Ms Wente has been confronted on numerous occasions, over numerous articles containing allegedly plagiarized sections. The latest incident to be uncovered was November 2012, yet the Globe refuses to do anything about it. In a statement made by the Globe, Ms Wente was to be disciplined in an "unspecified" manner. Apparently CNN takes these issues much more seriously than the Globe does (re; Fareed Zakaria). Pity.
There was a day when the Globe was a respected newspaper, but if they continue to allow the unfettered, mistake filled editorials posted by her I'm afraid they regulate themselves to "infotainment" status in the future.
Here is her article, with rebuttals posted after each misleading section. You, the reader gets to decide which arguments make more sense, and which point actually backs up what it has to say. So read on, if it wasn't such a sad piece of tripe it would be humorous.
________________________________________________________________________________
There have been successful relocation projects in Ontario. Indeed much of Southern Ontarios Bald Eagle population is a direct result of “relocating” over 30 eaglets to the very conservation area that Scott Petrie (listed below) currently works in.
With help from Ontario based naturalists and biologists, NextEra has successfully erected 3 artificial eagle nests in Haldimand County, and have plans to erect a minimum of two more. Ontario residents will know in the coming weeks if these will be used by eagles. There are indications that an eagle had perched near one of the nests, but well need to patient for the environmental monitors to confirm this. Friends of Wind Ontarios website will be the first to offer a video describing how NextEra put these up, and what the success rate has been to date.
Ms Wente: "Ontario’s environmental regulations would
usually make this illegal. But the wind company, NextEra Energy, one of the
biggest operators in the province, had obtained special dispensation."
As majestic and
beautiful as Bald Eagles are, they are no longer an endangered species. On June
28, 2007 the United States de-listed Bald Eagles as an endangered species in
the lower 48 states. It was re-assigned a risk level of "least
concern" on the IUCN Red list. Canada followed the American lead in 2009,
moving eagles from endangered, to a species of "special concern".
However this new designation only applies to northern and southern Ontario, as
the species is not at risk nationally.Bald Eagles have rebounded to the point that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have developed a draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance document which specifies how it will work with the wind industry. In the 2009 Final Eagle Permit Rule, the Service laid out how it will, at its discretion, issue "take" permits that allow for limited mortality and disturbance of bald or golden eagles by wind power facilities. They have done this with the full realization that avian mortality is much greater from the effects of fossil fuels, and climate change, then from wind energy.
Ontarios Bald Eagles are now being held back by contamination from heavy metals, chiefly mercury and lead. "Long term exposure to mercury can limit the eagles’ reproductive capabilities, alter their behavior, impair their foraging abilities, increase their risk to disease, and even result in death."
The single largest source of mercury pollution today is through the use of coal for electrical generation. Every year the US produces over 42 tons of mercury that is released by coal plants into the atmosphere, contaminating the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the very food chain Eagles require for survival. 42% of all mercury emissions in the US come from coal plants. Can Ontarios coal plants be any cleaner?
Ms Wente: "Wind power is supposed to be environmentally friendly. But a lot of environmentalists don’t think so. “People couldn’t believe it happened,” says Scott Petrie, a waterfowl ecologist and executive director of Long Point Waterfowl, a conservation group. “Cutting down bald eagle nests flies in the face of anything you would call green energy.”
Long term, highly respected environmental groups support the use of green energy. Green Peace, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, David Suzuki Foundation, Clean Air Alliance, The Pembina Institute, TREC, Environmental Defense, The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, and many, many others worldwide support the use of wind energy as a vehicle towards a cleaner planet.
All of these groups have come to the understanding that the status quo, which we’ve relied on for years, is broken. They acknowledge that we need to change our habits if we wish to obtain different results in the future. Expecting a cleaner world, without making the necessary changes is the true definition of insanity.
Ms Wente: Wind turbines have invaded many of Ontario’s most scenic and ecologically rich areas. They’re invading coastal wetlands and spreading along major migratory flyways – up the Bruce Peninsula, west to Lake Huron, south to Lake Erie, and east to Prince Edward County, where environmental groups are fighting a major wind development in Ostrander Point, an important bird area. “We have no idea whatsoever of the cumulative impact of these things,” says Dr. Petrie. Turbines chew up birds and other flying things, and they disrupt wildlife habitats.
Before I continue, please notice the placement of quotations in that last sentence. Dr Petrie does not say the final line, it is the personal opinion of Ms Wente. The argument against wind energy due to aesthetic reasons, strikes me as an extremely vain response to a large, worldwide problem. These are the kind of statements that helped propagate the use of the word “nimby” to describe the anti-wind movement.
The former president of the Audubon Society reported on energy based avian mortalities that, “Every resource of energy has some environmental consequences. Most of today's rapidly growing demand for energy is now being met by natural gas and expanded coal-burning power plants, which are this country's single greatest source of the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming. If we don't find ways to reduce these emissions, far more birds—and people—will be threatened by global warming than by wind turbines".
Further still, the National Audubon Society, has on its website, “Wind power is an important part of the strategy to combat global warming. Wind power is currently the most economically competitive form of renewable energy…. Expanding wind power instead of fossil fuels also avoids the wildlife and human health impacts of oil and gas drilling, coal mining and fossil fuel burning.”
Like any industry that is aware, and concerned with the effects of its technology, the wind industry has learned from past mistakes and has made great strides in reducing avian mortalities. Recent studies from Spain show how changes in the operating model of a wind park have been able to reduce impacts by over 90%.
Nobody would use the faults of a vehicle from 1981 to describe the current crop of automobiles, yet the anti-wind groups use statistics from the early 1980s as a model of modern wind energy. Not only is that misleading, but it borders on being irresponsible.
MS Went: But, in Ontario, nothing is allowed to trump Big Wind. Ontario’s Green Energy Act, the brainchild of outgoing Premier Dalton Mutiny, gave the green light to rampant wind development. By 2016, the goal is to more than double the amount of wind power being generated now.
Without the implementation of the GEA would any of these companies stepped up and changed their generation methods? The argument can be made that without the required “push” in the beginning, changes would never come to Ontario. As an example, would the automotive industry be offering cars that can obtain twice the mileage of an older vehicle if the EPA had not forced them into doing so?
This push, not only in Ontario, but in many locations worldwide, has had the added benefit of reducing costs associated with renewable energy platforms. This is clearly evident in the latest price changes to the MicroFIT program in Ontario. Wind has had the payment amounts reduced, and will likely see additional decrease as the industry matures and expands.
Ms Wente: Wind companies are not owned and operated by idealistic entrepreneurs. They are run by some of Canada’s, and the worlds, biggest corporations, including pipeline and pulp and paper companies. Wind contracts are flipped like other financial instruments. NextEra, the outfit that cut down the eagle’s nest, is the largest generator of wind and solar power in North America. Because of a lucrative U.S. tax break for wind power, the company has paid no U.S. corporate income tax for several years, despite billions in profits. Big Wind is among the biggest lobbyists in Washington.
This is a partial list of "big money lobbyists" as reported recently by the Center for Responsive Politics. The US Chanber of Commerce, High Tech, Oil, Agribusiness, Financial, Pharma, Defence, even the American Association of Retired Persons and, of course, the NRA. All FAR exceed the amounts contributed by wind energy. Notice how wind doesn't make the top 10 list?
The wind industry does not control the mechanisms of how electricity is traded; they merely operate within those parameters, like all forms of generation.
What NextEra does with the US tax system is of little concern to the Ontario ratepayer. What does concern Ontario citizens is that NextEra has contributed almost $1.6 billion to the economy of Ontario. Will NextEra be reimbursed for their investment? Certainly, that’s how a free market economy works. Companies and corporations make investments with the hope, and plan of being able to turn a profit.
There are very few companies that can afford to make that kind of a financial commitment, and in a global economy investment often comes from far and wide. By the government offering stability to manufacturers and developers through long term purchase contracts, they have provided for the investment of renewable energy, and new jobs in Ontario.
On the other side of this is the nuclear industry, heavily subsidized during all phases of its life cycle. With recent costs of cleaning up spent waste sites in the UK now topping $72 billion PER SITE, will Candu and Lavelin cover those costs, or will it be the taxpayers of Ontario? History says it will be us who cover those costs.
Ms Wente: Dalton McGuinty’s Green Energy Act was a spectacular policy blunder, based on a string of faulty premises: that coal emissions were killing us (they weren’t), that we’d soon be running out of fossil fuel (we aren’t, and Ontario doesn’t use much anyway), and that switching to green energy would help save the planet (not in our lifetime). As the price of fossil fuels went up and up, the reasoning went, renewables would become more and more competitive. Just one problem: The price of fossil fuels has plummeted.
The Canadian Medical Association calculated that, in 2008, air pollution killed 21,000 Canadians and it projected that, by 2031, the “number of deaths due to long-term exposure to air pollution will be 710,000.” This report was fully endorsed by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Lung Association, CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment), and the Asthma Society of Canada – combined these groups represents tens of thousands of health professionals.
All fossil fuels are a finite resource, refusing to acknowledge this fact is both irresponsible and dangerous. We have all experienced the erratic nature of finite resources, with pricing changing drastically, seemingly overnight. And although fracing has uncovered large amounts of natural gas (while releasing vast amounts of GHG in the form of methane), those resource are still finite, and still susceptible to wild price fluctuations. As for "plummeting" well they did, but that's behind us now.
Between April and October 2012, the effective price of NG from Union Gas rose 8.2%, from Enbridge its risen 8.4%, and this during a time of abundance?
Renewable energy platforms however will never suffer from this issue, price guarantees for 20 years, and no chance of rising fuel costs (ever) that can be passed to the ratepayer. Wind power is slightly more expensive now, but with the passage of time, and the change that brings in the value of money, it becomes less expensive every day. In 20 years it will seem like a comparable bargain when placed beside fossil fuel generators.
Ms Wente: In order to promote green energy, governments around the world have handed out billions in the form of subsidies and fixed long-term contracts. A very generous Ontario became an international magnet for wind and solar companies. The money was guaranteed, and the approval process was easy.
Yes the money is guaranteed for the period of the contract. This has brought investment stability, with corporations investing billions of dollars into Ontario (NerxtEra alone at $1.8 billion), and creating thousands of man hours of employment in Ontario. It also allows for price stability over a long period of time, which allows for stable pricing well into the future.
Ms Wente: Today, the wind power generated in Ontario is both expensive and useless. The province actually pays hundreds of millions of dollars to other jurisdictions to take surplus power off its hands. Energy-intensive companies are leaving because their hydro bills are too high. And taxpayers are stuck with 20-year contracts that will add billions to their hydro bills (and/or the provincial deficit). For the record, Ontario’s incoming premier, Kathleen Wynne, is a big fan of these arrangements. But even a saner government wouldn’t be able to undo them.
I would suggest that Ms Wente research the monthly reports titled, "Ontario Electricity Exports Bulletin" produced by the Ministry of Energy. Here is a reprinted section from September 2012, "Ontario's electricity market generated almost $15 million in August by exporting electricity to other states and provinces, bringing total net export revenues to more than $142 million this year".
Notice that's NET REVENUE?
Too continue from the report, "Since 2006, the electricity market has generated $1.9 billion through net exports compared to 2002 and 2003 when Ontario paid $900 million to import power". How is this bad for the ratepayers of Ontario?
As for adding billions to our electrical bills, the Ontario Energy Boards report from April 25, 2012 (Monitoring Report on the IESO-Administered Electricity Markets) clearly states that ALL forms of renewable energy (wind, solar, ethanol) have contributed 6% of the total increase in our electrical rates. Contrary to "expensive" wind power, Nuclear contributed 45% to the increase, NG contributed 13% and coal power a startling 28%.
Economic reports indicate that over 70% of the jobs that have left Ontario since 2008 are the direct result of the increase in the Canadian dollar, not the cost of energy. Recent accusations that GM will be leaving Oshawa over electrical rates does not pan out when you consider the price differential between Michigan and Ontario. Would GM move production over less than $40 per unit? The economics of recent labour negotiations offer a much larger impact on the production cost of a vehicle. (UAW vs CAW contracts)
Ms Wente: Meantime, the wind juggernaut rolls on. “It’s ripping communities apart,” says Heather Sprott, whose family owns a 300-acre farm near the Niagara Escarpment. Farmers in the area have been offered as much as $20,000 a year for each turbine they allow on their land, meaning they could reap $60,000 or $80,000 a year by harvesting the wind. “That’s a lot of money for a farmer,” she says. But she’s not tempted. She loves the views, and worries about potential health effects.
I have yet to read that the GEA has pointed a gun at a rural turbine construction worker, picketed the residence of a turbine owner, or sabotaged a wind development. It has never used a live Bald Eagle in a protest, has never used a bull horn to stop others from speaking their opinion, nor has it stalled developments, raising costs. The GEA has not backlogged the ERT, nor has it verbally attacked anybody. These are the tactics of the anti-everything brigade, and it is those tactics that are ripping apart the fabric of rural Ontario.
Each municipality has an option to work with, or against a development. Some municipalities that decided early on to work with them have been able to reap the rewards of a new and growing industry. Land lease agreements have allowed farmers to stay on their properties, increasing farm revenues while adding cash to their bank balances (and the local economy). It has also allowed farmers to not only feed cities, but help produce the electricity to power them.
Ms Wente: In Britain, the tide is turning against wind power. The U.K. has 3,000 onshore turbines, with another 6,000 in the works. Big Wind’s opponents include prominent environmentalists such as James Lovelock, best known for the Gaia theory, which theorizes that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity.
Mr Lovelocks book, from 2006 takes his theory one step further, stating "most of the earth becoming uninhabitable for humans and other life-forms by the middle of this century, with a massive extension of tropical deserts" It also concludes that "(he) rejects scientific modeling that disagrees with the scientific findings that sea levels are rising faster, and Arctic ice is melting faster, than the models predict and he suggests that we may already be beyond the tipping point of terrestrial climate into a permanently hot state". Given these conditions, Lovelock "expects human civilization will be hard pressed to survive".
The world may indeed be a self-regulating biosphere, but it didn't take into account the damage humans have been able to do, and the earths limited ability to "bounce back".
Britians tide is turning? Ms Wente should get out more, "Survey reveals 79 per cent of UK public support renewable energy, as UK wind farms post record output". This article, printed Feb 5, 2013 goes even further, "Of the 2,107 people polled in December and January just four per cent were opposed to using renewable energy, a number that has remained consistent across the previous three attitudes surveys conducted by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)".
Ms Wente: Mr. Lovelock is trying to stop a 20-storey wind turbine planned for his neighborhood. In his protest letter, he writes: “We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need to take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilization.”
"trying to stop a 20-storey wind turbine planned for his neighborhood". Why? How does providing clean, sustainable energy separate human needs from the planets needs? A reduction in GHG and all forms of pollution is a net benefit for everything on the planet, and the planet itself. To me, it seems to mesh perfectly at what Mr Lovelock wants, a symbiotic relationship between the earth and its inhabitants.
Mr Lovelock would prefer that we all give up, enjoy the little time we have left, and reside to the fact that humans on this earth are doomed within the next century. Here is an excerpt from an interview with him in 2008, "global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet from becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics".
Apparently it's much easier to give up when you’re in the final stages of life, then when you’re in the early stages.
__________________________________________________________________________________
It should be plainly obvious by now that Ms Wente has a
mission devoid of the very ethics professional journalist should abide by. In reading her article it becomes
painfully clear that she has an agenda, and it's not about producing quality, researched
articles. It's to offer one sided, smear based articles devoid of facts, in order to create controversy in a lame, mis-guided attempt to woo readers.
Maybe
she should stick with merely copying others work after all, it certainly would be better than
her current, misleading, ill-informed style of writing. And probably better researched.
http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/Consumers/Natural%20Gas/Natural%20Gas%20Rates/Natural%20Gas%20Rates%20-%20Historical
2.
http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2012/09/september-2012-ontario-electricity-exports-bulletin.html
3. http://policy.audubon.org/wind-and-eagles
4.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/wind-power-key-to-fight-climat/
5. http://www.birdsontario.org/download/sample_baea.pdf
6.
http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=107
7. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Bald_Eagle/lifehistory
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle
10. http://www.bsc-eoc.org/baeaont.html
11. http://www.hww.ca/en/species/birds/bald-eagle.html
12. http://www.birdscanada.org/download/BAEArpt.pdf
13. http://policy.audubon.org/wind-power-overview-0
14. http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2241534/eight-of-10-brits-prefer-renewable-energy?WT.rss_f=Home&WT.rss_a=Eight+of+10+Brits+prefer+renewable+energy
15. The Revenge of Gaiaa, James Lovelock, 2006
16. The Vanishing Face of Gaia, James Lovelock, 2009
17. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/25/cbc_suspends_margaret_wente_from_media_panel_following_plagiarism_allegations.html
18. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/25/margaret_wente_affair_a_timeline_of_plagiarism_allegations.html
19. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-126360/High-cost-nuclear-waste.html#axzz2K3dEAX4J20. http://mediaculpapost.blogspot.ca/2013/02/margaret-wentes-big-wind-another-error.html
No comments:
Post a Comment