Mothers Against Turbines: not done!

Niagara This Week, May 29

‘We’re not done yet’ say wind turbine opponents

                    Environmental Review Tribunal tosses MAWT case

Grimsby Lincoln News

By             Amanda Moore                                 

                            A group of mothers is not done fighting the onslaught of 77 wind turbines in their community despite a ruling against them by the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The ERT dismissed the case against the Niagara Region Wind Corp. project brought forward by Mothers Against Turbines Inc. in a decision issued in May.

“The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has not established that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious harm to human health,” ERT vice-chair Dirk VanderBent wrote in his decision. “The Tribunal further finds that the Appellant has not established that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.

“The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has not established that s. 142.1 of the EPA (Environmental Protection Act) violates the right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter.”

The decision came after a series of hearings held earlier this year in Wellandport and Wainfleet.

“We’re not done yet,” said Linda Rogers, MAWT director. “That’s the take home message from this. We are looking at other options carefully.”

Rogers said the decision was disappointing, but not unexpected. Despite several appeals filed by groups similar to MAWT — including the West Lincoln Glanbrook Wind Action Group — only one has had a victory at the ERT level.

Paramount to MAWT’s claims are that the proposed project will cause serious harm to children’s health as well as the environment. Rogers said just because the ERT ruled otherwise, doesn’t mean the issues disappear.

“The issues don’t go away because of the decision,” she said. “The ERT has ruled consistently that there is insufficient evidence, that doesn’t mean there is no evidence.”

MAWT is hopeful a recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal will help their case. Last month, the appeals court ruled that a nine-turbine project in Prince Edward County put the threatened Blanding’s turtle at even more risk. The medium-sized turtle with a smile-like expression can be found in the footprint of the NRWC project. According to MAWT member Loretta Shields, who testified at January’s hearing, 20 of the 77 turbines are sited in known Blanding’s habitats. The appeals court ruled the network of roads required to construct and service the project would put the turtle at risk. MAWT argued the same was true in regards to the NRWC project, but the ERT ruled the issue was outside the scope of the appeal.

“There are no rules for wind developers,” said Rogers. “If you want to build a garage, you can’t do it. If you want to open a business, you can’t do it. But if you want to build a wind project, blast holes and tear up roads it’s game on.”

Rogers said her group is not giving up, but is taking a pause to regroup and decide on the next steps. Appealing the ERT decision is one option MAWT is considering.

“We are moms of children,” said Rogers. “Our goal has always been to protect our kids, protect our community and protect our environment.”

 

Comments

John Vincent
Reply

Funny, I would have thought, after al this time, groups would have realized fighting wndmills on health issues is a waste of time. Not to say the arguments aren’t valid, but just about every site that’s gone in has fought on health issues and lost. How about trying something new, say, for example, the legality issue of the way the whole green energy thing is being done; the legality under the charter of rights of how communities and people are steam rollered over. Of course, don’t forget, Trudeau never gave us the right to own property in the Charter of Rights. That could be a small issue I suppose.
The thing is, a new argument has to be initiated by smarter people than me (that’s not difficult) and taken in a new direction because despite its validity the current health argument isn’t working.

Barbara
Reply

True! But can’t let this, health issues, go or proponents of renewable energy will think they have won.

And other avenues should also be used. This is not just a one issue thing that is happening.

Barbara
Reply

Has anyone looked at the fire safety issues with roof-top solar?

These solar panels have been installed on school roof-tops and this past week there was significant roof-top fire in Mesa, AZ where solar panels were installed on a commercial building.

There was one school solar panel fire in the U.S. awhile back but it was on a Sunday afternoon.

Small roof-top fires probably don’t get reported by the national MSM.

Barbara
Reply

Google: School solar roof-top fires.

Just a brief search:
OJ Roberts High School, near Pottstown, PA., small fire Sept.9, 2013 a Saturday afternoon.

Webster Groves High School, near St.Louis, MO, May 18, 2013, Saturday afternoon.

There have also been commercial buildings solar roof-top fires.

John Vincent
Reply

Barbara: I believe I brought this subject up last fall. At that time the fire chiefs in the States were trying to formulate a response to roof fires involving solar panels. There have been several fire companies in southern Ontario that have stopped fire crews from going onto the rooves of involved biuldings if solar panels are present.

Sommer
Reply

Exposing the legal justice system and the wind companies and their lawyers in this travesty of justice is bringing an awareness to more and more people of the layers of complicity.
Who would have ever dreamed that this could happen in Ontario?
Historically, this story will be the turning point in the revelation of a massive misguided scheme. global in scale, planned to orchestrate an extremely nefarious agenda.

John Vincent
Reply

Sommer: I don’t see it exposing the problem to the degree you would like. There is still a very large contingent of the population that doesn’t understand wind energy production and looks at those complaining because of health issues as NIMBY’s.
Health issues only effect those direclty involved. Several miles away a customer says, its not in my back yard, why should I worry. I know the counter argument, but most people don’t see it that way because it doesn’t directly effect them, then its too late.
How did this whole green energy nonsense start in Ontario? Because the public thought they were going to get something for nothing. Same as they thought they were going to get cheaper electricity by getting rid of Ontario Hydro (an organization already committed to selling power at cost). We keep falling into the same traps and don’t learn. When the falacy of the new is pointed out, the informer is cied down as anti this or that, and doesn’t know what he’s talking about (been there, done that, got the T shirt). Only when its too late does the public wake up and see what’s happened. The public hasn’t woken up yet.
Lets face it, Europe is farther ahead fighting this nonsense,. We haven’t even figured out the right way to fight it. You have to get everybody on side with what hurts them most, their pocket book.
You also have to stop looking at SMART meters, wind , solar et.al. seperately, its all in the same package together, however, when dished out seperatley it makes a fine divide and conquer meal on behalf of the government.

ScepticalGord
Reply

John Vincent says:

“Funny, I would have thought, after al this time, groups would have realized fighting wndmills on health issues is a waste of time”.

Wind Turbine projects can only be challenged by the ERT rules, copied below. (Property values, visual blight, tourism, economics, etc., are all deemed “out of scope”).

What can an appeal deal with?

Under the Environmental Protection Act, there are only two grounds which can be considered on an appeal by a member of the public. They are that proceeding with the project, as approved by the Director will either:

• cause serious harm to human health, or
• cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.

A person challenging the Director’s approval of a project must be able to convince the Environmental Review Tribunal, by evidence and argument, that it is more likely than not that one of these two tests has been met. If they do not do so, then the law requires that the Director’s decision must be confirmed.

Wind Concerns Ontario
Reply

Emphasis is on WILL CAUSE, not MAY cause…that is the lovely little tightrope they set up in this legislation.
Which goes against the Precautionary Principle, and every other principle of public health.

John Vincent
Reply

No argument on your point, however, that point has been used by every group that has fought wind mills with no success. Why keep using an argument that doesn’t work, even if the argument is correct. Look for something else that will work better and engage the rest of the province’s population. The health argument doesn’t work unless you are directly involved.

Leave a comment

name*

email* (not published)

website