“It feels like everything could tip very quickly”: Naomi Klein takes on the climate crisis

Klein, who has done more to popularise the inseparability of capitalism and climate change than perhaps any other author, talks Extinction Rebellion and mainstream environmentalism.


KALPESH LATHIGRA FOR NEW STATESMAN

Twenty years ago, Naomi Klein’s No Logo was published on the crest of swelling unease about economic globalisation. Her analysis raged against corporate greed, sweat-shop labour and an increasingly voracious marketing culture that seemed to absorb all forms of critique.

In November 1999, while the book was still at the printers, thousands of activists shut down a meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in protest at a financial system of deregulated capitalism that was taking the world by storm. No Logo became a manifesto for the anti-globalisation zeitgeist that would define grassroots politics for the next decade.

The book foreshadowed crazy ideas: corporations were becoming more powerful than governments, and one day you could become your own global brand. Yet the world that Klein foretold has now come into being.

“What’s more powerful now… is the idea that every single person has to be their own brand, and the application of the logic of corporate branding to our very selves. It’s an insidious change that has everything to do with social media,” Klein tells me when we meet in London. The superbrands of the late Nineties were easy to identify; now, digital technology has made it less possible than ever to live a life unmediated by corporate power.

Klein is in London promoting her new book, On Fire, a crescendo of essays from the past ten years that concludes with an argument for the Green New Deal. The proposal, which encompasses dramatic increases in green energy investment and green jobs creation, is gaining political sway on both sides of the Atlantic.

We meet for coffee in the bar of an expensive hotel that smells like pot-pourri; outside, Extinction Rebellion (XR) protesters are defying a ban initiated by the Metropolitan Police. The fortnight preceding our meeting, XR activists seized central London in a string of colourful uprisings. “It feels like one of those moments where everything could tip very quickly,” she tells me. “This is not tapping into people who saw themselves as climate activists – it’s tapping into something much broader.”

Klein, 49, has done more to popularise the inseparability of capitalism and climate change than perhaps any other author. In a series of books published over the past decade, she documented the human costs of ecological plunder and argued that environmental breakdown is rooted in capitalism’s quest for perpetual growth. “We have a handful of years to turn this around, and in those handful of years, I’m all in, all the time,’’ she says. Listening to her, it’s possible to feel a sense of calm; where much of the discourse about climate change redounds to the apocalyptic script of a climate-fiction novel, she has a resolute sense not only of what’s at stake, but of how we might fix it.

Klein has long railed against the dangers of “disaster capitalism”. In The Shock Doctrine (2007), she traced how elites exploited national crises and natural disasters to push through free-market policies. Today, she worries that without a concrete plan, climate activists may leave open the door to a similar possibility. “I’m extremely wary of just asking powerful interests to declare [a] climate emergency, and deferring the question of what we mean by climate action,” she says.

Though Klein commends XR, which has forced the UK government to declare a climate emergency and commit to citizens’ assemblies, she worries that “asking those in power to declare an emergency and waiting to articulate what their solutions should be” could open up a “vacuum”. “The time for simply calling for ‘action’, amorphous action, has passed,” she adds.

Mainstream environmentalism has long been criticised for being too elite, too concerned with pristine wilderness and charismatic species, and too apathetic to the reality that environmental harms are distributed along poverty and race lines.

In the US, for example, people of colour live with 66 per cent more air pollution than white citizens. Klein’s contention is that we should be learning from the movements at the front lines of environmental change.

One senses her frustration at big environmental groups that have avoided talking about the economic roots of climate breakdown. “The most well-funded green groups in the world are more focused on wilderness; they’re more focused on animals, on conservation. They take a tonne of money from fossil fuel companies, mining companies, and their whole business model is to shake down the extractive sectors and banks, and to… protect patches of wilderness,” Klein says.

Fixating on “nature” and “wilderness” rather than the ground under our feet can descend into something more troubling: the protection of a nativist social order. In On Fire, Klein argues that we’re already living through the dawn of climate barbarism, with terrorists such as the Christchurch gunman openly identifying as “eco-fascists”. “There’s a strong strain of ‘close it down, protect our own’,’’ she says. “Hypernationalism and native protectionism [are] a very likely outcome in many majority-white countries.”

“People know, whether they link it to climate change or not, that we are in an era of mass migration and that the space in which it is going to be safe for humans to live on this planet is contracting. It will continue to contract,” she says. “This is why it’s important to have a plan.” SOURCE

Norway’s largest pension fund pulls out of Alberta oilsands, removes four Calgary-based companies

Oilsands, Suncor, Fort McMurray
A hopper moves dirt in Suncor’s Millennium mine in the oilsands in Fort McMurray, Alta., on June 13, 2017. (CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson)

CALGARY – The largest pension fund in Norway has removed four Calgary-based companies from its investment list in an effort to cut ties with Alberta’s oilsands and meet worldwide greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) has removed Cenovus Energy Inc., Suncor Energy Inc., Imperial Oil Ltd. and Husky Energy.

The fund, which administers more than $81 billion USD in assets, said a full exit from the oilsands is “great news” for environmentally friendly customers.

CTV News Chief Financial Commentator, Pattie Lovett-Reid, says the decision was made to reduce the fund’s tolerance threshold for companies with interests in the oilsands.

“What they have indicated is they will not be investing in companies that derive more than five per cent of their revenue from the oilsands,” said Lovett-Reid. “The reason being cited here is it’s not in line with oilsands activity with the Paris Climate Agreement.”

KLP CEO Sverre Thornes is proud of the decision.  “By going coal and oilsands free, we are sending a strong message on the urgency of shifting from fossil to renewable energy.”

The move is not sitting well with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

President and CEO of CAPP, Tim McMillan, said attempts to stifle Canadian production by restricting financing will mean countries with lower environmental standards will fill the void.

McMillan said Canadian oil and natural gas producers “operate under one of the most stringent regulatory systems in the world”, adding that the International Energy Agency forecasts that natural gas and oil will remain in the major sources of global energy in 2040. MORE

RELATED:

Calgary-based Encana plans to move base to U.S., change name
End of En(ergy)Cana(da) — why one of Canada’s oldest oil and natural gas producer is moving to the U.S.
Thunberg shames Norwegian leaders

 

As Western premiers blow smoke on carbon tax, youth organize for climate justice

Image: Spence Mann
Image: Spence Mann

Justin Trudeau’s re-election has unleashed political outrage in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is talking about Alberta’s being “betrayed” while Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe sent a letter to Trudeau demanding the cancellaiton of the federal carbon tax, support for various pipelines, and a renegotiation of the formula for equalization payments.

I’ll withhold detailed comment on equalization payments, other than to say that for many years, Saskatchewan was a “have-not” province that relied heavily upon them. But let’s look more closely at Moe’s letter as it relates to the carbon tax and pipelines. Moe’s strident demands are likely based upon the election results in Saskatchewan and Alberta, where the Conservatives won 47 of 48 seats. On the other hand, parties supporting a carbon levy won almost two-thirds of the seats and popular vote across Canada.

It is significant, too, that the results in Alberta and Saskatchewan were not monolithic. In Alberta, 28 per cent of those casting ballots voted for the Liberals, NDP or Greens, and these parties all support a carbon tax. In Saskatchewan, 34 per cent of the electors voted for those three parties. If we had purely proportional representation rather than our flawed first-past-the-post electoral system, parties other than the Conservatives would have 10 seats in Alberta and five in Saskatchewan. So Kenney and Moe cannot say that they are speaking on behalf of all their constituents.

 Carbon tax haters are delayers and deniers

Kenney, Moe and others constantly repeat the mantra that the carbon tax will be a “job killer” and according to Doug Ford will lead to a recession. But these claims have been challenged. In a February, three independent experts, including the highly respected Don Drummond, concluded: “Economists are virtually unanimous in the view that carbon pricing reduces greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy.” British Columbia, Quebec and California are all using some form of carbon tax and their economies are humming along.

If Moe and others are opposed to a carbon tax, what is their suggestion, if any, for a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? There’s the rub. While Moe, Kenney, Ford and Andrew Scheer rail against the carbon tax, or demand that various pipelines be built, they usually avoid any mention of the climate crisis.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes the world’s best climate scientists, has been issuing reports for years. The IPCC reports of late are increasingly urgent in tone. The IPCC now says that global carbon dioxide emissions will have to fall by 45 per cent in 2030, and to reach a net of zero by 2050 to avoid catastrophic damage.

The Trudeau government — implausibly, many suggest — has promised that it is on course to meet those targets and that a carbon tax is the rightful centerpiece of that effort. Ottawa believes the tax will encourage a market shift away from fossil fuels toward renewable sources of energy.

The strategy of the tax’s opponents has shifted from denying the reality of climate change, which is no longer credible, to tactics of delay. During the election campaign, Conservatives said they would require large polluters to pay into a research and development fund for green technology. That plan appeared suspiciously akin to what was being proposed by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the oil industry’s main lobby, which has a close relationship with Andrew Scheer. Tellingly, the proposal contained no associated targets or timetables for reducing emissions, and was described by one analyst as simply “a plan to expand fossil fuel production.”

Support on the street

While premiers Moe and Kenney attempt to delay, there is growing support on the street for climate action. On September 27, hundreds of thousands of people — 500,000 in Montreal alone — marched in climate strikes that took place in 200 Canadian cities and towns. Many of the organizers were youth, and they were participating in a global day of action to demand that our political leaders do more to confront the climate crisis. These youth organizers are looking to the future. Premiers Moe and Kenney are staring into the rear-view mirror.

Youth lawsuit draws attention to climate crisis

 

Youth litigants at press release.
Children shouldn’t have to march in the streets or take their governments to court. But in times of crisis people have to do what they can to get the many available and emerging solutions implemented.(Photo: Robin Loznak)

Children and teens are at a disadvantage. They can’t vote and have little say in many plans and policies that will determine their futures. The political decisions made today will affect their lives profoundly.

Scientists worldwide have warned we only have a decade to get emissions down substantially or face the well-known consequences of rapidly accelerating global heating. The costly effects are already being felt — from contaminated air and water to increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events to melting permafrost and species extinction.

With no real say in the political process, children and youth are taking to the streets worldwide, demanding that those in power do more to address this very real crisis. The message appears to be getting through. Climate disruption and plans to deal with it became a key issue in the recent Canadian election.

But instead of doing everything possible to ensure these young people have a secure, healthy future, governments here and elsewhere continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure, arguing — as they have for decades — that we can’t get off fossil fuels overnight. It’s kind of like an addict who really isn’t ready to quit.

A group of young people has decided marching isn’t enough. The 15 youth, ranging in age from seven to 19, and hailing from Vancouver Island to the Northwest Territories to Nova Scotia, are taking the federal government to court “to protect their charter and public trust rights from climate change harms,” claiming the federal government’s failure to take actions consistent with the scientific evidence violates their rights to life, liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and for failing to protect essential public trust resources.

Since climate change disproportionately affects youth, they’re also alleging that government’s conduct violates their right to equality under section 15 of the charter. The youth are supported by the David Suzuki Foundation, Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation, and Our Children’s Trust and represented by law firms Arvay Finlay LLP and Tollefson Law Corporation.

They aren’t seeking money. Rather, they’ll ask for a Federal Court order requiring Canada’s government to prepare a plan to redress charter and public trust doctrine violations by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making a sufficient contribution to preventing, mitigating, and redressing dangerous climate change.

As 13-year-old Sáj Starcevich from Saskatchewan says, “The planet is dying. The animals are dying. We will all die if we don’t act. As an Indigenous vegan, I fight for Earth and her inhabitants. The youth have to step up because no one else has. We need you to join us to end this climate crisis.”

A gradual transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and energy efficiency and conservation would have been possible had we taken the climate crisis seriously even in the 1980s, when scientists including NASA’s James Hansen were sounding the alarm. But, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change points out, we”ve now pumped so many greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere that we’ve locked in many inevitable consequences.

To prevent runaway impacts, we have to cut emissions immediately and protect and restore forests, wetlands and other natural systems, including oceans, that sequester carbon.

Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for a long time, while gases like methane remain for less time but have a greater effect on rising global temperatures. Everything we pump into the air now will remain for decades, causing the planet to continue heating for years. To prevent runaway impacts, we have to cut emissions immediately and protect and restore forests, wetlands and other natural systems, including oceans, that sequester carbon.

As adults, we’ve helped create this mess through rampant consumerism and lack of attention to the problems our pollution is causing. We owe it to the children to help clean it up, to push for the kinds of changes the scientific evidence calls for. We can’t leave it to the youth, because by the time they grow up, Earth could well have reached the tipping point for climate catastrophe.

Children shouldn’t have to march in the streets or take their own governments to court. But in times of crisis — which this surely is — people have to do what they can to get the many available and emerging solutions implemented.

Let’s listen to the kids and leave them a brighter future! SOURCE

Little-used heat pumps ideally suited for Metro Vancouver climate and help reduce emissions


OUTSITE CO ON UNSPLASH

When it comes to keeping the house warm and toasty, most people rely on furnaces and baseboard heaters.

Probably not many of them have heard about air-source heat pumps, which are electric-powered devices that can either heat or cool a home.

They take heat from outside and pump it inside. In hot weather, they work in reverse, as an air conditioner: hot air inside is taken out and cold air is taken in. They’re energy-efficient and they’re good for the planet, because they produce less carbon emissions than gas-fuelled heaters.

According to a paper presented to Metro Vancouver by the Community Energy Association, heat pumps are “ideally suited” to the mild climate of the region.

However, the nonprofit adviser to local governments has noted that these systems are not widely used in the Lower Mainland.

The CEA was founded in 1995 by the B.C. provincial government and the Union of B.C. Municipalities to help local governments with their energy plans.

The group is embarking on a two-year study to find a new approach to increase the rate of retrofitting existing buildings in the Lower Mainland with heat pumps.

According to the CEA, heat pumps can reduce a typical home’s greenhouse-gas emissions by up to six tonnes per year while providing “significant financial savings”. The group also pointed out that meeting Metro Vancouver’s climate targets would require about three percent of homes to switch from fossil fuels to renewable sources like electricity in home heating every year.

The CEA noted that according to Natural Resources Canada, heat pumps accounted for only about three percent of heating systems in B.C. in 2015.

“This is despite the fact that heat pumps provide significant benefits over natural gas heat,” the CEA stated in its presentation….

Dylan Heerema, an engineer and senior analyst with the Pembina Institute, a think tank that focuses on clean energy, has written that using electricity instead of gas for home and building heating is “one of the cheapest ways” to reduce carbon and air pollution.

MORE

Mining company secretly proposes to increase industrial shipping in Arctic marine conservation area

The owners of one of the world’s northernmost mines is telling investors it has plans to increase shipping capacity 50 per cent higher than what it’s telling the public. That could have major impacts for the narwhals who — until recently — enjoyed relatively quiet northern waters

Baffinland Mary River mineBaffinland’s Mary River mine port facility in Milne Inlet. Photo: Oceans North

The company that owns the Mary River open-pit iron mine on Baffin Island in Nunavut has been sending different messages — one to regulators and another to potential investors — regarding its expansion plans.

Baffinland currently has approval to ship six million tonnes of iron ore per year from from Milne Inlet, north of the mine. The company’s public plans for an expansion to its shipping capacity show it loading 12 million tonnes of iron ore into ships, via a 110-kilometre railway, in Milne Inlet every year by 2020 or 2021.

But behind closed doors, Baffinland has been distributing materials to potential investors claiming it will increase its capacity 50 per cent higher than that, to 18 million tonnes, as early as 2021.

“Their plan, at least as communicated to bond buyers, is to get authorization to ship 12 million [tonnes] out of Milne and immediately turn around and get approval to ship 18 million [tonnes] out of Milne — something they’ve never told the public,” says Chris Debicki, vice-president of policy development and counsel for Oceans North.

Iron ore is primarily used in steelmaking. Canada is one of the top-producing iron ore countries in the world, producing 49 million tonnes in total in 2017, according to Natural Resources Canada.

Public hearings for the Mary River mine expansion to 12 million tonnes are set to begin in Iqaluit next week.

The company has not mentioned the additional expansion in any of its regulatory submissions….

Export ships to pass through narwhal habitat

The mine is located on the northern tip of Baffin Island, and is one of the northernmost mines in the world. It exports its iron ore through Milne Inlet to the north.

Ships leaving Milne Inlet pass through Eclipse Sound. Both bodies of water are important for narwhals, a species of special concern in Canada.

Before Mary River, there was no large-scale industrial shipping in the area.

“We actually don’t know, based on any of the research, that shipping even 4.2 million tonnes [its original permitted amount] is a safe threshold in terms of disturbance to marine mammals and a host of other environmental impacts,” Debicki explains. “If you look at the way this mine has ramped up quite quickly over the last five years, I don’t think the science has caught up.”

The entire region involved in the shipping from Milne Inlet is part of the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area, a 108,000 square-kilometre stretch of Arctic Ocean recently designated in recognition of its importance to wildlife, including narwhals.  MORE

 

Greta’s in B.C. How does our climate pollution compare to Sweden’s?


Flags of British Columbia and Sweden (credit Wikipedia) and file photo of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg by Josie Desmarais

“My name is Greta Thunberg. I am sixteen years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations.” – speech to U.K. House of Parliament, London, April 23, 2019

Swedish climate striker Greta Thunberg has travelled a long, slow, low-carbon way to bring her message of climate urgency to British Columbia.

In the spirit of cultural exchange, I decided to learn what I could about Sweden’s own climate emissions and efforts. So if you, too, are interested in how our two northern jurisdictions compare on climate pollution, you’re in luck. I waded through a fat pile of reports and spreadsheets to put together five comparison charts and the stories behind them.

Pollution Down. Pollution Up.

Let’s start with annual emissions. My first chart shows the big picture.

Climate pollution from 1990 to 2017 for Sweden and BC

Back in 1990, Sweden dumped a lot more climate pollution than B.C. did. Fifteen million tonnes (15 MtCO2) more.

But, since then, the Swedes have slashed their emissions by a quarter.

B.C. has pumped it up.

As a result, we’ve traded places. B.C. now emits a lot more climate pollution than Sweden.

I’ve also included B.C.’s 2020 climate target on the chart as a dotted circle. (It sits at 23 per cent below our 1990 emissions level.)

Sweden has already cut even deeper than that, reducing emissions 26 per cent below their 1990 level.

It is clearly possible for wealthy northerners to achieve the pollution we promised. Heck, the U.K. has managed to pull off a 41 per cent reduction since 1990.

Greta: “A lot of people say that Sweden is a small country, that it doesn’t matter what we do. But I think that if a few girls can get headlines all over the world just by not going to school for a few weeks, imagine what we could do together if we wanted to. Every single person counts. Just like every single emission counts. Every single kilo. Everything counts. So please, treat the climate crisis like the acute crisis it is and give us a future. Our lives are in your hands.” – speech to Stockholm Climate March, Sept. 8, 2018

Person by person

Greta: “The bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty.”  speech to the World Economic Forum, Davos, Jan. 25, 2019

Next, let’s look at the amount of climate pollution emitted per person.

Climate pollution per capita in 2017 for Sweden and BC

Sweden is home to more than twice as many people as British Columbia. And as my second chart shows, the average Swede emits a little over five tonnes of climate pollution (tCO2) each year.

That’s one tonne less than the global average.

British Columbians, in contrast, emit more than double the global average.

Why are Swedes polluting so much less? To look for clues I dug deeper to find the emissions that each sector of the economy causes.

Two things jump out for me.

First, you can see that transportation is by far British Columbia’s biggest source of climate pollution. So big, in fact, that our per capita transportation emissions exceed the Swedes footprint for everything. We’ll take a look two of the biggest transportation problems — driving and flying — below.

The second thing that jumps out at me is the pollution from B.C.’s oil and gas industry, shown at the top of the bar. The industry alone emits 2.6 tCO2 per British Columbian. That’s half Sweden’s total.

And now the oil and gas industry is poised to double its climate pollution in B.C. if they build just two of their currently planned LNG projects: LNG Canada and Kitimat LNG.

Those two examples just scratch the surface of what we could learn from studying the emissions of Sweden and most other European nations. If you want to explore more, the official greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory for Sweden, and for most other major nations, are here. And like Greta’s speeches, Sweden’s report is, very helpfully, in English. MORE

Alberta bets the house on technology to help province slash carbon pollution


Alberta Premier Jason Kenney at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto on May 3, 2019. Photo by Tijana Martin

Alberta is putting all its climate change chips on technological innovation and the “war room” meant to defend the province’s oil industry.

Last spring Premier Jason Kenney was elected on a key promise to remove the province’s carbon tax. The replacement climate plan was unveiled on Oct. 29, and is called the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Fund (TIER).

TIER only targets industry with emissions over 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. Companies then have the choice of lowering their emissions by 10 per cent, paying $30 per tonne on emissions that don’t meet the reduction targets, or buying credits from other companies that have exceeded their required reductions.

This TIER program will replace the comparable program that began on Jan. 1, 2018, under the previous NDP government, the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR).

The UCP program wholly backs technology as the golden goose to further decrease emissions from there, with the first $100 million in revenues, along with 50 per cent of revenues after that to the tune of roughly $1.2 billion, devoted to emissions-reduction technology.

This includes $324 million being allotted to investment in carbon capture technology as well as $116 million earmarked for the Oilsands Innovation Fund.

While the UCP claim that the program will have similar emissions reductions as the NDP’s plan, the Pembina Institute criticized the switch to the new program.

Analyst Jan Gorski said, “Alberta’s government is betting on technology and innovation to reduce emissions from industry, but by proposing a carbon pricing system that is less effective than the one currently in effect, it is in fact weakening the market signals that encourage industry to innovate.”

TIER is also where the money for Alberta’s “war room” is coming from, which is set to start work in the new year. The war room, now a corporation named the Canadian Energy Centre, has $30 million flowing to it initially to get started on a communications strategy defending Alberta’s oil and gas sector and correcting “misinformation,” according to Kenney.

Canada’s chief executives call for companies to disclose climate risks


Toronto financial district buildings in 2017. Wikimedia Commons Photo: Arild Vågen

Corporations in Canada have an “obligation” to disclose how the climate crisis will disrupt their long-term plans, according to a body formed by big-business leaders.

The Business Council of Canada, a lobby group representing chief executives of Canada’s largest corporations, released a report Oct. 30 that contains this recommendation and others designed to juice the economy.

The report, called “A better future for Canadians,” says the country needs to develop a “national resource and climate strategy,” in part to meet intensifying demands for cleaner energy, and Canadian companies “have an obligation to demonstrate how they are incorporating the risks of a changing climate into their long-term business strategy.”

“There’s increasing demands from shareholders, from regulatory authorities and so on,” John Dillon, senior vice-president for policy and corporate counsel at the Business Council of Canada, said in an interview with National Observer on the sidelines of the report’s unveiling in Ottawa.

“(Firms) have traditional risks in terms of securities, to disclose any material risks to their business,” he said. “At the same time, (climate-related risk) is a growing field of endeavor and study, without necessarily having clear guidelines on how exactly one assesses the risks that a changing climate may create to a business.”

A task force formed by the chief executives’ group wrote the report, which also recommends that the government “prioritize” infrastructure projects like oil and gas pipelines. “All Canadians have paid the price for inadequate pipeline infrastructure, which seriously constrains energy exports,” the report says. MORE

 

Wind rally to protest removal of industrial turbines

Participants at an earlier rally at the industrial turbine site in Milford.

Image result for white pines decommissioning

On Tuesday, Oct. 29th, the first industrial wind turbine component is set to come down in South Marysburgh. Supporters are seek participants for one last rally to “shame” the Ontario government’s decision to cancel the project.

“Cranes are being delivered and assembled and workers are arriving from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to do the dirty work,” said Jen Ackerman, County resident and landowner with a turbine on her property. “Not one of them, or WPD or any land owners, or wind supporters feel good about this. It should not be happening.”

In a final last effort to draw attention to the cancellation of the White Pines Canada project, Ackerman is hosting a gathering at 1279 Royal Road, Milford beginning at 9 a.m. “for a peaceful demonstration, shaming the Ford government for making such a poor, backwards decision.”

“As many media ,groups, journalists, supporters of wind, and all concerned citizens are encouraged to come. Signs, blue wind shirts and matching hats are available, or be creative, and bring your own. A big crowd would be fantastic.
So lets all get together to shame this Ford “wrecking ball” government. Who knows what could happen. There is always hope for change.”

The first phase of work involves cranes lowering the towers to the ground from October to the end of January 2020. The second phase of decommissioning is planned to begin in April 2020 for the removal and remediation of infrastructure.

wpd Canada had indicated it would seek to recoup $100 million it put into the project, but it is still not clear how much the provincial government agreed to pay. The legislation requires wpd to cover the cost of decomissioning and restoring the land. The law also bars the company from suing the government.

The German wind company’s initial plan was for 29 turbines but following years of legal battles, led by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, over protection of species at risk and heritage preservation, the project was reduced to nine.

Only four of the 100-metre tall turbines were erected, but were not put into service before the legislation.

Because the renewable energy approval has been revoked, the ministry made a new regulation under the Environmental Protection Act and an associated technical closure document, to govern the closure of the facility.

The facility consists of the nine turbine areas and one transformer substation, associated ancillary equipment, systems and technologies including on-site access roads, underground cabling, distribution or transmission lines and storage areas. SOURCE

RELATED:

Pro-turbine rally set for Tuesday