Study finds Albertans file few complaints about wind power

Benjamin Thibault — July 25, 2013

No other province in Canada has a longer history with wind energy than Alberta, which has 20 years of experience with utility-scale wind farms. Yet, unlike some parts of the country, we don’t tend to hear much about it, so my colleagues and I wondered whether, in fact, we were just missing something. There hasn’t been much research into this issue to date, so we set out to discover what sorts of complaints officials in Alberta have received about wind energy projects from nearby residents.

At the Pembina Institute, we’ve done the math, and to get to a low-carbon future, wind energy is one technology that we are going to need more of. While it isn’t a silver bullet, wind energy is a cost-effective way of displacing highly polluting sources of electricity, which are particularly common and damaging in Alberta.

But we also know that wind energy development needs to be done properly, taking into account local impacts and residents’ concerns (and revenue opportunities), a balance we’ve explored in our past work on the topic. By examining the nature of complaints about wind power in the province, we hoped to determine what improvements might be made.

Few complaints reported

We’ve just released a summary of our research.  As it turns out, there isn’t much to report — at least with respect to operating wind farms. We heard that wind projects attract notable concern when they’re undergoing permitting; and some have also drawn complaints during construction (including mostly road impacts and congestion, as well as dust problems). But very few complaints have come in about operating turbines.

To be clear: this research was not a comprehensive effort to take the pulse of rural attitudes toward wind energy. It provides an objective indicator of whether or not Albertans register many complaints with officials about operating wind turbines. And they do not. But this cannot prove whether Albertans support or oppose wind energy.

It does, however, align with a recent study published by researchers at the University of Western Ontario, which found that residents in a community without wind turbines but with a proposed wind energy project were less supportive of wind energy development and more concerned about negative impacts than a community with turbines nearby. Those findings might help to explain why so many more concerns are reported prior to a project’s operation, compared to once projects are up and running, as our research found.

What we did

Our approach was pretty straightforward. First, we identified the most likely places that people would bring complaints if and when they have them:

• the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), the quasi-judicial, arms’-length regulator for the electricity sector;
• operators of existing wind energy projects;
• municipalities (municipal districts and counties) where operating wind energy projects are located;
• local and provincial health authorities; and
• municipal agricultural fieldmen.

Second, we surveyed these institutions by interviewing staff members that could speak to or review documentation of any complaints received. We asked them about the number and nature of complaints.

What we found

As mentioned above, our research turned up very few complaints about operating wind projects.
Perhaps most strikingly, we found that no complaints about utility-scale wind energy have been brought to the AUC — not a single one. There were 31,000 contacts from the public to the AUC about a variety of issues in their 13-year-old database, but none of them were complaints about wind energy. In fact of the 170 contacts (calls, emails, letters) that the AUC received that did reference wind energy, more than half were from individuals wanting to know how to set up their own wind energy generation. Another quarter of those referencing wind power were about proposed (not operating) wind energy projects. One was a complaint about noise from a small-scale wind turbine in a public place.

Other contacts relating to “noise” (45 in total) were mostly about non-wind electric utilities and other projects like oil and gas operations—even though the AUC has no jurisdiction over oil and gas. So, we also went to the regulator for oil and gas projects, as a comparator, where we found an average of 819 concerns reported per year to the ERCB about wells, facilities and pipelines.

Altogether, the AUC told us, “When you look at the volume of contacts we’ve received since 2000, we really don’t see complaints about wind farms".  "When you look at the volume of contacts we’ve received since 2000, we really don’t see complaints about wind farms." — Alberta Utilities Commission

The operators of the wind farms did report some complaints during operations, noting eight unique complaints, most of which were resolved noise complaints (five), along with a few generalized complaints about wind energy broadly.

Only three complaints about operating wind farms came to the seven Alberta municipalities with wind energy projects: one about ice throw that was investigated and dismissed, one about the density of wind turbines offering a terrorism opportunity, and one about noise, which was referred to the operator.

No more complaints were found with the health contacts surveyed (two regional health inspectors covering municipal districts with over half of Alberta’s wind energy) or the livestock contacts (five agricultural fieldmen also covering the majority of the experience).

More research needed

Ultimately, more research would be valuable to determine practices that operators or authorities have used to mitigate concerns that residents may have about wind development, but that were not captured as official complaints.

From our research, however, it’s apparent there is no deluge of official concerns about operating wind energy projects in Alberta. As such, it points in the direction of a relatively well-integrated energy source in the agricultural and energy development fabric in rural Alberta.

It also shows there may be room to improve construction practices and public education around proposed wind energy projects. Examining case studies in Alberta and elsewhere could help to determine best practices for future wind development.

How wind power opponents are mischaracterizing the decision in the Fairview Wind Farm case

Who has seen the spin? How wind power opponents are mischaracterizing the decision in the Fairview Wind Farm case

Benjamin Thibault — April 26, 2013

On Monday, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision dismissing claims that opponents of wind power brought against the Fairview Wind Farm in Clearview Township. Basically, the plaintiffs (several residents in Clearview Township who oppose the wind farm) sought damages and an injunction against the wind farm developer. The court’s decision brings an end to the case, deciding that a full trial wasn’t even necessary, because the plaintiffs were “unable to show that a trial is needed to determine whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action at this time,” (paragraph 5).

 

In lawyer speak, the Honourable Madam Justice Healey granted “summary judgment,” dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims. She decided this because the wind farm was not under construction — in fact, it hadn’t even obtained regulatory approvals. So, under the law, the plaintiffs had no claim. This is what the defendants (the wind farm developer and the site’s landowners) argued and what the court accepted.

 

"...Did the court really accept as fact that wind farms decrease property values? The short answer is a resounding 'no'.
 

But if you’ve heard any news about this case, it is likely from the anti-wind organizers that have spun a different story, leaving many wondering: did the court really accept as fact that wind farms decrease property values?

 

The short answer is a resounding “no".

 

Unfortunately, the spin from the lawyer for the wind opponents and the misunderstanding of a vocal anti-wind group have misconstrued the judge’s reasons to their benefit, engaging in two significant mischaracterizations, which media coverage has perpetuated (e.g., see here and here). The wind developer has issued a press release to try to help repair these before they spread further, but here are the basics.

 

First: does the court’s decision open a door to claims?“It now seems clear that as soon as a project is approved residents can start a claim.” — Eric Gillespie, lawyer for the plaintiffs.

 

This mischaracterization is based on Justice Healey’s statement that her decision dismissing all of the claims before her was “without prejudice to the plaintiffs' rights to commence an action for identical or similar relief when and if the Fairview Wind Project receives the necessary approvals to be constructed,” (paragraph 6).

 

The reality is that courts do not decide issues that are hypothetical, only the specific issues before them. This is a central feature of our legal system.

 

And it’s an important one. Courts recognize that deciding issues or cases that are only in the abstract, without concrete facts, is a dangerous way of making decisions; it’s best to leave those decisions to the case when, and if, one actually comes.

 

So, when the court says that this decision is “without prejudice” to a potential future case, it is really just restating a rule that binds its actions anyway. Its decision on the issue before it was based on the simple fact that the planning stage of the wind farm was too early for the plaintiffs to have a legitimate claim. But such a decision cannot have impact on a later claim.

 

Justice Healey didn’t really need to say it, but judges often make this comment. I have worked closely with judges and I’ve seen it quite often. It makes it explicitly clear what the law already requires (I think it also takes the sting out of losing).

 

But Mr. Gillespie’s assertion that a “door has been opened” isn’t totally surprising — his firm has been busy bringing a lot of cases (at least 10) against wind farms over the last few years. And, as he says in his own words, based on his characterization of the court’s statement, “We can definitely expect more claims now that this door has been opened.”

Second: does the court accept, as fact, the plaintiff’s evidence that wind farms reduce property values?

“Wind corporations and politicians have been saying for many years that wind turbines don’t devalue property. … This is a court finding that they do, even before a project has been approved and constructed.” — Mr. Gillespie.

"The judge accepts unreservedly that property value is lost for neighbours of these power projects based on the evidence. He [sic] also accepted that the possibility of adverse health effects from the environmental noise.” — Jane Wilson, Wind Concerns Ontario president.

“An Ontario court says that landowners near a proposed wind farm have suffered diminished property values.” — John Spears, Toronto Star.

These mischaracterizations are based on the following statement from Justice Healey (the sound bite that Mr. Gillespie’s firm used in its press release is emphasized):

“Even though in this case the court accepts that the plaintiffs have suffered, and are currently suffering, losses culminating in diminished property values, as the evidence exists today the plaintiffs are unable to prove that they have been wronged by the defendants. They have not presented any evidence linking the diminution of property values to any tortious conduct.”
 

In reality, the “sound bite” (emphasized in the quote above) demonstrates a bit of an unfortunate choice of words that can be misleading when taken in isolation. But we need to read this statement in context.

 

Courts make “findings of fact” at trial on issues that are before it. That is not what this was. For the defendants to win on their summary judgment request — to have the case dismissed without needing to determine the facts at trial — they had to show a legal reason to dismiss the case that is not based on facts. The defendants’ position was that the law does not recognize a legal claim when the allegedly harmful development doesn’t even have the necessary approvals.

 

"... Even accepting their evidence, the plaintiffs still lost,"When they undertake a summary judgment decision, courts often engage in a useful mental exercise that basically goes like this: if the defendants in the case want the case dismissed without having to try the facts, they could show that they would win, under the law, regardless of what the real facts are. The best way to test this is to accept the other side’s version of the facts then see if they could ever possibly win on this claim. If not, everyone (including the overtaxed judicial system) saves time by ending the case right then and there.

 

It’s clear that this is what the court was doing, if you read Justice Healey’s reasons (i.e., all of them): “the court was invited by the [wind farm defendants] to take the plaintiffs' evidence as proven in order to place the plaintiffs' cases at their most favourable for the purpose of these motions,” (paragraph 8). Because this is what the court agreed to do, the court then went on to review the plaintiffs’ evidence — not by accepting it as “the truth” or its own findings of the facts, but by considering it, for the purposes of this useful mental exercise, as the only evidence on which to base its decision. And even accepting their evidence, the plaintiffs still lost – end of the road.

Conclusion

So, did the court make a “finding” or “accept unreservedly” that wind farms reduce property values? No. It undertook a thought experiment, suggested by the defendants, in order to show that there was no way the plaintiffs could ever win this case, even if their version of facts was accepted.

 

Does the fact that the court accepted this evidence for the purposes of this exercise impact the evidence on property values in the future? Again, no. Any plaintiff that relies on this judgment to show that wind farms cause losses in property values is setting themselves up for failure. Various people can spin this decision to convince the public — in particular, potential future litigants — that the court did something that it did not actually do, but no future judge will fall prey to that mistake.

 

Perhaps this decision will embolden opponents to bring legal challenges to wind farms, but that would be in error. This decision opens no new door to legal claims against wind farms, nor does it bolster the acceptance of the wind opponents’ “evidence” in the courts. It does, however, open the door for Mr. Gillespie to attract new clients.

All that can be said about this decision is that wind energy opponents lost in court on a claim brought at this early stage of a wind farm’s development — end of story.

 

Learn more about Renewable Energy & Efficiency.
Read more blogs relating to Renewable Energy, Electricity Generation, Wind Power.

Doctors urge province to ramp-up renewable energy

ByDr. David Col, Dr. Rosana Pellizzari Gideon Forman

The Ontario government's recent announcement that it will add 900 megawatts of new renewable energy to the provincial grid is welcome news indeed. Projected to come online starting in 2014, the new electricity will be sufficient to power over 125,000 homes every year and create over 6,000 jobs. It shows Queen's Park is committed to building up renewables and is to be applauded.
                       

But if the government really wants to develop this sector in the long-run — and the health of every Ontarian depends on it — it must also boost the renewable targets contained in its Long-Term Energy Plan. That document, released in 2010 and currently being reviewed by the Ministry of Energy, says by 2030 wind power will supply just 10 per cent of electricity generation and solar will provide a measly 1.5 per cent. Nearly half the grid will be hogged by nuclear, effectively blocking renewables' expansion.

                       

To its enormous credit, Ontario is getting out of the business of coal-fired power. It has promised to close the province's last coal plant in 2014 and this will be a major contribution to our safety and well-being.

                       

Ontario coal plants emit arsenic and chromium (which cause cancer); sulphur dioxide (a component of acid rain); and mercury and lead (brain poisons). They are also, of course, major greenhouse gas (GHG) sources: at their height they produced as much air pollution as some six million automobiles. In 2010 they caused over 300 deaths and 158,000 illnesses.

                       

The coal phase-out is a huge step forward but it is not enough. It must be coupled with a reduction in natural gas and nuclear generation along with a far more ambitious rollout of renewables.

Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it, too, contributes to climate change and, to some extent, smog. Nuclear energy is a significant source of GHGs. A recent Scientific American study found that, "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered."

                       

Why are renewables so important? In a word, because they're far safer than conventional power. Solar and wind generation do not contribute to climate change, respiratory illness, brain damage or cancer; they do not leave a legacy of radioactive waste and acidified lakes.

                       

As well, study after study suggests renewables' health impacts, if any, are minimal.

                       

Consider the science on wind mills. Research done by the Australian government in 2009 concluded that "there was no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects." A scientific review conducted by Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health in 2010 concluded that the "sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying." A 2012 study prepared for the Massachusetts Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection found there is "no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines, that could be characterized as a Wind Turbine Syndrome."

                       

Doctors urge the province to use the current Long-Term Energy review to reduce our reliance on nuclear power and natural gas, and substantially increase renewables' share of the electricity grid. Doing so will help us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets and curb toxic emissions — with obvious benefits for the environment and human health.

Gideon Forman is executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Dr. David Colby is medical officer of health for Chatham-Kent. Dr. Rosana Pellizzari is medical officer of health for Peterborough County-City.

What debate? Canadians want renewable energy

Over the past year energy issues have featured heavily in political and public debate across the country. And Canadians might be forgiven for feeling confused (if they haven’t tuned out) given how polarized things have become: Are we purveyors of “ethical oil” or “dirty oil?” Are we on track to fulfill our commitments to reduce carbon pollution and tackle climate disruption, or destined to fall short? Are we an emerging energy superpower or a laggard in the accelerating transition to a global low carbon economy? All this conflict has only served to obscure important signals that should be guiding our leaders as they weigh how best to address Canada’s energy and climate challenges.

When Canada’s premiers met at the Council of the Federation in Halifax a year ago they kick-started the development of a Canadian energy strategy. In the communiqué released at the end of the meeting, our premiers committed to developing an energy strategy that would deliver “a more integrated approach to climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and managing the transition to a lower carbon economy.” Pretty heady stuff, and perhaps surprising given the extent to which climate change and energy policy have been confined to separate boxes, despite their obvious relationship.

Canada has a wealth of renewable energy sources and many examples of innovative clean energy technologies and services that are helping Canadians save energy, save money and reduce carbon pollution. And we’re just starting to scratch the surface of their potential. So it’s surprising that, a year on, we’re hearing relatively little on the topic of clean energy and low-carbon solutions from our provincial leaders.

A recent poll conducted by Harris-Decima found that Canadians clearly understand the imperative and opportunity of a low-carbon transition, and the role an integrated climate and energy strategy can play. When asked whether “We need a Canadian climate and energy strategy to plan our nation’s energy future,” a remarkable 87 per cent of Canadians agree. Furthermore, 62 per cent agree that, “A Canadian energy strategy will only be successful if it transitions Canada to a low-carbon economy.”

As the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy stated in its final report: “The future is low carbon. Economies the world over are making the transition. Canada’s actions today on climate, energy, trade, innovation, and skills will shape its economic prosperity for decades to come.”

Beyond our borders, countries have already begun focusing on energy technologies and services rather than just energy commodities, and with good reason. The International Energy Agency suggests that the low carbon goods and services market is rapidly growing: valued at $339-billion in 2010, in an emissions-constrained scenario the market could reach $8.3-trillion by 2050 – an annual growth rate of 8 per cent.

Canadians understand that reducing carbon pollution can’t simply be considered a burden – but is also an immense opportunity to prosper by providing the solutions that will transition Canada and the world to a low-carbon economy. When asked to indicate to what degree they would prioritize a series of objectives for a Canadian energy strategy, poll respondents identified as a “top” or “high” priority “improving energy efficiency” (80 per cent), “creating more jobs in clean energy” (73 per cent), “reducing Canada’s carbon pollution to slow down climate change” (67 per cent), and “reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal” (61 per cent). In contrast, only 31 per cent of those surveyed placed a “top” or “high” priority on “exporting more of Canada’s oil and gas resources.”
As the Roundtable report found, Canada is well-positioned to compete in the global low carbon goods and services marketplace. Further, and notably in light of the tensions that arise from the geographically concentrated nature of Canada’s fossil fuel reserves, our low-carbon opportunities are well-distributed across the country.

This week, Premier Kathleen Wynne of Ontario will host her counterparts at the Council of the Federation meeting in Niagara-on-the-Lake, where premiers will receive an update on progress in developing a Canadian energy strategy. As they contemplate the vision, principles and outcomes the strategy should deliver, they must recognize that addressing climate change and transitioning to a low-carbon energy system must lie at the heart of an integrated climate and energy strategy.
In the end, the success of a Canadian energy strategy will hinge on the extent to which it both reduces carbon pollution and positions Canada to compete in the global low carbon, clean energy economy – an economic reality and opportunity we can no longer afford to ignore.

Merran Smith is the director of Clean Energy Canada at Tides Canada; Nancy Olewiler is the director of the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University; and Andrew Heintzman is the president of Investeco Capital.

Authors’ note: The Harris-Decima teleVox poll was commissioned by Clean Energy Canada at Tides Canada, and surveyed 1,000 Canadians by telephone between July 4-8, 2013, and the survey reflects an error interval of +/- 3.1 per cent.

Opposition to wind turbines is stronger in areas that don't have them yet, Western University study finds

The spectre of the unknown impact of wind turbines poses concern for those in rural communities but once they are up, they're not so bad, states a study of Ontario rural communities, released Monday.

Recent research from Western University concludes 69 per cent of residents surveyed in an area that is home to one of Ontario's first large turbine projects support them, while that support drops to 25 per cent in a community that did not have them, said Jamie Baxter, geography professor at Western University.

"The main finding is that support was reasonable . . . but fear of the unknown creates momentum in a community," he said, referring to his paper published in the academic journal Energy Policy.
Those levels of support are similar to levels found in Europe, where turbines have been established for decades.

However the study also found support can "turn on a dime" and even in communities where there is support, there remains lingering concerns over health, whether municipalities can control developments and money, that some are getting paid for turbines on their land, while others are not.

"The process does not allow meaningful participation, municipalities do not have a say. That gets peoples back up. These concerns are not going to go away any time soon," said Baxter.

The study surveyed those living near turbines in the Shelburne area, in Dufferin County near Orangeville, home to one of the first large industrial projects in Ontario, and the surveyed community that did not have turbines is West Perth near Mitchell.

At the time of the study, there were "rumours" in the Mitchell area community a turbine development was coming and that may have also driven opposition, added Baxter.

Wind energy a good deal for Ontario

Contrary to a recent Fraser Institute report titled “Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act”, wind energy has helped clean Ontario’s electricity system and deliver hundreds of millions of dollars to rural communities – with little additional cost passed on to ratepayers.

An analysis of consumer rate impacts by Power Advisory, Customer Bill Impacts of Generation Sources in Ontario, looked at the various components of a typical consumer electricity bill – including supply and delivery – and found that wind energy accounted for only about 5% of the increase to the total customer bill between 2009 and 2012.

The Fraser Institute report takes a simplistic approach in examining the benefits of Ontario’s Green Energy Act and the state of the province’s electricity system. The report relies excessively on the widely criticized 2011 Annual Report by the Auditor General of Ontario and also fails to take into consideration the fundamental fact that there is dramatic need to invest in new electricity generation and infrastructure after decades of underinvestment. According to the Conference Board of Canada, $347 billion in investment in Canada’s electricity system is required between now and 2030 – and all of these costs will be passed on to consumers.

Wind energy has played a major role in modernizing Ontario’s electricity system, helping the province abandon harmful coal as a source of electricity. In the last few years, wind generation has contributed an increasing proportion of the total supply of electricity in Ontario. The province currently has over 2,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity, enough to meet about 3% of total electricity demand. Every 1,000 MW of new wind energy drives $2.5 billion in investments, creates 10,500 person-years of employment, and provides enough clean power for over 300,000 homes.

“While electricity prices have been increasing across North America as jurisdictions upgrade ancient electricity systems, wind energy has proven that it can deliver major benefits at a minimal cost to ratepayers here in Ontario,” said Chris Forrest, CanWEA vice-president. “Wind energy is cost-competitive with virtually every potential new source of generation available in Ontario and it does not create hazardous waste or consume vast amounts of fresh water from our Great Lakes. Wind energy will continue to be a cost-effective choice as we build a clean and reliable electricity system in Ontario that we can all be proud of.”

Supplementary: Pembina report finds renewable energy investment will protect costs in the long-term:

“Behind The Switch: pricing Ontario Electricity Options” examined overall system electricity prices in Ontario, including industrial, commercial and residential consumers. The results therefore reflect the trend of the overall system in Ontario, but are not meant to be interpreted at being specific to any individual consumer. Simulation results show that electricity prices in Ontario are set to continue to rise sharply in the future in both scenarios, peaking around 2022 when Ontario’s nuclear fleet is in the midst of significant rebuilding. As can be seen below, there would be virtually no change in electricity prices in the immediate future if future contracts for renewable energy were ended in 2011.

Replacing the commitment to renewable energy largely with natural gas is likely to result in only a slightly slower increase in electricity rates from 2015 to 2025. However, within the next 15 years, as natural gas prices begin to rise and increased action (including some form of price on carbon emissions) is likely to be taken to combat climate change, the simulation found that investing in renewable generation today will keep consumer prices slightly lower in the long term. Like those of the rest of Canada, Ontario’s electricity prices are poised to continue increasing in the short term as old infrastructure is updated and replaced, regardless of the choice of electricity generation mix. The outcome of the current debate over the GEA will have no meaningful impact on these future price increases, which reflect the inevitable costs of modernizing Ontario’s aging electricity infrastructure.

State of the world’s birds is bleak but not hopeless

We can’t live without birds. Beyond being fascinating and beautiful, they play a crucial role in keeping the world habitable for all life, including people. They disperse seeds, pollinate plants, control insects, provide food and are indicators of the overall health of ecosystems. They also create recreational and economic opportunities, through the immense popularity of birdwatching.

So we should be concerned about the findings of the report, “State of the world’s birds: indicators for our changing world”: One in eight – or 1,313 – species of Earth’s birds is in danger of disappearing.

“The status of the world’s birds is deteriorating, with species slipping ever faster towards extinction,” notes the assessment by Birdlife International, a global partnership of conservation organizations. This represents rapid acceleration of a troubling trend: 151 bird species are believed to have gone extinct since 1500.

But the study, released at Birdlife International's 2013 Congress in Ottawa, offers hope: “An annual investment of US$4 billion, used wisely, could improve the status of all known threatened species and virtually halt human-driven extinctions. A further US$76 billion could effectively protect and manage all known sites of global conservation significance. These sums are insignificant in comparison with both the size of the global economy (roughly US$70 trillion per year) and an estimate of the total value of ecosystem services delivered by nature each year (US$22–US$74 trillion).”

Many threatened birds are common species, including turtle doves, meadowlarks, barn swallows and purple martins. In Canada, insectivores, grassland birds and Arctic shorebirds have been declining rapidly since 1970, all because of human activity. But conservation efforts, including regulating pesticides such as DDT, have helped some raptor and waterfowl populations bounce back.

Sadly, we’re to blame for the current plight of birds. The report shows industrial-scale agriculture, logging and invasive species are the gravest immediate dangers. It also concludes climate change is an “emerging and increasingly serious threat to species” and “often exacerbates existing threats.” Among other problems, a warming planet changes migration and nesting schedules, hindering birds’ ability to find insects to eat. It also damages habitat.

One solution for safeguarding bird populations is to ensure habitats critical to their survival – known as Important Bird Areas, or IBAs – are protected, through legislation if necessary. That doesn’t mean shutting out human activity, just managing these areas in ways that allow birds to survive and thrive.

As the report shows, investing in conservation comes with benefits beyond helping birds. The more than 12,000 IBAs identified worldwide offer valuable ecosystem services, such as regulating climate and air quality, purifying water and preventing floods, maintaining genetic diversity, providing food and medicines and creating recreation and tourism opportunities.

Education is another component of protecting birds and all threatened plants and animals. As we better understand our connection to nature, the importance of biodiversity and the value of services healthy ecosystems provide, we’ll make conservation and biodiversity higher priorities in our decision-making, which will lead to wiser development.

While the BirdLife study identifies climate change as a major threat, it also notes the challenge in balancing environmental factors in energy-project development. Critics oppose wind power because of potential harm to birds, but bird deaths from windmills are minimal compared to those caused by fossil fuels, climate change, pesticides, highrise buildings, automobile collisions and house cats. A National University of Singapore study shows fossil fuel power generation kills 17 times as many birds per gigawatt-hour of electricity as wind power. And wind farm problems can be overcome with proper siting and improved design. In the Rift Valley/Red Sea flyway, an important area for birds migrating between Eurasia and Africa, BirdLife developed research materials and a web-based tool to map flight patterns and identify places where wind installations should be avoided to keep birds safer.

Plummeting bird populations reflect the state of the global environment – but it’s not too late to do something. As Leon Bennun, BirdLife’s director of science, information and policy, says, “Effective nature conservation is affordable and it works. It’s time to make it happen. The result will be a world that is in every way wealthier and healthier – and that remains diverse and beautiful too.”

We need birds. Let’s do all we can to avert an extinction catastrophe.

Wind power development does not ruffle the feathers

July 10, 2013 — Wind power development does not ruffle the feathers of greater prairie chicken populations, according to the results of a seven-year study from a Kansas State University ecologist and his team.

The researchers -- led by Brett Sandercock, professor of biology -- discovered that wind turbines have little effect on greater prairie chickens, and that these grassland birds are more affected by rangeland management practices and by the availability of native prairie and vegetation cover at nest sites. Unexpectedly, the scientists also found that female survival rates increased after wind turbines were installed.

With the arrival of wind energy projects in Kansas and throughout the Plains, Sandercock and his team were part of a consortium of stakeholders -- including conservationists, wildlife agencies and wind energy companies -- who studied how these wind projects influence grassland birds.
"We had a lot of buy-in from stakeholders and we had an effective oversight committee," said Sandercock, who studies grassland birds. "The research will certainly aid with wind power site guidelines and with the development of mitigation strategies to enhance habitat conditions for the greater prairie chicken."

The greater prairie chicken was once abundant across the central Plains, but populations have declined because of habitat loss and human development. The chickens now are primarily found in the Great Plains in Kansas -- particularly the Smoky Hills and the Flint Hills -- where the largest tracts of prairie remain.

Sandercock and his team started their study in 2006 with three field sites that were chosen for wind development: a site in the Smoky Hills in north central Kansas, a site in the northern Flint Hills in northeastern Kansas and a site in the southern Flint Hills in southern Kansas. The Smoky Hills site -- the Meridian Way Wind Power Facility near Concordia -- was developed into a wind energy site, which gave researchers the opportunity to observe greater prairie chickens before, during and after wind turbine construction. The researchers cooperated and collaborated with private landowners at each site.

The researchers studied the birds for seven breeding seasons and captured nearly 1,000 total male and female birds around lek sites, which are communal areas where males gather and make calls to attract females. Females mate with the males and then hide nests in tall prairie grass.

The scientists researched many different features of prairie chickens and their biology: patterns of nest site selection; reproductive components, such as clutch size, timing of laying eggs and hatchability of eggs; survival rates; and population viability.

"We don't have evidence for really strong effects of wind power on prairie chickens or their reproduction," Sandercock said. "We have some evidence for females avoiding the turbines, but the avoidance within the home range doesn't seem to have an impact on nest site selection or nest survival."

The results are somewhat surprising, especially because similar studies have shown that oil and gas development affect prairie chickens, Sandercock said. With wind power development, the researchers had the unexpected result of female survival rates increasing after wind turbines were installed, potentially because wind turbines may keep predators away from nest sites. Female mortality rates are highest during the breeding season because females are more focused on protecting clutches than avoiding predators, Sandercock said.

"What's quite typical for these birds is most of the demographic losses are driven by predation. We can say that with confidence," Sandercock said. "What's a little unclear from our results is whether that increase in female survivorship was due to the effects of wind turbines on predators."
The researchers also found that conservation management practices seem to have the strongest effect on the birds, Sandercock said. Prairie chickens are ground-nesting birds and need adequate cover for their nests to survive. Grazing and fire management practices can affect how much nesting cover is available for chickens.

"A lot of what drives nest survival is the local conditions around the nest," Sandercock said. "Do they have good nesting cover or not? Our results are important because they suggest ways for mitigation."
The team is conducting follow-up studies to test mitigation strategies that may improve habitat conditions for prairie chickens. They are in their third season in a field study of patch burn grazing in Chase County and how it affects prairie chickens and grassland songbirds. Patch-burn grazing involves dividing a pasture into three parts and burning a third of the pasture each year. The practice creates a rotation basis so that each third of a pasture rests for two years. Preliminary data shows that patch-burn grazing seems to provide enough cover for ground-nesting birds, Sandercock said.
Collaborators on the wind development project include Samantha Wisely, associate professor of wildlife ecology and conservation at the University of Florida; Virginia Winder, assistant professor of biology at Benedictine College; Lance McNew, 2010 doctoral graduate in biology and research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey at the Alaska Science Center; Andrew Gregory, 2011 doctoral graduate in biology and postdoctoral scholar at Northern Arizona University; and Lyla Hunt, master's student in biology, Riverside, Calif.

The Grassland Community Collaborative Oversight Committee of the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative oversaw the research project. The project received funding from a variety of sources including the U.S. Department of Energy; the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism; the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; and The Nature Conservancy.

Wind power is not your enemy

Editorial by John Peate Emboldened by some political success and greater efforts by the dinosauric Conservative Parties of Canada and Ontario, there has been a reversal of progress in the creation of renewable energies. It is notable in this region through decisions like that of the Clarington council and, provincially, in the cancellation and delaying of projects to produce wind energy. Ignorance and the redoubled efforts of the fossil fuel industry have caused this setback. What one prominent climate scientist termed the “useful idiots for the fossil fuel industry” have been active in spreading their misinformation. Lately, there has been comment about the “slaughter” caused by wind turbines of birds and bats without any reference to facts or studies on these problems. When, in fact, turbines save many millions of birds. According to a study in the Journal of Environmental Studies, in the year 2009 in the United States, 46,000 were killed by turbines, 458,000 were killed by nuclear plants and fossil fuel plants, most coal, were responsible for the deaths of 23,960,000 birds. Another 72 million died by pesticide use and 110 million at the “hands” of feral cats. Wind power is a significant part of the solution, not the problem, As it is a vital part of the solution to averting climate disaster for humans. Bats are a different story. Large numbers are being killed and that is an economic and environmental trouble. However, research and new technologies are making great progress in dealing with that. It is a combination of lower air pressure and apparent open space as the blades turn that are the problems. But, the great majority of the deaths occur during the migratory seasons and that is being considered in new pre-construction studies. Location is the key there in building away from the seasonal flight paths. Acoustic devices have been tested that have been somewhat effective varying speeds of blades at times when bats are active, and achieved substantial reductions in mortality. The bat situation is not incurable. Many well meaning but gullible and uninformed people are the unwitting agents of the fossil fuel tycoons in this regressive political situation in Ontario and Durham Region. Fed by the industry and the Conservative politicians who are its actual agents in Canada, they are truly the propaganda slaves of the modern merchants of death by climate catastrophe and of the political part of denial.

Full of hot air: the Oz‘s case against a non-existent wind turbine

Graham Lloyd, environment editor at The Australian, is today warning us of the dangers of low-frequency noise from wind turbines. That the turbine referenced does not exist is an afterthought. Lloyd cites a report, A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low Frequency Noise Emissions, as an example of the threat wind turbines pose to the human race: “Our experience with the low-frequency noise emissions from a single, 2-MW MOD-I wind turbine demonstrated that, under the right circumstances, it was possible to cause annoyance within homes in the surrounding community with relatively low levels of LF-range acoustic noise.” Sounds convincing, right? The MOD-I wind turbine was a downwind NASA prototype, built in 1978 and removed in 1981. The paper itself was published in 1987. From the Wiki page about the MOD-I (emphasis added): “Low-frequency noise from the heavy truss tower blocking the wind to the downwind rotor caused problems to residences located close by.” Modern wind turbines are upwind, rather than downwind, and as such, don’t have the same characteristic problem cause by the tower being in front of the rotor. The South Australian Environment Protection Authority recently released a comparative report on low-frequency noise emissions from modern, upwind turbines (unmentioned by Lloyd in his article): “Overall, this study demonstrates that low frequency noise levels near wind farms are no greater than levels in urban areas or at comparable rural residences away from wind farms. Organised shutdowns of the wind farms also found that the contribution of the Bluff Wind Farm to low frequency noise levels at Location 8 was negligible, while there may have been a relatively small contribution of low frequency noise levels from the Clements Gap Wind Farm at frequencies of 100Hz and above.” Lloyd does admit that citing a 26-year-old report referring to a prototype, nonexistent wind turbine that was never installed in Australia isn’t quite right: “Clean Energy Council policy director Russell Marsh said the study was not relevant to modern turbines. ‘This is the equivalent of taking a study about Ataris and applying it to the latest iPads,’ Mr Marsh said.” However, that admission is not central to his thesis: So why report a decades-old piece of research on a prototype wind turbine like it’s breaking news? It’s a technique Lloyd has used before: have a look at these sentences from an article published in April 2012: “Village resident Neil Daws is concerned his chickens have been laying eggs with no yolks. Ironically called wind eggs, the yolkless eggs can be explained without wind turbines. But together with a spike in sheep deformities, also not necessarily connected to wind, reports of erratic behaviour by farm dogs and an exodus of residents complaining of ill health, Waterloo is a case study of the emotional conflict being wrought by the rollout of industrial wind power.” By simply presenting two completely irrelevant facts in close proximity, Lloyd lets the reader assume the two are linked. So where did Lloyd get this 26-year-old scoop? That would be windturbinesyndrome.com, attempting to stimulate rageby distributing outdated research on prototype machines. Lloyd claims: “The research was sent by an American acoustics expert to Australian wind health campaigners and has now been published internationally.” Well, no, it was already published internationally: see here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here … you get the idea. It’s an old piece of research, which has been mindlessly re-hashed by anti-wind groups and picked up by Lloyd with motivated glee. In the absence of evidence of any harm from wind turbines, awkwardly and unashamedly shoe-horning irrelevant, outdated research into contemporary media is, presumably, the last resort of anti-wind turbine activists. *Ketan Joshi is the research and communications officer at Infigen Energy. This article was first published at his blog Some Air.

DGR Petition

Would you bury poison beside your well?Ontario Power Generation is planning to bury radioactive nuclear waste beside Lake Huron

STOP THE GREAT LAKES NUCLEAR DUMP Petition | GoPetition

Who opposes wind power and why do they do it?

By David Clark

I have studied wind power as it is developing in Australia for more than ten years.  In the early years of Australian wind power development – from the first wind farm at Esperance in 1987 to around ten years ago – there was practically no opposition to wind farms.  Serious opposition is a phenomenon that has arisen in the last five years or so.
 

What is the opposition all about?  Why do people oppose wind power?  Can we say anything about the type of people who oppose wind power developments?  Can we say what motivates them?

There are several things that the great majority of the wind power opposition have in common:

1. A willingness to exaggerate, use half-truths, misleadingly twist the facts, or simply to lie;
2. They repeat fallacies that have been created by other, earlier, wind power opponents; they do little checking of the facts;
3. If they do any research, they cherry-pick the evidence (see below);
4. They ignore the damage to health due to the air pollution from burning coal;
5. They either deny climate science or place more importance on their own selfish concerns than on the damage that climate change and ocean acidification is doing to our planet.

This suggests several things:

1. The opponents do not have many valid objections to wind power;
2. The valid objections that do exist are not serious enough to significantly help the opponents achieve their aims;
3. The opponents feel that the general population is ignorant about wind power and will not recognize the misinformation as such;
4. Some, at least, of the opponents are themselves ignorant that many of the arguments they use are false.

There are two main classes of people who oppose wind farm developments:

1. Those who have financial reasons; these people are usually supporting the mining/fossil fuel/nuclear industries;
2. Those who are more concerned about the impact that a local wind farm will have on them personally than they are about what it will do for the region, the nation, and the planet.  (Many of the concerns of this group come from the accumulated misinformation built up by other wind power opponents).

The former group is usually opposing wind power in general, while the latter group are against a local development.  The former group is fundamentally dishonest, while the latter group are more mixed.  The reasons that they oppose wind farms include fear that the wind turbines will make them ill or that the noise will be unbearable and a belief that their land values or farming practices will suffer.  There is no factual basis for these fears and beliefs; they have grown out of a misinformation campaign, partly orchestrated and encouraged by those who have a financial interest in stopping renewable energy developments and partly grown out of the repetition of the irrational beliefs and fears by an irresponsible and sensational media and by other wind power opponents.
 

Another reason that people will oppose a nearby wind farm is envy of their neighbours who will do very well financially out of the development.  This is particularly strong in those people who might have had wind turbines on their land, but missed out because they demanded more money than the developer was willing to pay.  (Imagine how they would feel when it started to look like their less greedy neighbours were going to be getting perhaps $15,000 per turbine per year while they themselves would entirely miss out!)
 

Most opponents are very willing to cherry-pick evidence.  A good example of this is to do with land values.  There are a very few cases of courts deciding that a wind farm, or a proposed wind farm, has caused a decrease in land values.  The great majority of the evidence, including a number of studies, have shown that there is no significant or long-term decline in land values linked with nearby wind farms.  The opponents reference the few court decisions while ignoring the bulk of the evidence.

Medical ethics violations by anti-wind lobbyists receiving attention

by Mike Barnard

There are at least three former medical professionals who are leveraging their no-longer-active medical credentials to lend weight to their campaigns against wind energy and performing research without oversight. Medical ethics watchdogs are starting to take note.

Perhaps the most prominent is Nina Pierpont, a former paediatrician who advertised via anti-wind groups looking for people who blamed wind farms for their health conditions, interviewed 23 of them in ten families by phone only, accepted hearsay evidence on a further 15, did no direct examinations or medical histories and on the basis of this self-published a 294-page book with 60 pages of charts and graphs. From this remarkably flimsy tissue, she proclaimed a new medical condition, Wind Turbine Syndrome, and established a cottage industry for herself and her husband. They preside over a website of the same name where dissenting opinions are not welcome and comparisons of wind energy supporters to Hitler and Nazis are regular features.


In Canada, Carmen Krogh, retired pharmacist and member of the Advisory Group of the anti-wind energy campaigning organization, the Society for Wind Vigilance regularly speaks to media and groups, and regularly submits to wind farm siting reviews against wind energy.

Image courtesy of http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/600465/ontario-researcher-blows-off-claim-anti-wind-farm-activism-causes-wind-turbine-syndrome/#

 

In Australia, the dubious distinction of being the theoretically credentialed anti-wind medical activist goes to Sarah Laurie, a former general practitioner who is now unregistered and in fact has been non-practicing longer than she was actively helping people. She is the CEO of the Waubra Foundation, an anti-wind lobbyist group with strong fossil fuel ties, a Board made up of rich NIMBYs and a track record of questionable behaviour. Ms. Laurie’s ethics infractions are the subject of this article.

 

A primary principle of medical ethics is “First, do no harm”.  An outcome of that principle is that medical professionals must take care when doing any research or asserting any health implications that they do not cause worse problems than they are researching. As such, any medical research, especially that involving direct contact with a study group, involves a medical ethics assessment by a group set up for that purpose.

Since 2009 at least, a strong hypothesis for increasing health complaints near a subset of wind farms in English-speaking countries has been that they are being caused by the nocebo effect, and are in fact a psychogenic or communicated disease. The nocebo effect, first named by WP Kennedy in 1961, is the negative side of the placebo effect (The Nocebo Reaction, Kennedy, W P., Medical World, Vol.95, (September 1961), pp.203-205).  Instead of suggestions leading to positive health outcomes, suggestions lead to negative health outcomes. The nocebo effect causes health issues in psychogenic health hysteria's such as “fan death” in Korea, where people believe that a fan in a closed room chops oxygen molecules in two, causing them to be unable to breathe. It causes some side-effects of medicine, challenging ethical disclosure of potential side-effects.  It’s a confounding factor in clinical trials of medication and treatment. It’s such a powerful and evident effect, that direct studies into the nocebo effect have been banned due to medical ethics concerns since roughly the 1970s.

Researchers are now assessing the nocebo and psychogenic hypotheses and finding strong evidence that they are the cause of the majority of complaints and are responsible for significant increases in numbers and severity of complaints.  Professor Simon Chapman and team of the Public Health Faculty of the University of Sydney of Australia found strong supporting evidence for the psychogenic hypothesis being the dominant factor in wind farm health complaints in a recently epublished study undergoing formal peer review and publication now.  Ms. Fiona Crichton and team of the University of Auckland in New Zealand found strong supporting evidence for the nocebo effect being the cause of significantly increased numbers and severity of symptoms attributed to infrasound, one of the key bogeyman in the pseudo-scientific attack on wind energy.

Studies such as Crichton’s which assess the nocebo effect must ensure that the larger goals of the study are expected to have positive health outcomes, that the negative impacts of the nocebo effect are monitored during the study and the study terminated if they become too severe, and that study participants are clearly told after the study that the goal was assessing the nocebo effect and that symptoms they felt were caused by that, not by the purported cause, in Crichton’s case infrasound.

Most of the research done by anti-wind campaigners has been conducted outside of the ethical framework that registered practitioners are expected to submit to. Amanda Harry’s surveys of health complaints in the UK were riddled with challenges that were likely to increase negative impacts. Michael Nissenbaum, also of the Society for Wind Vigilance, performed similarly challenged surveys in Maine, and then collected data from the same wind farms which he wrote up in a study, one of many challenges with his report (see two critical reports in the same journal).

However, these biased researchers who are operating without ethical oversight have received a free pass from medical oversight organizations.

Until now.

On April 23rd, 2013 it was reported in an Australian media outlet, the Crikey, that Sarah Laurie was being investigated for medical ethics violations by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. She might be subject to a $30,000 fine for her transgressions of ethics. Further, this would reasonably lead to questions of whether she could be the subject of lawsuits for the harm she has caused.  As she has ignored open letters requesting that she stop promoting health scares and causing negative health impacts — just as Carmen Krogh has rejected direct questions on the subject –, it’s good that formal interventions are occurring.

The Waubra Foundation responded with a media release on May 9, 2013.  In it, they say that there is a conspiracy out to get them and declare that an Independent Commission Against Corruption or Royal Commission should be struck to determine who is at the bottom of it.  They do not provide any explanation as to why Ms. Laurie’s public record statements regarding research she is undertaking without oversight and people she is providing health guidance to while unregistered were misinterpreted, they merely deny the charges and claim they are malicious.

They claim that these accusations will damage Ms. Laurie’s reputation, but it’s hard to see how as she is already listed on Australia’s Quack Watch site and is a nominee for the Australian Skeptic’s association’s Bent Spoon Award for 2013. Anyone who is paying attention and is not an anti-wind energy True Believer already knows she is a dangerously deluded individual on a mission. She is typically referenced in the same sentences as Australia’s also dangerously deluded anti-vaccination campaigners. When she appears under oath she suffers badly even under the friendliest of examination. How much worse could her reputation get?

At best, this communique will serve only to inflame their hardest core supporters, while alienating more moderate and intelligent people who were on the fence. Groups which have been taking advantage of her in their fight against clean, safe wind energy will think twice and likely many will disassociate themselves with her. In fact, it’s surprising that the other Directors of the Waubra Foundation didn’t ask her to stand down from her duties until the investigation had run it’s course; if they truly were a devoted public health organization, that would have been the reasonable thing to do. It’s hard to see what they possibly thought this particular response would gain them.
Here’s the full text of the complaint. See the Croaky post for all supporting evidence:

Research being conducted by the Waubra Foundation
There are consistent references on the public record to research activities of the Waubra Foundation’s Chief Executive Officer (formerly Medical Director), Sarah Laurie. Attached are a selection of quotes by Dr Laurie about her research methods and findings, together with relevant quotes from a range of media articles and quotes from two ‘subjects’ of Dr Laurie’s research taken from submissions to the 2011 Federal Senate Inquiry into the Social and Economic Impact of Wind Farms. The attached references date from October 2010 through to January 2013.

Of particular note are 2 presentations given by Dr Laurie (references 12 and 16 on the attached list), which explicitly describe the following sources of data for her research:

• Interviews with affected residents

(Interviews with affected residents are also listed in references 1, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 27). The most recent reference states that over 120 residents have been interviewed.

• Medical records

(Medical records, clinical history, medical symptoms and personal health journals are also noted as sources of data in references 1, 6, 8, 9, 18, 20-22, 25, 26 and 27)

• Treating physicians

(Obtaining information from, collaborating with, or providing advice/education to treating health practitioners is also noted in references 3, 5, 6, 8 , 14, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26 and 27)

• Personal health journals
• Acoustic monitoring inside homes

In addition to the above, the following are noted:

• Discussion of blood pressure data collection being undertaken as part of Dr Laurie’s research in references 2-6, 8 and 12. Reference 3 also contains an invitation by Dr Laurie to provide blood pressure results to her. These data appears to have been collected in conjunction with personal health journals, and used in public presentations and documents by Dr Laurie to suggest that exposure to wind turbines is correlated with high blood pressure. Some of the data collected by Dr Laurie was provided to the South Australian Environment, Resource & Development Court for a Jan 2011 hearing (see references 6 and 7). We note it was analysed by an independent expert from Adelaide University, who found no correlation between high blood pressure and wind turbine exposure.
• Explicit reference to ‘research subjects’ in references 6, 9, 10 and 11.
• Medical advice and/or clinical judgement by Dr Laurie contained in references 18 and 21.

As a former medical practitioner, Dr Laurie  should be aware of the National Health & Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. We note “the National Statement sets national standards for use by any individual, institution or organisation conducting human research. This includes human research undertaken by governments, industry, private individuals, organisations or networks of organisations” (page 7). The Statement also provides a definition of human research, which includes: taking part in surveys, interviews or focus groups; undergoing psychological, physiological or medical testing or treatment; being observed by researchers; or researchers having access to information (page 8).
Based on the National Statement, Dr Laurie’s activities appear to clearly meet the definition of research involving human subjects. Accordingly, the Waubra Foundation should be asked to answer the following questions:

• Has Dr Laurie’s research been subject to review by a Human Research Ethics Committee?
• If so, which committee approved the study protocol and is/was responsible for monitoring how the research is conducted?
• If the research was not reviewed by an Ethics Committee, on what basis were Dr Laurie’s activities exempted from this requirement?

With regard to collecting information from treating health practitioners:

• How many treating physicians has Dr Laurie gathered information from?
• Which treating physicians have provided information, and what protocol has been followed to obtain this information?
• What has this information consisted of?
• Is the data collection listed above ongoing? If not, when did it cease?

Regarding the data collected, in an interview with Wind Wise radio on 19 February 2012 (reference 19), Dr Laurie stated that she has been “sharing information, the clinical information that I’m gleaning from the residents and their doctors, and sharing it with people from other disciplines so that we can get a multidisciplinary dialogue going on.” Objective 3 of the Waubra Foundation is also listed as “build the existing and new data into a high quality database suitable as a start point for properly constructed studies and review by qualified others”.

• To whom is the database available?
• What information is included in the database?
• How is the information on the database being managed and shared in accordance with standards of ethical research?

Dr Laurie is not currently registered as a medical practitioner. The Medical Board of Australia in conjunction with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency advises that medical practitioners should be registered if they have any direct clinical contact with patients or provide treatment or opinion about individuals. It also provides advice for practitioners to be registered when they are directing, supervising or advising other health practitioners about the health care of an individual(s). 

As noted in references 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 16, it appears that Dr Laurie has had direct clinical contact with individuals, particularly in relation to collecting blood pressure data, personal journals and clinical histories. The document ‘Suggested Health Assessment Guidelines’ prepared by Dr Laurie (reference 18) provides advice intended for health professionals, and would also appear to be in breach of Medical Board of Australia guidelines. Dr Laurie should be asked to explain why she is undertaking these activities while not registered to practice medicine.

In the event that the Waubra Foundation media release is removed or altered in the future, here’s the full text:

Public Statement 
Waubra Foundation Calls for Full Public Inquiry 
The Foundation has been informed that an “anonymous” document appeared at the office of Michael Moore, CEO of the Public Health Association of Australia alleging that the Foundation’s CEO, Dr Laurie, is “conducting research without ethics committee approval” and that Dr Laurie is “practising medicine without being registered”. These are serious, and reputation- damaging, accusations, deliberately made. 

Moore then transmitted this anonymous and malicious document to the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority and the South Australian Health Care Complaints Commission. It was then leaked to the media before the NHMRC asked Dr Laurie for a response. 

The Foundation and Dr Laurie unequivocally deny both allegations and consider the “supporting” information provided to be inherently and embarrassingly weak and circumstantial. 

It is clear that the allegations have been made to denigrate and distract from the Foundation’s campaign to induce governments and industry to fund acoustic and clinical research inside the homes of residents reporting serious health problems and home abandonment's. 

The Foundation is not resourced to undertake research on its own account or for others. It is, however, a strong advocate for research by appropriately skilled independent researchers. 

Why has the research not yet been done? One only has to ask who or what organisations might be damaged by the results. 

What should properly interest a professional journalist is that the people making these allegations do not have the courage to identify themselves. The obvious conclusion is that they have much to hide. 

The Board of the Foundation considers that what has transpired, plus the contemporaneous and coordinated press campaign prominently featuring chronic critics of the Foundation’s works, is properly the subject of a referral to an ICAC or a Royal Commission. To ignore the documented suffering of people, and openly to ridicule them, is not only unethical, it is immoral, if not criminal. That, however, is precisely what is occurring here all under the cloak of “renewable” ideology. It’s time Australians woke up to what is going on. The Waubra Foundation relishes the opportunity of exposing what is a corrupt system being driven by huge financial incentives.

Here’s the full text of the Crikey article:

The National Health and Medical Research Council confirms it has received a complaint regarding the research being conducted by Laurie, the CEO of the Waubra Foundation (a small but powerful anti-wind farm activist group). A spokesperson told Crikey: “NHMRC takes all complaints received seriously and are following up on this matter.” 

The concerns about Laurie’s research ethics are outlined in a document written by an anonymous academic and first sent to the Public Health Association Australia. The document alleges Laurie is not currently registered as a medical practitioner but has been conducting activity that meets the definition of medical research involving human subjects. On her website, Laurie uses the title of “Dr” and describes herself as a former GP. 

The dossier outlines the incidents where Laurie claims to have conducted interviews with residents affected by wind turbine health issues, collected blood pressure data, given medical advice and/or clinical judgment, referred to people as “research subjects” and discussed accessing medical records and personal health journals. It also asks if Laurie’s research has been reviewed by a Human Research Ethics Committee: 

“The Medical Board of Australia in conjunction with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency advises that medical practitioners should be registered if they have any direct clinical contact with patients or provide treatment or opinion about individuals.” 

After examining the document, the CEO of the Public Health Association Australia, Michael Moore, forwarded it on to the heads of the NHRMC, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, the Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner of South Australia and the Waubra Foundation. 

“It was something which should not be ignored because I thought there were serious ethical issues which had been raised, ethical issues that would distort the debate over the appropriateness of wind farm technology,” Moore told Crikey. 

For years Laurie and her Waubra Foundation (named for the Waubra wind farm in NSW) have campaigned against the use of wind farm technology, claiming wind turbines have serious health impacts — known as “wind turbine syndrome” — for local residents. As Australia’s most prominent anti-wind farm campaigner, Laurie is regularly used as a media commentator about wind farm health issues; she recently appeared on ABC Radio National and 2GB. 

“From our perspective, it’s a matter of ensuring that policy debates take place on sound evidence and that the research is appropriately conducted,” said Moore. 

A new study by public health professor Simon Chapman indicates health complaints about wind turbines were rare until anti wind-farm groups began a campaign against supposed medical issues in 2009. Another recent study led by University of Auckland researcher Fiona Crichton demonstrates that residents who expect health issues from wind turbine health issues are more likely to develop the symptoms. 

When called to ask about the document and its claims, Laurie told Crikey it was “inappropriate for me to comment at this time”. 

The Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner of SA and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency told Crikey they don’t comment on individual cases. An AHPRA spokesperson notes it is an offence under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to present as a registered medical practitioner if you are not, and a court may impose a maximum penalty of $30,000 for an individual “holding out”.

Wind energy and other renewables to power 25% of world within 5 years

A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), stating that global power generation from hydro, wind, solar and other renewable sources will exceed that of gas and be twice that of nuclear by 2016, is receiving widespread news coverage.

Renewable power is expected to increase by 40% in the next five years, according to the IEA’s second annual Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report launched last Wednesday in New York.

According to the report, renewables are now the fastest-growing power generation sector and will make up almost a quarter of the global power mix by 2018, up from an estimated 20% in 2011.

In addition, the report found that the share of non-hydro sources such as wind, solar, bioenergy and geothermal in total power generation will double, reaching 8% by 2018, up from 4% in 2011 and just 2% in 2006.

“As their costs continue to fall, renewable power sources are increasingly standing on their own merits versus new fossil-fuel generation,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said as she presented the report at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum.

“This is good news for a global energy system that needs to become cleaner and more diversified, but it should not be an excuse for government complacency, especially among OECD countries.”

According to an IEA press release, the report warns that renewable development is becoming more complex and faces challenges — especially in the policy arena.
Van der Hoeven added “policy uncertainty is public enemy number one” for investors.
“Many renewables no longer require high economic incentives. But they do still need long-term policies that provide a predictable and reliable market and regulatory framework compatible with societal goals,” she was quoted as saying.  “And worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels remain six times higher than economic incentives for renewables.”

Steve Sawyer, Secretary General of the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), speaking from the Asia Clean Energy Forum in Manila, said that the IEA’s medium-term projections for the growth of wind energy are more or less in line with GWEC’s.

“This excellent snapshot of the global renewables market and shows that a renewable energy future is not only possible, but we are getting there – and faster than many think.”

Stories about the report were widely published in the media, including Reuters, UPI, and Bloomberg News.

The report was released one day after US President Barack Obama spoke in Washington about the need for Americans to recalibrate their energy use and begin dealing with the consequences of climate change.

Noting about 40% of US carbon pollution comes from domestic power plants, Obama said he wants the nation to double the amount of energy from clean and renewable sources, such as wind and sun.

Consumer group enters the wind farm battle

CAC claims opponents using false information.

By Ken de la Bastide Kokomo Tribune Kokomo Tribune The Kokomo Tribune Mon Jul 01, 2013, 02:50 AM EDT

A state consumer rights organization is claiming that wind farm opponents in Howard and Tipton counties are spreading misinformation about wind energy.

Development of wind farms in the two counties have been a topic of heated conversation between opponents and proponents of wind farms.
E.ON Climate & Renewables is planning two phases of the Wildcat Wind Farm in Howard and Grant counties.

Juwi Wind has received approval for a planned wind farm in northwestern Tipton County and is currently requesting modification of setback requirements imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals and acceptance of a property value guarantee plan.

The Tipton County Citizens for Responsible Development and Howard County Concerned Citizens are opposed to the wind farms. The two groups are seeking changes in setback requirements and moratoriums on further wind farm development.

The Citizens Action Council sent a letter to the Tipton County Plan Commission Thursday urging them to base discussions about wind energy in the comprehensive plan that is based on scientific research.

“As the leader of an Indiana-based organization that prides itself in providing factual, authenticated information, we urge the Tipton Plan Commission to ask for proof and evidence to support the off-the-wall, unsubstantiated statements by those being fed information from national organizations with self-serving interests,” Kerwin Olson, executive director of the CAC, wrote.

Olson said Friday the organization is supportive of wind energy in Indiana.

“What we have going on in Indiana, the first group popped up two years ago,” Olson said of organized resistance to wind energy. “Look at their websites, the claims being made are not factual.”

He said some there could be some validity to health claims, adding the claims of Wind Syndrome illness are false.

Jeff Hoover with the CRD said he agrees that the information being provided should be backed up by scientific research and empirical data.

“We have provided scientific and empirical data,” he said. “That data shows property value loss and health and safety concerns. Every group has the right to their own opinion.”

Hoover said it’s time for the elected and appointed officials in Tipton County to realize a majority of people don’t want industrial wind farms in the county. He said at the Plan Commission meeting the opponents of the wind farms substantially outnumbered the supporters of wind energy.

Olson said all the data indicates that wind power is cheaper than electricity from a new coal-fired plant.

“Look at Benton and White counties,” he said. “There has been significant tax benefits and development taking place.”

Olson said claims that property values decrease around a wind farm are not true and property values may increase.

“It’s too early to know,” he said of the impact in Indiana.

Olson said the CAC is unsure of where the information being provided to elected officials in Howard, Tipton and Delaware counties is coming from.

Wind farm opponents maintain the wind turbines impact the health of local residents, lower property values and disrupt the rural lifestyle by noise and shadow flicker, which is caused by the turning of the blades.

Olson said another unknown is how the anti-wind organizations are being funded. Olson said a lot of information is coming from WindAction.org and the funding source can’t be determined.

“We don’t doubt that there are concerns,” he said. “But the claims should be backed up by scientific research and empirical data. We would question the motives of those opposed to wind energy.”

The Problem With Single Source Generation

July 2, 2013

by Paul Gipe

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of California’s major electric utilities, shut down its 1,122 MW Unit #1 at its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant last week just as the state prepared for a serious heat wave.

The news sent power prices higher on the wholesale exchange and required the state to burn more fossil fuels in thermal generation to make up for the lost power.

There are two units at the site, the second unit remained in service.

The plant’s outage couldn’t have come at a worse time both for the state and for PG&E. California’s is besieged with a severe heat wave, pushing up demand for air conditioning. Meanwhile the utility is asking for a controversial extension of its operating license for both nuclear units.

The plant may well be off an entire week, returning to service after the heat wave breaks.

Whatever happens with the plants outage, PG&E loses. If a power emergency is called, it becomes clear that nuclear is not dependable during a crisis. If no emergency is called, then it is equally clear that the reactor is not needed.

For the moment, the state is meeting its electrical needs and there have been no calls for extraordinary conservation measures.

News of the plant’s outage came to the renewables industry when French analyst, Bernard Chabot, asked California colleagues why nuclear generation had fallen so dramatically prior to the run up in demand. Chabot noted that nuclear generation had fallen by half, and thermal generation soared as the heat wave began.

Chabot had previously analyzed the nuclear industry’s performance for Renewables International in Nuclear – how big is it?

Based on experience in France during the killer heat wave of 2003, Chabot has described nuclear as "intermittent and unpredictable" for its unscheduled outages when most needed. In contrast, he notes that renewable sources of energy are "variable and predictable". That is, generation from wind and solar resources do vary, but they vary in a predictable manner. Chabot’s assessment turns on its head the oft-repeated charge that wind and solar energy are intermittent and, hence, unreliable.

During the 2003 heat wave in Europe, several French reactors had to be taken off line because the temperature of their cooling water reached regulatory limits. Similarly, during the brutal European cold spell in early 2012, several French reactors were again out of service when most needed. France, subsequently imported electricity from neighboring countries, including Germany, to make up the difference.

The outage at PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Unit #1 during the present heat wave on the heals of the decision to permanently close two reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station by Southern California Edison is certain to re-energize opponents of nuclear power in the Golden State.

Reuters: California power prices up on heat wave, reactor shutdown

Reuters: PG&E shuts California Diablo Canyon 1 reactor

"Reliable" Nuclear Unreliable Afterall Even in France