Too clever for his own good? That might be the case for Energy Minister George Smitherman, who aims to turn Ontario into a renewable-energy superpower and create thousands of green-collar jobs. Both are great ideas. But a deal being made on the sidelines could undo much of what Smitherman and the Liberal government are trying to accomplish.

But if US wind turbine manufacturers want another foreign renewables contingent to worry about, there's always the Europeans. A study by non-profit group the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 84 per cent of the $1.05bn handed out by the US government since September 1 has gone to foreign companies - mostly European. It's not an overwhelmingly surprising finding given that the US subsidiary of Spain's Iberdrola Renovables - the biggest wind farm operator in the world - was also the biggest recipient of the funds. And big European turbine manufacturers such as Vestas have been quite clear that they see the US as their big growth market.

Elected town officials of Orangeville, at a special Town Board meeting Sept. 23, set aside the health, safety and welfare of the people of Orangeville, in deference to some of their own personal financial agendas in matters pertaining to zoning laws when they pushed through a proposed resolution for wind energy. ...Orangeville Supervisor Susan May, councilmen Andrew Flint, James Herman and Hans Boxler Jr. voted unanimously for 700-foot setbacks of mammoth 450-foot industrial turbines from Orangeville taxpayers' property lines (500 feet from public roads), leaving no doubt that there was little regard for the health, safety and welfare of the people who voted them into office.

When industries look for government subsidies for money-losing propositions, a common business model these days, one of the most important strategic elements is to make sure you have a well-oiled public relations machine to keep the facts from getting in the way. Voters don't like to back money-losers, which means keeping them steadily misinformed or at least confused. Renewable energy industries - wind, solar, biomass, human treadmills - have a particularly tough job.

Bordering councils have seen our rural Fenland landscape destroyed and cluttered with this heavy and useless industry and politely declare 'no thanks'. This 'green window dressing' is causing extensive environmental damage to the British countryside and everything within it, very soon I will expose how our local wildlife environment has been abused and disrupted by those seeking the rewards of political and financial gratification.

In AWEA's blog post, they describe a national Renewable Electricity Standard as "a free-market" program. That is not accurate. In free markets, people are free to choose. A Renewable Electricity Standard forces people to buy wind, solar, and other government-approved energy sources. It is a mandate. Forcing someone to buy your product is not a free-market program by any definition. Contrary to AWEA's assertion that a Renewable Electricity Standard would lower energy prices, common sense and real-world evidence suggest otherwise.

It's never pretty watching people's rights getting trampled by a government caught up in the latest fad, but it's happening across Ontario. The victims are citizens living mainly in rural communities. Their concerns about the possible adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines are being rolled over by Premier Dalton McGuinty. We should all pay attention because our rights could be next.

I just read the proposal in front of the Public Utilities Commission. Deepwater's "cheap" electricity is going to cost "the grid" 30 cents per kilowatt-hour to start and go to 56 cents. I don't know what this will translate to on a Block Island Power Company bill, but if you include BIPCo's fee, plus a transmission fee, plus the cost of the $50 million dollar cable to support the 30-megawatt power plant, I'm willing to bet none of us are going to like it.

Climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades. Each year as much as $100 billion is spent by governments and consumers around the world on green subsidies designed to encourage wind, solar, and other -renewable-energy markets. The goals are worthy: reduce emissions, promote new sources of energy, and help create jobs in a growing industry. Yet this epic effort of lawmaking and spending has, naturally, also created an epic scramble for subsidies and regulatory favors. Witness the 1,150 lobbying groups that spent more than $20 million to lobby the U.S. Congress as it was writing the Clean Energy bill (which would create a $60 billion annual market for emission permits by 2012). Government has often had a hand in jump--starting a new -industry-both the computer chip and the Internet got their start in American defense research. But it's hard to think of any non-military industry that has been so completely and utterly driven by regulation and subsidies from the start.

It was only a few years ago that habitat loss was front and center among causes for concern about the future well-being of the American ecological landscape. Not much has changed to allay this concern; sprawling development continues, and the alteration and loss of natural habitat is largely unchecked. What has changed is the focus of many mainstream environmental organizations. Concerns about the projected future effects of climate change have taken precedence over the immediate and observable effects of habitat loss.

Short-term thinking on energy is going to cause some long-term problems Ask Paul Edmonds, vice president of National Semiconductor in South Portland. In August, he wrote in the Portland Press Herald, "An inefficient regulatory system and lack of long-term energy strategy are conspiring against Maine citizens and businesses." I was intrigued. So I called him. He told me, "High electricity costs are a threat to manufacturing competitiveness in Maine."

Readers of The Journal's Oct. 21 front-page article "Environmentalists decry Black Pt. turbine plan" might be interested in hearing what these environmentalists really asked of Governor Carcieri. Our letter to the governor expressed concern about siting wind turbines and other renewable-energy projects on publicly owned lands absent a transparent public process for determining if and when it is appropriate to do so.

A well-rehearsed claim repeatedly trumpeted by wind project developers, and those wanting to join with them, promises substantial new property tax revenues as a windfall for our schools and counties. This argument becomes a tool used to disarm those neighbors who are opposed to these mammoth towers and the disruption to this agricultural community. As I have investigated these claims of promised new tax revenues, I was struck by what is not shared: Subsequent appeals of the taxes, attempts to claim the turbines are not real property and affects of accelerated depreciation on these turbines thereby rapidly reducing the taxable value.

Mr. Bowles is under fire from Vineyarders who object to the possibility that the state's ocean management plan, whose creation Mr. Bowles supervised, will write Vineyard regulators, the Martha's Vineyard Commission in particular, out of the picture when nearshore energy projects seek development permits. But, in a wide-ranging discussion of energy issues Tuesday, the imperturbable Mr. Bowles offered an unvarnished and concrete sense of his and the state's view of what lies ahead, in the form of renewable energy project siting south of Cape Cod.

Energy Tribune Editor's note: A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of hearing William Tucker speak at a conference in Washington, DC. His explanation of E = mc2 was the best I had ever heard. Even better, Tucker explained how Einstein's equation applied to renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro. His lecture was a revelation. It showed that the limits of renewable energy have nothing to do with politics or research dollars, but rather with simple mathematics. During a later exchange of emails with Tucker, I praised his lecture and suggested he write an article that explained E = mc2 and its corollary, E = mv2. To my delight, he informed me that he'd already written such an essay and he agreed that we could publish it in Energy Tribune. I love this essay. And I'm proud that Tucker has allowed us to run it. -Robert Bryce

Officials from the state Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs are likely to catch an earful from Martha's Vineyard residents tonight over the proposed Massachusetts Oceans Management Plan. The public hearing begins at 6:30 p.m. at the Martha's Vineyard Regional High School cafeteria. The draft plan severely limits the island's regulatory control over the development of renewable energy projects within three miles of shore. ...Madden said the chief architect of the oceans plan is Ian Bowles. "Ian Bowles is very pro-wind and he wants to see these things get done, and done quickly," Madden told the Gazette.

Wind power costs a lot to build and nothing to operate. Could it hammer the profits of power utilities that currently charge a premium to light your home by burning the decayed remains of ancient organisms? Investors shouldn't be too worried, according to Lasan Johong, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. Johong says that increasing our reliance on wind power could actually raise power prices significantly.

We, the residents of the Texas Panhandle, must demand respect for our natural treasures or we will lose them. ...Lastly, utility companies - do your homework. Take time to learn about the communities you are impacting. View the properties, visit with local historians, talk to the people. Above all, respect the landowners and citizens of this state and gain awareness of sensitive environments and locations before you propose routes for CREZ transmission lines. Once destroyed, environmentally and historically priceless properties such as the north Palo Duro Canyon can never be replaced.

Conservation used to be the coolest thing in energy planning. But now all most people want to talk about is the next great renewable energy source -- wind farms, solar arrays, small-scale nuclear plants, even wave energy. And while all those sources of energy are promising, the Northwest Power Planning Council's new 20-year power plan is right to go back to the future: It proposes doubling down on the Northwest's long history of conservation to meet 85 percent of the region's new demand for electricity. It's a smart and bold plan, even if it disappoints the clean-energy activists who have pressured the council to declare the Northwest a coal-free zone.

The romantic view of wind power is a stand of wind turbines atop a ridge gently spinning in a breeze generating clean electricity in place of an emission-producing power plant. Another view is a natural landscape defaced by huge structures whose operation annoys its neighbors, produces power randomly and does not reduce pollutants because fossil-fueled plants continue to operate as backup. The "pop" culture support and promotion of wind power is all based upon conceptual or theoretical constructs which do not reflect the physical, financial or regulatory realities of operating our electric grid system.