban areas of Ontario to step up to the plate and do their part?
May
17
2012
Rural Ontario needs a better deal
tono-bungay says:
I agree that rural Ontario is doing its share and not reaping the benefits. The majority of green energy is being placed on distribution grids and not on transmission grids. What that means, besides lower overhead and less power losses, is that it is being consumed locally, in rural areas and small towns. We don't have the technology to route that electricity to Toronto or Hamilton.
And yet the price being charged to rural Ontarians for electricity doesn't reflect this savings. People in Toronto may be shocked to find out that rural Ontarians are charged more for transmission than for electricity. And that's even if the electricity is being produced next door and transmitted through the power line that goes to their house. That's because rural people deal with the bloated bureaucracy of Hydro One, an organization that is feeling its empire threatened, rather than with a locally-owned distribution company like in urban areas. If you charged the actual cost of delivery electricity to residents in the vicinity of wind turbines, their bill would go down. Isn't that a nice way of saying thank you?
May
22
2012
That doesn't really answer my question.
Lori Griffin says:
Why isn't Toronto stepping up to the plate and producing its own power? If industrial wind turbines can be placed all along the shores of Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, then why can't they be built from Hamilton to Oshawa?
Why isn't Environmental Defence pushing to preserve much needed farmland for food production? Why isn't ED pushing to preserve fragile ecosystems like Ostranders Point? What exactly is ED defending, when wind companies are being given special permission to harm or kill endangered species, in order to build their turbines in a designated wildlife area?
My question is, why are these industrial machines being built down along the shoreline of the GTA where energy consumption is the greatest?
May
22
2012
your completely missing the
Bill Jensen says:
your completely missing the details here Lori. anti-wind groups off the Scarborough bluffs repeatedly attacked Toronto's proposed off-shore wind project - fighting clean wind power that would have been more than 5km offshore because they didn't want to have anything in their views... the new minimum 550m setback means that there aren't too many places you can put wind inside a city if it isn't off-shore, which makes sense. There are a ton of rooftop solar projects happening though in all urban parts of the province.
Wind projects don't do any damage to agricultural land - in fact they help support the farmers who can continue to farm their land. Take a breath, and realize that wind power has been safely built in rural parts of Europe for decades. There are far bigger threats to rural ontario - like global warming! Ask yourself... are you attacking what you don't understand?
May
22
2012
" Are you attacking what you
Paul Kuster says:
" Are you attacking what you don't understand"
I could and shall ask you that same question . Even the "scientists" at UEA have admitted that there's been no statistical warming in the last 15 years. To attack that premise shows your scientific illiteracy.
Also, I can't recall when 25 truckloads of cement / turbine was compatible with agricultural land. I can't wait to see what can be reaped from that harvest. As well , turbines and their access roads in agricultural fields disrupt efficient working of that land. You've obviously never plowed a field before. Livestock won't go near these things.
When the time comes to decommission these multi-million dollar mistakes, whose responsible for reclaiming the land? Most contracts show the farmer is responsible and the costs far exceed what they're getting. These wind deals to farmers are what one German politician reffered to as "Sweet Poison".
Am I against wind turbines? Damn straight I am. They're inefficient, way too costly and do nothing in terms of mitigating "Climate change".
Paul
Jun
07
2012
Climate change
Rosie says:
99.9% of scientists agree that climate change is happening and that the last decade was the warmest on record. The UN released a report (June 2012)stating that "progress has stalled on key environmental goals the world's nations have set for themselves, like tackling climate change, combating desertification and protecting biodiversity."
"The world continues to speed down an unsustainable path despite over 500 internationally agreed goals and objectives to support the sustainable management of the environment and improve human well-being," the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) said when it released its Global Environmental Outlook, 6 June.
How many more scientists and reports do you need?
Jun
09
2012
UN cooks the books
Paul Kuster says:
To cite a UN report, ANY UN report is just intellectual laziness. The UN has a vested interest in perpetuating these chicken little scenarios. Even now the UEA has admitted that there's been no statistical warming in the past 14 years. The past IPCC panel report was written by mostly NGO's [again with vested interests] with little to no verifiable credentials. I really wish the UN would use "real" scientists. Could you please provide the link to the June 2012 UN report?
May
22
2012
I understand completely
Lori Griffin says:
I do more research on this topic in a single day than most people will ever do in their lifetime.
There is just as much opposition to the destruction of farmland and fragile ecosystems in Europe as there is in Ontario. Not sure how you can possible think that wind projects don't do any harm to agricultural land. Any farmland sacrificed for green energy is too much, especially when they could be built along the GTA shoreline. If McGuinty can over-ride rural Ontario's objections to having our land destroyed, why can't he expropriate whatever land he needs in the GTA?
But are you trying to convince me that there is no place from Hamilton to Oshawa where turbines could be built? What about the Leslie Street Spit? The old Ontario Place land? There are hundreds of places along that shoreline that wouldn't be within the 550 m setback.
But let's just say that's true. Then why aren't they putting solar panels on every single commerical building and high-rise in Toronto?
Why are we sacrificing endangered species (for example at Ostranders Point) or putting hundreds of industrial turbines on the Bruce Peninsula which is a Unesco World Biosphere Protected area? Why isn't E.D. defending these areas?
I go back to one of my original questions. What exactly is E.D. defending? And once all the endangered species are wiped out and ecosystems destroyed, what will there be left to defend?
May
23
2012
We defend green energy
kbrooks says:
As an employee of ED, I hope I can clear up the question as to what we are defending.
1. We do defend farmland. ED was one of the leading organizations campaigning for the Greenbelt in 2005 (1.8 million acres of protected farmland and green spaces) and we now coordinate the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance. Farmland and green space are incredibly important to us.
2. Farmers are also important, and it's important to note that the windmills placed in rural areas are on farmland because the farmers agreed to have them there. These windmills are a source of revenue for the farmers. They are not incompatible with farming, but complimentary to it.
3. The commenter above is correct in that there were plans to build a wind farm off of the Scarborough bluffs. Unfortunately, a small but vocal constituency didn't support it, and offshore wind is now in a holding pattern. In general, however, we supported that plan and support offshore wind in the Great Lakes. In fact, through Blue Green Canada, our alliance with labour unions and other ENGOs, we have been actively campaigning in support of offshore wind. Other than offshore, however, it is difficult to find much room for windmills in urban areas.
4. We would love to see solar panels on top of every highrise, every house, every public building throughout the GTA and even across Ontario. But the Green Energy Act cannot tell anyone they must do it, just as it didn't tell any farmers they must put windmills on their land. Instead, it provides a financial incentive.
5. We support action on climate change, and a transition away from fossil fuels towards green energy. And to that end, the Green Energy Act is the best renewable energy policy in North America: it is helping us close down polluting coal-fired power plants and positioning Ontario as a leading green energy manufacturing centre.
May
25
2012
Response; 1) The Green belt
Paul Kuster says:
Response;
1) The Green belt isn't the only place your food comes from. Lately, the only "crop" I see that's thriving are monster homes, especially on the moraine.
2)It's true that farmers have agreed to the placement of turbines on their properties, but why would 40% of these farmers, then move off the land? As well, many farmers who are now beginning to understand the true nature of the contracts {ie gag clauses, decommissioning costs}, are seeking ways to get out of them.
3)Windmills in urban areas? Why not? Clearly you haven't heard of the CAW turbine in Port Elgin that has 60 residences within 550 metres of it. If it can happen there, one or more could go say, at Downsview Park?
Leslie st. Spit?
Humber Bay?
High Park?
Or just place them offshore in Lake Ont.
4)The financial incentives for all involved are just to ornerous. The subsidies paid out to the multi-nationals such as Samsung, Nextera, Pattern etc. don't stay in Ont. Meanwhile more items are being de-listed from OHIP. More cuts to educational programs { especially outdoor} are because of higher hydro costs. I can provide a litaney of examples to back up my assertion.
5)Ah yes- the coal fired plant bogeyman. Do you realize that right now, we have enough installed capacity, that we don't even need coal or wind{renewables}. Check out the IESO site and that will show that we're capable of generating 100% CLEAN power without renewables, that are clearly becoming the financial cement shoes on our province.
To say that manufacturing jobs will be blossoming in Ontario as a result of the GEA just does not square with reality. Windsor comes to mind as an example of this reality. Wishing it so, will not make it happen.
As I write this, the total demand for Ont. is 19683 mw. Wind is contributing a paltry 586 mw {2.9% of demand at 38% (High for wind)efficiency}. Consider as well for this past hour alone, approximently $47,000.00 worth of subsidies, just got blown out of the province. Extrapolated over a day? $1.128 million. A DAY!
May
28
2012
Know what you are talking about
Bill Jensen says:
You clearly have no idea how the Green Energy Act works.
1) There are NO tax subsidies for renewable energy. The cost of renewable energy in the FIT program is covered by the electricity price, and only paid for the actual KWhs delivered. Renewable energy is actually only 6% of increase in bills. Nuclear DOES receive significant tax breaks (at the expense of the government spending you mention) and is responsible for 46% of electricity increases. Cuts to any government service come from the TAX base of which renewable energy has zero impact. You are barking up the wrong tree.
2) The placement of projects is only up to the developer - if the setbacks allow and the transmission lines and wind are available, a developer can put a windmills in a city if they want. Anti-wind groups paradoxically want higher setbacks, but are okay with lowering them in cities?
3) Claiming 40% of farmers move when windmills are built is so ridiculous as to completely destroy your questionable credibility. Any intelligent, reasonable person will run away from anyone trying to scare you with made up facts as blatantly as this. Its fear-mongering of anti-wind groups causing people undue stress - 30 years of people living next to modern windmills around the world shows how absurd these claims are.
I've had enough of cottagers trying to spook people so they can preserve their view.
May
30
2012
By the way, i can take you to
Paul Kuster says:
By the way, i can take you to a farm where the owner signed a wind contract and the the farmhouse is now up for rent. So don't tell me that farmers don't move away after they sign deals. If I can show you one example this easily I'll stand by my premise.
May
22
2012
correction to above
Lori G says:
That last line should read "why AREN'T these industrial machines being built down along the shoreline of the GTA?"
May
15
2012
Where is the truth?
Matt Palmer says:
You really need to explain why oil companies would fund anti-wind? There is no competition. Here is my blog response to your article. I hope you will take the time to read it. http://intentionalfilm.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/where-is-the-truth/
Jul
25
2012
Very surprised this article
Remember The Future says:
Very surprised this article does not include the possibility that Big-Nuclear/Big-Fossil vis-a-vis Ontario Power Generation, could be behind some of the anti-wind 'grassroots' campaigns.
In Ontario in 2005, OPG (Ontario Power Generation) was been forbidden by the government to compete with private alternative energy companies and essentially confines them to their current generating sources (Coal,Gas,Oil,Nuclear,Hydro)
http://www.opg.com/pdf/memorandum.pdf
Kinda makes OPG a prime suspect as the Ontario government put them in a fairly difficult position to maintain market share and that is a pretty good motive to disrupt any new competing private build.
Lets also remember that OPG owns the largest coal fired plant in North America (Nanticoke). OPG does have 3 demonstration wind turbines which generate a paltry 7MW out of OPG's +22,000MW capaticy , 2 at Bruce Nuclear Power Station and 1 at Pickering which, incidentally, these anti-wind groups never seem to protest.
There is also a very obvious link between Canadian tea party types - ultra right wing/reformers - and this anti-renewable push(putsch?) The same people spreading very obvious misinformation here in the comments section (Paul Kuster, Lori Griffin, Lori G) spend INCREDIBLE amounts of time on as many blogs and media outlets as possible, under many assumed identities propagating not only anti-wind dis/misinformation but that of climate change denial and the whole gamut of the tea party dogma. It is far too much of a full time job for some of these people to maintain a web presence such as they do for it to be 'grassroots'.
Interestingly enough, and speaking strictly about Ontario, these anti-wind groups tend to be found in rural areas which tend to vote and have MPs/MPPs that are conservative while the Premier is Liberal (but obviously viewed as hardcore communist from the anti-wind types). This is as much as political/ideological issue as it is anything else. As you can see in the comments section below, and as they do on every media outlet they can get to, they will persuade you to sign petitions to have the wind turbines that were to be placed in their communities placed in the GTA. 2 things strike me about that. Firstly, these wind groups are already active in preventing wind turbines in ANY community in Ontario and that includes the GTA so it creates quite a paradox to do such a thing. Secondly, their only solution seems to be either no turbines altogether or just placement in the GTA. That is it. No other thoughts, options or solutions. They ignore 40+ years of studies and data on wind turbines simply because it does not provide the bias confirmation that they are looking for. The ONLY sources of information they provide to 'back up' some of their preposterous claims are the private locked down blogs that they are involved with. The anti-wind/renewable movement is not grassroots by any means and they are not interested in any debate or dialogue. Very typical reformer "my way or the highway" attitude.
People really need to be more aware that their future is being taken from them yet again, unless they mobilize against this growing menace.
Comments
We would love to hear from you - leave a comment below, or reply to a previous comment. We have a comments policy