The Kyoto Protocol is due to come into effect this February and we are already more
than half way from the signing of the Protocol to the beginning of its first
commitment period (and three quarters of the way there since the baseline date of
1990). The world also needs to look beyond Kyoto. Many countries, including the
UK, have set themselves ambitious longer term goals, to reduce emissions by 60% or
even 75% by 2050. Meanwhile, a number of recent studies – for instance, the
climateprediction.net project based on distributed computing and the International
Climate Change Taskforce – have stressed the magnitude of the risks and the need for
early and effective action.
At first sight, the impression given is that everything is more or less on track. The
UK Paper says that “our latest projections on the impact that our policies and
measures will have on our emissions suggest that the UK remains on course to
comfortably achieve its target under the Kyoto Protocol”, though admitting that more
needs to be done to meet the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions set as a national goal.
The EEA report is more cautious: it acknowledges that the EU is only a third of the
way towards meeting its goal (greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 were 2.9% below the
1990 base, as compared with the target of 8 % for the period 2008-2012). However, it
suggests that with policy measures in the pipeline and use of the Kyoto mechanisms,
the target could be met.
What neither report states is that the evidence contained in them could lead to a much
more pessimistic conclusion: that the policy measures favoured in the UK and EU
have not delivered significant CO2 reductions and are clearly inadequate to the longer
Mr. Linderman's presentation to the Annual Conference of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)
The Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship("CWESt") opposes the application of Wisconsin Electric Power Company ("WEPCO") for a certificate of public convenience and necessity ("CPCN") to construct a wind electric generation facility to be known as the Glacier Hills Wind Park ("Glacier Hills"). First, the project would be a threat to human health and safety because of wind turbine noise and shadow flicker. Second, the project would substantially and unfairly reduce real property values.
The Commission may not issue a CPCN without first determining that the project would promote the public health and welfare. Application of Wisconsin Electric Power
Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Wind Electric Generation Facility and Associated Electric Facilities, to be Located in Fond du
Lac County, Docket no. 6630-CE-294 (2007) (following Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 2005 WI 93, ¶ 35). The evidence shows that, rather than promote the public health and welfare, this project threatens it. The full brief can be accessed by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.
Attorney Jim Blackburn of the Coastal Habitat Alliance presents a comprehensive summary of the development and impacts of the Kenedy County wind farms in Texas.
Cohocton, NY permitted First Wind (formerly UPC Wind) to construct two wind energy facilities in the town on private land. Noise complaints started almost immediately after the turbines became operational. Windaction.org has been notified that the below letter was sent by Cohocton's town supervisor to First Wind.
Comments to FERC by the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissions and the Vermont Department of Public Service
"On November 10, 2004, the New York State Public Service Commission
(“Commission”) published two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notices”), identified as
SAPA No. 03-E-1088SA2 and SAPA No. 03-E-1088SA3, in the State Register. These Notices
indicate that the Commission is requesting comments on certain proposed measures intended to
implement the renewable portfolio standard (“RPS”) that was adopted by the Commission by
order issued September 24, 2004 (“RPS Order”)."
"In summary, there are serious problems with the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
statement (PEIS). The comments that follow are focused primarily on the portions of the draft
that deal with the economics of wind energy development. The data and conclusions reflected
in those parts of the draft are invalid because:.."
This important letter details the inadequacy of the draft biological opinion prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in reference to the proposed Shaffer Mountain Wind facility. An excerpt of the letter is provided below. The full document can be accessed by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.